A Few Words About A few words about...™ Full Frontal -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

By the time director Steven Soderbergh had made Full Frontal in 2002, he had made more films than Ford, Chaplin and Hitchcock combined.  Seemingly, with dozens of films to his credit per annum, his output is extraordinary.  While I may be overstating the case just a bit, he's been involved in more productions in the past 25 years than most anyone else I can think of.

The interesting thing with Full Frontal, is that it was shot in DV, essentially with a Canon video camera that my son was using in college.  One can shoot in limited space, with limited light, and on a limited budget.  All of this works in Full Frontal, or may for some people, as this seems to be a love it or hate it film.  I generally liked it.

The new Blu-ray, from Echo Bridge ties in nicely with the rest of their releases, as the quality is quite good where it was good on film.

Like many other Echo Bridge releases, the audio is 2.0.

Image - 4

Audio - 3.5

RAH

 

[Ken Volok]

I'm shooting my current film (and first feature) on Canon DV! If you know what you're doing it works wonderfully.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I'm shooting my current film (and first feature) on Canon DV! If you know what you're doing it works wonderfully.

Also important: If you do not know what you are doing, it is not too expensive to practice, learn, and get better.

 

[JoshZ]

RAH, I hate to say it, but I think your ratings here are very misleading. The movie was shot entirely in standard-def DV, and both shot and processed to look at crappy as Soderbergh could possibly make it. Any one of us could have picked up the same consumer camera that Soderbergh used and make a better-looking movie with it than this. His aesthetic is that he wanted it to look like garbage. The movie also has nondescript sound mixing.

While, yes, the disc is "faithful" to the director's intent, so was the DVD. There was no reason for this to be released on Blu-ray. Even for $5, it doesn't benefit in any way over DVD.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Not entirely in DV there are 35mm sections.I am of the opinion tht anything is worthy of a Blu release, especially at this price. If not interested in upgrading nobody has a gun to you...

 

[JoshZ]

Not entirely in DV there are 35mm sections.

I haven't watched the movie in a long time. I'd forgotten about the movie-within-a-movie scenes in 35mm. Still, those only account for a few minutes of screen time.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

So those minutes aren't worth upgrading? Just improved compression on Blu and the better scratch resistance of the discs for me is worth upgrading. There is literally no film where I wouldn't want the Blu. The only downside is when extras get lost but in those cases you just don't get rid of the DVD.

 

[JoshZ]

So those minutes aren't worth upgrading? Just improved compression on Blu and the better scratch resistance of the discs for me is worth upgrading. There is literally no film where I wouldn't want the Blu. The only downside is when extras get lost but in those cases you just don't get rid of the DVD.

If more than 98% of the movie was shot on crummy-looking standard-def video, I think that should be made clear in the review and scored appropriately.