Rented this film after reading an interview in DV Magazine with Soderbergh. Evidently the film was a concept; to play the visual qualities of film against those of digital video, & to try to integrate the 'Reality Show' idea into a feature film. The film has a few good moments but comes off confusing & visually ugly. I have worked in both film & video. Video is still inferior to film in terms of visual quality but it doesn't have to be ugly. There is lots of footage in the film that is just plain ugly thru run & gun style shooting carelesness. A little more craft in shooting the video would have kept it technically in bounds & still allowed the video quality to express itself. While I'm at it a major mistake was shooting the video with only one cameraman (Soderbergh himself). This is a major advantage of video; cheap multi-camera shooting is one of the great benefits. Double teaming this excellent cast with two good cameramen on these small self-focusing cameras could have produced some awesome cutting material. A tragic mistake. There are also lightweight gymbal camera mounts for these cameras which make beautiful floating camera moves. They could really have helped the hand held camera. Even though the film doesn't quite work I have to hand it to the director for trying. It would be easy to back off the cutting edge thru fear. Hitchcock did proof of concept stuff with 'Rope', nobody ever did that again but the film wasn't a failure either. It's all about guts. I think the reason for the big name cast was that they wanted to try to break some new ground too. Maybe just making lots of money gets boring (although personally I can't see why). The best acting was by Catherine Keener. She got to develop a full & interesting character. Close behind & neck & neck were David Hyde Pierce & Blair Underwood. I also really liked Nicky Katt as Hitler. I agree with others that his role & the producer's should have been expanded; especially his. 101 minutes run time leaves 19 minutes to play around with (120 standard US film). That's lots of time. The article also said that there were some hidden & fully candid cameras used. I wish I could tell where or even if any of that was used. I say reload & try again. Hell even more radical. Shoot the whole thing with hidden cameras. What always kills avant guarde experiments is lack of good actors & there was no lack here.
Add a Review
-
tvsterling17 August 2004
-
Quinoa19844 August 2002Steven Soderbergh, who has films like the epic Traffic, the fun Ocean's Eleven and cooly out there Out of Sight, goes back to his roots of Sex, Lies and Videotape which is awfully tricky, and unfortunately doesn't succeed. Soderbergh's style here is getting a story of a movie within a movie possibly within another universe somewhere, all squeezed into the Hollywood underbelly of LA. One story tells of Julia Roberts as a reporter interviewing Blair Underwood, and it works fairly until at one point it almost turns to a behind the scenes thing where we can spot Soderbergh himself (humorously but un-needingly) with a censored black box over his face, and then showing and maybe not showing Underwood and Roberts as themselves. Another story has David Hyde Pierce as a man in his early fourties who gets fired after a beer comparison, and then even another story focuses on a small theater group trying to put on a play about Hitler with Nicky Katt giving the best performance of the entire time length as an actor who compares other famous directors works to his. And I just scraped the surface of what else pops up here.
In other words, despite a couple of funny jabs, a laugh out loud respect to Brad Pitt and some trying to be decent in acting, the film doesn't work cause the switching between real film and digital grain aspect will allude many of the filmgoers and confuse them to the point where they dont know when the movie lost it's main core and becomes a movie about nothing- like a behind the scenes DVD disc made into a movie. Soderbergh needs to get back to what he does best, if only so Julia Roberts can do something else as well. C -
MovieLuvaMatt5 July 2004Steven Soderbergh is a talented director, and I respect his decision to do a low-budget picture, but this movie didn't do it for me. I am a firm believer that visuals take a back seat to script, when it comes to making a good movie. You can shoot a feature-length movie on a home video camera with bad lighting, and it can still be good as long as the script is well-written and the characters are engaging. In this case, the characters aren't engaging. First off, it's harder to make an interesting film about wealthy Hollywood types. It's better to make movies about ordinary people, with whom the audience can relate. I just felt distant from these characters, and I found it hard to get wrapped up in their lives. The director throws the audience a couple of curve balls, but they come off as more pretentious than nifty.
The film's strong points lie in its concepts, but the execution is poor. I like the idea of an ensemble of A-list actors working for little money, and not having the luxury of trailers or craft service. The ensemble cast of popular film and TV actors is definitely talented, but good acting can't save bad material. One of the reasons why I was interested in seeing the movie is because I heard that all the dialogue is improvised by the actors. Well, either I heard wrong or I was lied to, because in the DVD commentary (which is very good, by the way) Soderbergh explains that only the scenes between Nicky Katt and Enrico Colantoni are heavily improvised.
If you want to see a better film that uses a similar style of filmmaking in a more successful way, watch Mike Figgis's "Timecode." That film is all improvised and shot on video in real time. In that case, the experiment was a success. I'm not a big fan of experimental films in general, because in most cases the directors are simply being self-indulgent and pass their work off as high art, simply because they're being different (or "revolutionary," as the more pretentious directors phrase it). Hell, making a whole movie that centers on an hour and 30 minutes of a fat slob watching TV is something different, but who would watch it? There's nothing wrong with being artistic in the process of making a film, but you must make the material at least somewhat interesting to the audience or it's simply cinematic masturbation. There are more self-indulgent films out there than "Full Frontal," but this just wasn't my cup of tea. If the script were good, I wouldn't even notice the poor visual quality, but since it wasn't, I was able to notice it and as a result it hampered the film.
My score: 4 (out of 10) -
mrchaos335 July 2003Director Steven Soderbergh calls Full Frontal the unofficial sequel to Sex Lies and Videotape, his groundbreaking 1989 film. Most everyone else has called it a mess, or useless waste of time. One prominent American critic even suggested this might be the worst film ever by a major director. I can't say I agree with the harsh criticism. While I'm not exactly sure what the movie is about, and vast passages of it simply do not work, I do think it is a film with great passion and energy. Soderbergh has left behind the slickness of Ocean's 11 and Erin Brockovich and made an experimental film that bristles with inventiveness. Not everything works, but there are several nice performances, particularly by David Hyde Pierce and Catherine Keener and I enjoyed watching an A-list director stray from the tried and true and explore rockier ground.
-
claudio_carvalho26 April 2004`Full Frontal' is maybe my greatest deception this year. Directed by Steven Soderbergh and having such a cast, I would not believe that the film could be such a crap. There are lots of characters, but none of them is well developed. Therefore, the viewer sees many famous actors and actresses on the screen and is not able to understand who they are, what are their motives, where they are. The plot is very confused, and some actors and actresses perform more than one role. The image and photography are horrible, using a kind of fake Dogma '95 style. I do not know how such talented people could be part of such a mess: friendship or big money? Anyway, a huge waste of talented people and of my time and money, in a film that never works. My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): `Full Frontal' -
Kareninysimba29 March 2005In Spanish there's a saying that translates: "Grow fame and go to sleep". I think this happened with S. Soderbergh, where he took advantage of his surprising win at the Oscars Best Director competition and the success of his movie Erin Brockovich along with his pal Julia Roberts and her high peak in the moment he made this movie. Without those 2 mega successes he wouldn't convince many studios to make this movie, and none of us would ever seen it. The box office barely went over the movie budget.
A mix of troubled characters related all to the movie business create a confused and complicated web of feelings, relationships, weird behaviors and "rendevouz" that are let to almost pure improvisation by the director, and in retrospective it sounds very interesting but we haven't seen many movies with such a proposal maybe not because nobody has thought about it but because it's very hard to make it successful and achieve a fine piece of work. In this case I don't think that the weight of Oscars and fresh success help that much in accomplishing that nice piece of work. A very good and daring idea where all the actors were abandon to their own choices in make up, dressing and craft supplies. Niece piece of work... for the actors and crew who make it, in their own private screening or party, not for us who felt it was a waste of time and my $1 that cost renting it. There is some arrogant smell in the air that I felt heavily since I saw for the first time Mr. Soderbergh old fashion sort of feminine style glasses frames and it was strongly confirmed by watching this movie.
I don't remember in recent years a movie where I start watching the running time as early as I started with this movie: when it ran for 15 min I was already impatient, and for a good 1 hour or so I felt uncomfortable for not knowing anything of what was happening and not connecting but a couple of dots in the whole plot. Maybe that was the precise goal of Soderbergh, don't know. I felt bored watching a huge bunch of nonsense which might have make sense but at the end it didn't. Brad Pitt was quite right at the end: I don't know who did it. We strongly hope there's better to come from Soderbergh. -
majorjkg15 October 2007Even though it received 5 stars from many critics, this is the worst movie I have ever seen, including a number of porn movies. I have no objection to sex and can tolerate foul language but a movie should have some redeeming qualities and this movie has none. Basically no plot, no suspense, no romance, no fun, no good jokes, no good sex--just a sorry attempt by some excellent movie makers to be cute with no payoff! I rate this movie even worse than Burt Reynolds worst failure with Dom Deluise (when he and his cast appeared to be having a great time making an unfunny movie) because Soderbergh and crew have the skill to do so much better. I still don't understand why so many critics thought this was such a great movie. Must be some kind of Hollywood inside joke that they are not sharing with the rest of us!
-
dvanhouwelingen9 September 2002Steven Soderbergh's FULL FRONTAL is an interesting film, with moments of brillance, humor and insight. It also has absolutely terrible moments. It's not altogether successful, but I admire Soderbergh for taking so many risks. I was pleasantly surprised by David Hyde Pierce. He is great in this film and delivers the best single performance in the film. Mary McCormack is also wonderful and Nicky Katt is hilarious as a devoted actor playing Hitler (which provides the films funniest scenes). The scenes that didn't work were all the Blair Underwood/Julia Roberts stuff. They are uninspired performances and drag on far too long. They're garbage. Another problem is Soderbergh's choice to shoot on digital video. Unless you know what you're doing on video (like Harmony Korine or Lars von Trier), it's not a format that should be used. Parts of FULL FRONTAL are so dark and blurry you can't tell what's happening. Maybe this was Soderbergh's intention, but it's distracting. I like movies that take risks, even if all the risks don't pay off. FULL FRONTAL is a movie like that. It has inspired moments, but put together they don't all add up. This is closer to SCHIZOPOLIS than any other Soderbergh film. He takes risks that will infuriate many viewers, but I admired it.
-
If nothing else the film FULL FRONTAL is remarkably ill-named. Other than its sexual connotation, "full frontal" implies a head-on attack, a blunt and honest approach. That is not obvious here, rather, Steven Soderberg's film goes the longest way possible to get a conclusion that is obvious, if indeed the film has a conclusion in the first place.
The film features a film within the film, and seems to feature flashbacks to real life moments that inspired the fictional moments in the film. But it becomes apparent that the stories are running on parallel lines and really don't relate. So? The message seems to be that real life is reel life is real life is reel life, and so on and so forth, blah, blah, blah. Nothing new there. So much fuss over such little inspiration.
The film seems to be an experimental film of the sort that any director with Soderberg's success would have outgrown years ago. Calling in all of his big-star buddies to make guest appearances only magnifies the sheer haplessness of the mess. Had he used unknown actors, perhaps the film would have seemed sufficiently obscure to rate as an oddity. As is, the film seems to be little more than a bunch of friends having a party, getting properly intoxicated and then breaking out the home video camera. Like most such slapdash movies, I'm sure it is an embarrassment to all involved. -
rixxxhbk17 August 2005I 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. -
sadfootsign1 April 2004I looked forward to watching this film - Duchovny, Hyde-Pierce and Brad Pitt are amongst my favourite actors. I knew the film was going to be a little wierd, but then, I like weird. And I knew it was an arty lo-budget affair. But none of this was to prepare me for the nonsense that followed.
To make a good film you need a good plot, and good characters. However the characters in this film have absolutely no character. There's nothing in the film that keeps you watching, it's more like highlights from 'Big Brother'. Only duller.
From one monotonous conversation to the next, 'Full Frontal' is nothing more than an exercise in self-indulgence. A way for the director to say "I got these big stars to perform for free".
And to further my disappointment more, Julia Roberts is in this film. An actress I've always been irritated by.
Don't bother watching this film, you'll never see those 2 hours again. -
cresentmoon53131 December 2003I found Full Frontal to be a rejuvenating film. I am so use to seeing films that are so structured and plot is thrown at you, with this film I didn't know what was going to happen next. I went in to the viewing of this without knowing what to expect, I can say I didn't have high expectations about it. I didn't let the knowledge of Steven Soderbergh as a director influence how I began watching it. I went in with an open mind and I think you really need to in order to get the ideas presented. This film took a risk by using well known actors, brilliant actors, making the public believe that this would be a film like all of the others. For me, it was great to see the versatility. I was glad that there was some true acting going on, there was an enormous amount of truth coming from each artist on the screen. To see truth and honesty and open hearts on screen allowed me to really embrace this film. Some people may say they disliked it because they didn't have any sympathy for any of the characters, well I think that it doesn't really matter if you do or not. This film was a day in the life of people who are all in some way intertwined and are all brought together for a brief moment. I feel that it is trying to portray the truth of each person and if that was the idea, Steven accomplished something great. I have only rented it but I intend to go out and buy it. It is a good resource for actors searching for what truth honestly looks like on screen. Full Frontal is a good exposure of the soul really bringing each characters truth out in to the open.
-
bix17117 February 2003While Coleman Hough's screenplay may be too cutesy and tricky for its own good, Steven Soderbergh's arty Dogma-95-style experiment finds its pleasures in the freewheeling, improvised ensemble acting he encourages to shape what would initially appear to be a formless mess about a day in the interconnected lives of people both within and on the fringes of the L.A. film community. The performances themselves range from the mildly interesting (Blain Underwood and Julia Roberts) to the decent (David Hyde Pierce and Catherine Keener) to the very good (Mary McCormack and Nikky Katt, very funny as a modern-day Hitler in the stage play `The Sound And The Fuhrer') but everyone gets credit for taking part with a relaxed, happy-to-be-there manner. After a couple of minor crowd-pleasers in `Traffic' and `Ocean's Eleven' that found him to be working perhaps a bit too familiarly within the studio system (`Erin Brockovich' and `The Limey' displayed the ability to actually get something personal done inside that system), Soderbergh seems intent on going to a non-conformist extreme using studio money (the film is a Miramax release with Jeff Garlin of `Curb Your Enthusiasm' playing `Harvey, Probably', a direct reference to Miramax head honcho Harvey Weinstein) and while he doesn't quite get there--it's a mannered and self-conscious piece, a bit afraid of the freedom provided it--there's enough serious intent to make it a worthwhile effort.
-
vineet_upendra26 May 2005Question 1: *What* was this movie all about? Question 2: What or who prompted its selection as IMDb movie of the day?? (Which in turn has prompted this review.) This has got to be one of the most pretentious and pseudo-high brow movies I've ever seen. Soderbergh has made a movie that so labors on being arty, that you end up witnessing a massive exercise in an aimless and fruitless(one follows the other, I guess)story(?) telling.
When I began watching this movie, I was all excited about it - what with such a massive star cast and Soderbergh's reputation. At the end of the movie, I felt cheated of my time and effort that this movie demanded.
You're better off watching a re-run of "Traffic". -
skymovies20 February 2004Too dreary to work as a satire, too wrapped up in its own cleverness to engage; this is an insubstantial vanity piece that might have been entertaining to make but isn't much fun to watch. I'd have thought that if Soderbergh wanted to show off, he could have come up with something better than this collection of over-scripted (and not particularly original) gimmicks.
It might have worked had we spent more time in the company of the interesting peripheral characters (the theatrical Hitler, Gus the producer) than listening to the self-absorbed droning of the others. Film students will probably love it. -
The kindest thing that one can say about this film is "Thank God it's not any longer!"
Don't get me wrong. It was an ingenious idea--$2 mm home movie, highly improvised, fine director in Steven Soderberg, a very talented cast, complex movie within movie (within movie--as the last shot shows) structure--but the result is far less than the sum of its parts. It's a dirty patch on the bootsoles of all involved comparable only to Spielberg's "AI"--which was until I watched "Full Frontal" the worst film by a talented director I had ever seen.
I won't bother reprising what passes for a plot. Suffice it to say that the film covers 24 hours, and feels longer. It's rather like being trapped watching the home movies of a group of very artsy, very neurotic, very self centered, and ultimately very boring people.
If I were to single out one aspect that is particularly like fingernails on the blackboard, it is Catherine Keener as Lee. I must say that it's probably a pretty good piece of acting, since Lee is every man's nightmare--needy, self centered, manipulative, cruel (her office behavior would get her fired at any decent firm--of course the character is an HR person, and so there is a drop of reality there), and completely loathsome. She makes any Woody Allen neurotic look like the poster child for mental health. It's probably not an unrealistic portrait of a certain kind of woman. The question is, do you want to spend even 101 minutes with her?
I decided to watch this based on favorable buzz I had heard. Learn from my error. Avoid at all costs. This is 101 minutes of mind-numbingly self centered Hollywood masturbation, without a single relieving touch of charm or humor. I hope that Mr. Soderberg has the grace to blush when this leaden turkey is mentioned. -
I remember my thoughts when I picked up the movie. "I've heard this is pretty good." I don't remember where or when, so I rented it. After watching this dreck, I now think, "Somebody lied to me." The lies just get better and better (or worse and worse) depending on your perspective
The lies continue. Look at the top of the page under Genre. The first word is COMEDY. Huh? Comedy for whom? There's nothing funny here.
Go to: Box Office and Business. Budget $2,000,000. I didn't think that Julia Roberts did anything for less than 20 million. I think that somebody is guilty of fraud. How do you quantify a big fat favor from her? This is fraud on an Enron scale.
Finally, this is from the Plot Summary: "Julia Roberts, Blair Underwood, David Duchovny, Brad Pitt (cameoing as himself), David Hyde Pierce, Catherine Keener, and Terence Stamp are reason enough to see the film, which is billed as a 'movie about movies for people who love movies.'"
A movie about movies for people who love movies? What? This should be billed as 'self-indulgent crap'!
And notice who was left out. Nicky Katt (although very annoying) was the best actor in this mess.
Alas, there is some truth. It was filmed in 18 days. I think just about anyone would agree, that sounds about right. -
4dawloo22 October 2004Well what can I say? I have always been a massive fan of Julia Roberts and the entirety of her work, but this really shocked and dismayed me. It's plot is poor it is unbelievably uninteresting and bored me to tears. beside 'Open Water' it is the worst camera work i have witnessed (bar home videos) I am very eager to collect the majority of Julia's work and so I decided to go for it and have a peek at this seemingly entrancing film, however it was to my distaste. It lacked any real plot and seemed to be a group of people talking to a dodgy camera, hence i have promptly returned the film and hope never to view its likes again. If you're curious to see what I'm talking about, don't look. It's a nasty shock. Strike one Julia.
-
this is the first soderbergh film i've enjoyed since "the limey." while
messy and frustrating at times, it's infinitely more interesting than
"erin brockovich," "traffic," or the thoroughly annoying "ocean's 11."
perhaps it's proof that the director is at his best when he's not
making films for the mainstream. here's to soderbergh's
experimentation. -
=G=15 February 2003"Full Frontal" looks, walks, and talks like a "turkey" and it is just that. It doesn't matter who stars in it or who directed it. This movie is just a "turkey"; amateurish crap not worthy of a recommendation. Fortunately, I can work and "watch" films at the same time....assuming they aren't subtitled or have alot of visual stuff. I was able to just listen to "FF" (it is mostly dialogue with little to look at) while working. Otherwise I would haven't been able to stand the monotonous droning of small talk and would have pulled out early. Pass (substitute vowel of choice) on "Full Frontal". (D)
-
WriConsult24 April 2003I don't see why so many people are so negative about this movie. I thought it was a lot of fun, with well-acted and eccentric characters. Sure, Soderbergh has done better films (The Limey, Traffic, Brockovich), and he's made ones that are more fun (Ocean's 11) but it's still pretty good, and I enjoy seeing Soderbergh experiment with different variations on his unique style. 6/10.
-
It saddens me to say so but "Full Frontal" is painfully boring, pointless, disjointed, and underdeveloped. I am a big fan of indie experimental original movies but this one gives the term bad meaning. As hard as they tried, the talented performers ((David Hyde Pierce, Catherine Keener, Mary McCormack, Julia Roberts, Blair Underwood) could not make their lifeless characters interesting enough for me to care. I love Catherine Keener in every movie I've seen her but she's played the same role in better films. She is much more interesting in Neil LaBute's "Your Friends & Neighbors" (1998) which reminds in some ways Full Frontal. Both, Neil LaBute's and Soderbergh's films picture selfish and often unpleasant and despicable people who are not happy with themselves and can't make happy those close to them. Another Keener's film that came to my mind, is Living in Oblivion (1995), a 91 minutes long low-budget independent movie about trials and tribulations of making a low budget independent movie. Tom DiCillo's smart, funny, playful, and highly enjoyable Living in Oblivion has surreal, strangely poetic and amusing quality to it. Unlike, Soderbergh's empty exercise in self-indulgence, wonderful cast of Living in Oblivion has something interesting to play and the characters created by Steve Buscemi, Catherine Keener, Chad Palomino, Dermot Mulroney and Peter Dinklage (in a very funny cameo) are alive and three-dimensional. I am a fan of Soderbergh's work since I saw his fascinating debut, the Palme d'Or winner "Sex, Lies, and Videotape". I read that "Full Frontal" is in a way a sequel to Soderbergh's first feature. If that's true, it only proves that sequels almost never measure up to originals.
-
rali-13 August 2002I've seen a lot of bad reviews for this movie, but personally, I liked it. I guess the movie didn't have a definitive plot, but it was slightly quirky, which is a nice change of pace from the more serious films I usually watch. When I left the movie theater, everyone in there seemed pretty satisfied with the film But, everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
-
tabuno27 January 201918 August 2002. "Full Frontal" is probably one of the most difficult movies to watch, at least the first half. The movie within a movie definitely confused (though the hint in the credits strongly suggested as much). What really disappointed was the quality of the movie within the movie, while the production value was good, the script and the plot didn't seem anywhere near what a movie would be. On the other hand, the production value of the rest of the movie didn't detract unlike what some other critics have complained. With real tv now the big rage, what the audience expects isn't all that clear.
By the end of the movie, events move forward more quickly, the separate strands tie together and the end (though not original) does help to make the movie wrap up in a nice package. (It's Brad Pitt's last commentary after the credits that really does a number - making one realize that Soderbergh actually did a nice job at focusing on what was really important to him).
While a difficult to movie to wade through at first (a definitely not for everybody), the movie for me was eventually understandable, at times enjoyable, and worth the trip and expense. I just wish a little more effort had been made at helping the audience get through it. -
rosscinema28 October 2003Steven Soderbergh is a brilliant director and he's one that is experimental by heart but when your already established in the industry these experimental films can be pretty risky. As much as I admire him he fails badly here. This is one of those movie in a movie plots and there are several characters that the film follows and all have some sort of connection whether they know it or not. Julia Roberts plays a reporter named Catherine and she's interviewing an actor named Nicholas but while on his flight he finds a love letter and thinks Catherine slipped it into his bag. But she denies it and he keeps pestering her about it all the way to the movie set. Here the film shifts and we see that Catherine and Nicholas are really actors named Francesca and Calvin and that the whole flight was part of a film. Meanwhile, a woman named Lee (Catherine Keener) is sick of her marriage and writes her husband Carl (David Hyde Pierce) a letter but he doesn't see it. Lee has set up her sister Linda (Mary McCormack) on a blind date with a producer named Gus (David Duchovny) but Linda works as a masseuse and has already given Gus a massage and agreed to an extra 500 dollars for "Release". Linda needs the money because she is going to Arizona to see a man she met on the Internet. This man is Arty (Enrico Colantoni) and he's a director and writer of a play about Hitler and they have both lied to each other about they're age. Steven Soderbergh shot this film with mostly handheld digital cameras and in several scenes its very difficult to watch the action that takes place on the screen. Soderbergh usually uses these types of cameras for his films and he's usually a master craftsman with the way his films look and "Traffic" is a beautifully shot film. But this is not and it's the type of film that young film directors make when they have no money. Soderbergh has the experience and knowledge to at least shoot his films in a more professional manner. If your a young fledgling director and so is your cinematographer than we can understand shots and scenes being blurry and out of focus. But I don't understand shooting a film like that if you don't have to. Script and story is mainly about how things appear one way on the surface but are different when you look closer. The actors that come away from this looking the best are McCormack, Keener and Pierce. They're ordeal is more understandable and the performances are pretty good. But this is film that just doesn't work and Soderbergh's attempt at style ends up being completely annoying. I give him credit for trying something different but he should have known better.