It is one thing to cherry pick your sources, but Full Frontal takes satire to a hateful extreme. The way pro-life America is portrayed is so blatantly false that I think she either spends time digging up the dumbest 1% of people she disagrees with or her interviews are with payed actors. To make matters worse, she just isn't that funny. Late night needs a female comedian. Samantha Bee has the female down, but she replaced the comedian part with political bullshitter. Some of the funniest, smartest, kindest people on earth are women. Samantha Bee is crude, dumb, mean, and simply not funny. The cherry on top of this whole time slot of badness is that she is Canadian. Did her sense of humor get frozen by their cold? OK, that last one is too far. Nobody can help where they are from, even Canadians.

Steven Soderbergh calls Full Frontal the "unofficial karmic sequel" to his debut film, sex, lies, and videotape. Now, I'm not exactly sure what that means. Karmic is basically the adjective form of karma, which is the Buddhist principle of retributive justice that determines a person's life and whether it is positive or negative. There are no parallels between the story lines of the two films and I can't draw any connections between the themes or motifs of either film. So I think what it comes down to is just ignore what Soderbergh has said and look at Full Frontal as a completely separate film.So now that we've cleared (or rather disregarded) any confusion I can continue this review without any necessary mention of sex, lies, and videotape. Full Frontal is about a group of people in the film industry whose lives intertwine in different ways, all primarily through a producer named Gus. The opening of the film displays character cards for all the main players, accompanied by voice over from that character. In this film we have a down on his luck writer named Carl Bright. His wife is a lawyer named Lee Bright and he is having issues with her that carry throughout the film. There is Lee's sister, Linda who is a massage therapist. There is a stage director named Arty who has been chatting with Linda online as the two of them use aliases that are much cooler than who they actually are. Then there are two actors, Calvin and Francesca, who for a majority of the film are in a film-within-a-film scenario that, honestly, finds itself much more profound than it actually is. These characters are all coming together for a party thrown by Gus, and along the way there are some surprises and discoveries made about themselves.This film is mostly just odd. It's offbeat, it's quirky, and it also tries very hard to be clever. Granted there are scenes that are clever, but there are others that sort of miss the mark. Soderbergh does a great job with the story structure and the way he brings the characters together. He has a clear cut goal for this film, but the process of getting there is pretty rocky. What Full Frontal suffers from the most is just plain dullness. This film really does get boring at times. But it isn't unbearable by any means. It is one of those films that just when you start to realize how slow it is getting something happens to bring it back and you are drawn in once again. I almost see this as cheating because a good film will keep you drawn in consistently from start to finish, not just throw in certain moments to grab your attention and then skimp on the rest. Full Frontal isn't as guilty of this as other films because Soderbergh makes an effort to keep the film entertaining in its entirety, but the effort goes to waste at some moments that just really drag the film down.But in spite of everything you have to admire this film for just having a good time. Soderbergh directs it in a sort of mockumentary fashion. When I see this movie I think of "The Office" and the way it is shot as if the camera crew is with these characters, filming their day to day business, and the characters know it. There is a significant amount of voice over work done in this film that is all interviews with the characters. Soderbergh allegedly filmed the actors in this film about their character and then used some of the results for the film. There is a lot of obvious ad libbing in the film that adds a sense of quirky authenticity to the look and feel of this film, making it unique, if only slightly.Full Frontal tries to be a lot more than it is. It is definitely a smart film with a nice touch of cleverness, but in the end it doesn't seem to amount to much. I think Soderbergh was trying to create a very in depth character study disguised as a quirky comedy film, but I think more of the quirky comedy came out than the profundities of the character study. But I can still say that I enjoyed this film for what it is. Would I ever sit through it again? No way. But it is something different, making for an amusing one time watch.

Steven Soderbergh is a director who made a lot of successful box office movies like Ocean's eleven,Erin Brockovich or Ocean's twelve.But,sometimes,Soderbergh makes experimental films like Bubble or Full frontal(the movie I'll talk about on this commentary)which are not successful in the box office and they are movies that only some persons know them.Full frontal is a great experiment.The actors are perfectly chosen.Mary McCormack and the great Catherine Keener have the best performances.The movie is so well directed that an actress like Julia Roberts has a good performance.Full frontal is a great experiment that goes beyond the common and the emotions are real.

I heard Full Frontal was great. However, I also heard horrible accounts. The only solution left was to view it myself.I wasn't quite sure what to expect and the film leaves you feeling ... well, nothing in particular. Full Frontal's effect (if there is a desired effect) was lost upon me.However, the film can be viewed as an interesting search for truth or the reality of Hollywood. The lines between the cosmetic and authenticity, as in real life, are blurred. Even when you (as a moviegoer and fan) think you know a character, actor, person, screenwriter Coleman Hough reveals the rose-colored lens. Through the intertextual narrative of the film, one can view the absurdity of our celebrity-obsessed culture. Some may interpret the film's stylistic features as condescending or pretentious - which is a valid argument. However, I think the intended effect was to be a self-reflective caricature. Some of the film's features such as the name game and the roles played by Julia Roberts and Brad Pitt reflect the self-parody of the film. Furthermore, the ending, along with the Underwood/Roberts subplot, reveal the nature of Hough's parody. It just seems to have gotten lost in its direction.Nicky Katt and Catherine Keener give great performances as always. David Hyde Pierce is desperately trying to stop audiences from exclaiming, "Hey, that's the guy from Frasier" but to no avail. Pierce's delivery and mannerisms are too reminiscent of Niles for the audience to consider him as Carl. And Mary McCormack does a great supporting role, unfortunately, the bare bones story leaves the audience awaiting something that is not coming.Overall, this is a film worth viewing. Maybe twice...if you can stomach its lack of direction.