Was the prospect of Steven Soderbergh making a film with no big names, no big budget, and no big ideas really such a revolutionary step at the time of its release? For a start Soderbergh hadn't had a hit since his debut film Sex, Lies & Videotape back in the late eighties, although he had developed a large cult following with his later films Kafka and King of the Hill, he was hardly the Oscar nabbing boy wonder he is considered now. Most of the appeal of Schizopolis comes from the success that Soderbergh would create with the release of his coolly stylish Out of Sight. But does this wildly diverting piece of experimentation hold up?
My answer would be yes, but that doesn't mean it's a good film, just that as an experiment it allowed Soderbergh to free up his style, and not to take himself as seriously as he had been with his earlier work. Schizopolis is brimming with hundreds of ideas, some inventive, some stupid, and some curiously disconcerting. Sometimes it's like Soderbergh has too many ideas, either that or he's being an attention seeker, having characters talk in one language then switch to another has the same effect of me writing my review like this, the all of a sudden TYPING THE REMAINDER OF THE REVIEW USING ALL CAPITALS, FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN TO BAFFLE THE HELL OUT OF ANYONE READING. But it managed to get Soderbergh a lot of praise, and to another extent it's nice to see a director who is willing to not only experiment but also make fun of himself.
If Soderbergh's post Schizopolis out put has boiled down to nothing more than Tarantino homage (Out of Sight), sixties pastiche (The Limey) and Oscar friendly "issue" pictures (Erin Brockovich and Traffic) it may be that he exhausted himself with this film, but its still an interesting career divide between is more arty, independent films of the early nineties and his more recent mainstream film that also includes his re-make of Ocean's 11 and his supposed re-make of Solaris. It may not be wholly triumphant, but for fans of interesting cinema it's a must see. Soderbergh's bored, sarcastic performance in the lead role is enough to cover the ticket price alone. Or maybe I just need to see it again. 7/10
My answer would be yes, but that doesn't mean it's a good film, just that as an experiment it allowed Soderbergh to free up his style, and not to take himself as seriously as he had been with his earlier work. Schizopolis is brimming with hundreds of ideas, some inventive, some stupid, and some curiously disconcerting. Sometimes it's like Soderbergh has too many ideas, either that or he's being an attention seeker, having characters talk in one language then switch to another has the same effect of me writing my review like this, the all of a sudden TYPING THE REMAINDER OF THE REVIEW USING ALL CAPITALS, FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN TO BAFFLE THE HELL OUT OF ANYONE READING. But it managed to get Soderbergh a lot of praise, and to another extent it's nice to see a director who is willing to not only experiment but also make fun of himself.
If Soderbergh's post Schizopolis out put has boiled down to nothing more than Tarantino homage (Out of Sight), sixties pastiche (The Limey) and Oscar friendly "issue" pictures (Erin Brockovich and Traffic) it may be that he exhausted himself with this film, but its still an interesting career divide between is more arty, independent films of the early nineties and his more recent mainstream film that also includes his re-make of Ocean's 11 and his supposed re-make of Solaris. It may not be wholly triumphant, but for fans of interesting cinema it's a must see. Soderbergh's bored, sarcastic performance in the lead role is enough to cover the ticket price alone. Or maybe I just need to see it again. 7/10