Schizopolis (1996) User Reviews

Entertaining and thought provoking comedy.

[TheTwistedLiver · 8/10 · 7 January 2007]

The first time I saw this film I was entertained and mildly confused by what I had just witnessed, it primarily represents a satiric look at modern life Pre Office Space, but saying just that does not do the picture justice. The combination of surrealism, satire and general creativity make this film worth while and most importantly worthy of multiple viewings. At times it feels as though it is being weird for the sake of weird but remains to peak curiosity. Some very funny situations and lines. Not for everyone, but for those looking for something different and willing to keep an open mind this is an excellent, original film. If you want loud bangs and shiny things, watch Soderberghs other films like Ocean 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 etc.

generic greeting!

[gurghi-2 · 7/10 · 30 December 2000]

Stream-of-consciousness conception, sharp writing and creative technique. There's plenty here to amuse any smart audience, but the parts add up to an (intentionally) oblique whole. The film is so playful and irrespective of convention, it's as if Soderbergh threw up his hands and said 'Screw it, I can't make the movies they want me to." Take it with his work since and you've got the most supple, witty and consistent filmmaker working in the U.S. today.

There's lots to analyze, and myriad connections to be made. But don't try to make too much sense of it... let it take you, and enjoy.

Great for the first two viewings, loses its punch after that

[CHendri887 · 7/10 · 13 May 2001]

I watched this movie for the first time a couple of months ago. I had to watch it twice because I didn't get the way everything fit together in the plot the first time. My impression at first was that this was a really funny satire of certain aspects of American (or just modern) society: People turning to self-help gurus for solutions to their problems, political conspiracy theories, the blandness of working in an office, the strangeness of dentists, the meaninglessness of everyday conversation/communication rituals such as "How are you?". In these first two viewings, I laughed frequently at the way Soderberg was poking fun at modern life. Really funny to me is Soderberg's low-key sarcastic tone. I definitely have shared similar feelings to him in my everday life. In addition, I enjoyed the cut-up style connected disjointedness of the film's plot.

But then I watched the film a third time with a friend and he laughed maybe one time during the whole movie. And after the movie ended, he told me he just didn't "get" some of the things Soderberg was trying to satirze. This made me reconsider the film, so I watched it a forth time and in doing so, I just found it more cyncial and not as funny. "Tiresome" is a word that comes to mind. Perhaps this film just plays better if one is in a cynical mood. Regardless, there are still several quotes from Schizopolis that I have incorporated into my daily life so that I can become a better person in a T. Azimuth Switters type of way:

"Be true to your teeth and they won't be false to you."

"I am Republican when it comes to most issues, but I'm a Democrat when it comes to gum control."

"Generic greeting!" "Generic greeting returned!"

"I really enjoy having sex with your wife. She's got a great ass."

"When I married her, she was like a blimp. But now she just keeps getting thinner and thinner. It's terrible."

"Dear Attractive Woman #2...I would love to have you standing near me, or beside me, or on top of me so I could watch you shake."

Overall, I think this film is well worth a watch. Even on repeated viewings, it delivers some humorous goods.

Fabulous.

[mrpink16 · 27 July 2000]

Steven Soderbergh's 'Schizopolis' is a masterpiece. It's a satire on the formulas and cycles of ordinary people's every day lives. It very brilliantly satirizes relationships, marriage, sex, stress, work, the media, and communication, and many more elements of life. Soderbergh's wife in the movie (played by his real-life ex) is an example of a middle-age woman trying to find a good solid relationship, as she flees from her husband to his 'alter-ego' and can't decide which one she is more attracted to. The way the two talk is in Soderbergh's own made-up language, indicating the relationship they have. Which is a very common one, where everyday they have the same pointless, shallow discussions about their semi-awareness of plans for the evening, and at one point their relationship in bed. The marriage is fuelled by lies (a nod to his earlier 'sex, lies, and videotape'). At one point in the film, everyone speaks out what their subconscious tells them, in a very disturbing level of honesty, indicating what they're really feeling and really thinking, and how they express it, whether truthfully or dishonestly. Among things, the film is hilarious, frustrating, shocking, spontaneous, and even touching. It's like nothing ever put up on the screen before, it's a fresh antidote to anything formulaic, and for once, something new.

Soderbergh takes on the ideas of the Sixties experimentalist, with varying results.

[AdFin · 7/10 · 16 February 2002]

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

Admire it for getting released

[treemarc · 7/10 · 18 August 2005]

This is part of my Scarecrow Video Guide inspired movie-trek, following "The Specials." I've always been a hypocrite Soderbergh fan. I claim to be a bit of a movie snob, but really I think of Soderbergh as a guy who makes really great "Hollywood" flicks. Kind of the anti-Michael Bay. "Out Of Sight" is probably in my top 50 of all time. But I've always ignored most of his artier flicks, probably because I watched "Kafka" in college and didn't care much for it.

Well, this is as out-there as Soderburgh gets...or nearly anyone. It looks like a student film, but it was actually made right before he started his commercial streak with "Out Of Sight". Any description is probably pointless- suffice to say it's a film about communication that goes out of it's way to NOT communicate with it's audience. It would all come off so absurdly pretentious if it wasn't for Soderbergh's hilarious opening and closing statements. ("Anything you don't understand is your own fault") In hindsight, it almost seems like a parody of pretentious student films, and you can enjoy it on that level. But there is a point here, even though it doesn't come remotely close to clear.

Most importantly, it's pretty dang funny. There's enough silly stuff to appreciate, even if you don't "get it". Soderburgh himself is a deadpan riot in a dual role (or is it? You decide!) But "Nameless Numberhead Guy" steals the show.

"Schizopolis" isn't the weirdest film I've ever seen- that honor would probably go to "du-beat-E-o". But it's probably the best ratio of weird-to-watchable. Even if you're completely lost, you'll find something to like if you like film. But If you like Michael Bay, best skip it.

Next up is "Jerry & Tom"

This is one of my favourite films of all time for a reason.

[craigjclark · 10/10 · 3 October 2001]

The reason is it is absolutely brilliant. In need of artistic renewal, Steven Soderbergh threw everything he could think of into this self-financed feature and the results are scattershot, inscrutable, unfathomable and -- above all else -- hilarious. Veering from biting social commentary to clever wordplay to a withering parody of Scientology, this film isn't the sort of thing one should rent unless you want to give your brain a workout.

Soderbergh has said that this was his attempt to pay homage to the "freewheeling" style of Richard Lester. Whether he achieves that or not is open to debate, but he certainly managed to create a one-of-a-kind film experience. Too bad few people ever got the chance to see it on the big screen.

In the immortal words of Elmo Oxygen: "I believe -- so strongly -- in mayonnaise." Words to live by. I know I do.

An Odd Pit of Cinema

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 3 April 2014]

Fletcher Munson, the lethargic employee of a pseudo-religious self help company, and his doppelganger, the friendly but dull dentist Dr. Jeffrey Korchek (both played by Steven Soderbergh).

The film comparable in some ways to the earlier work of Richard Linklater (notably "Slacker"), mixed in with the visual sensibility of a Devo music video. I am not sure if this is experimental, or art house, or how you categorize something that has no real plot, and sometimes no real logic. There is a certain genius to it, though.

I am not overly familiar with Soderbergh, probably having seen less than half of his feature films... but this one will definitely leave you with the impression that he is a genius, an eccentric and an artist. Whether or not this is true, I have no idea... but he wants us to think so.

an extremely personal, maddeningly absurd excursion into the loony side of Soderbergh; one of the definitions of 'acquired taste'

[Quinoa1984 · 9/10 · 10 July 2007]

From the prologue I instantly thought I understood the tone that Steven Soderbergh- writer, director, cinematographer, possible pornographer, and double-actor on Schizopolis- was going for: pure absurdism, not just with how the prologue is worded (as the most important film experience of all time, the "full completed version"), but how he goes between all the different lenses like a young film student checking out the gears on a Bolex. But it's always a tricky thing going into a Soderbergh "experiment", and that it could be a mish-mash like Full Frontal (I've yet to see Bubble). And, in all truth, it is a mish-mash. It tells a coherent story only in that there's maybe two (or three) stories that seem to make any sense, but is scattered around scenes and freewheeling camera moves and editing tricks and music that come closest to that oft-mentioned critic term "off-beat". And a lot of the time it seems to be so personal to Soderbergh (real life ex-wife playing ex-wife, plus what may be his real kid playing Brantley's daughter), and so unconscionably irreverent, that it dares to run off the tracks any minute.

But it's this fully realized move to just be silly and strange, to make just random moments of wild satire (Rhode Island sold as a shopping mall, "Well, at least we didn't sell it to the f***ing Japanese", and a man randomly getting caught up in a straight jacket by fellows from a mental hospital), more well-rounded jabs at the drudgery and pointless meandering of everyday white-collar work life (is there a spy, or a mole, who cares if there's masturbation?), and statements just abstracted as if done sort of by a spontaneous idea in the editing room (title cards quoting a page in the script?), that makes it such a daring work of ludicrous intentions. This isn't a filmmaker trying to make an innovative and possibly important film like Traffic, or even a fun mainstream romp like Ocean's Eleven. In fact, it's seeing the opening prologue, and seeing how the style takes off right away (the title for the film on the shirt of a naked guy running away!) it sets off wonderful irony at every turn.

Not that Soderbergh isn't being self-indulgent. In fact, I'm sure that's why there's something of an honesty to his going head-long into his own personal crises of dealing with a relationship or marriage, and throwing caution to the wind by making the emotional problems actually quite real while obfuscating them with some truly goofy vignettes. It's almost like directorial therapy: let the actors improvise, let it all be loose, and even have a truly warped storyline involving an exterminator, really an actor looking for motivation and a written scene (ha), yet having in many instances moments of confession. Even if one might not know some of the circumstances surrounding Soderbergh's first marriage (it's detailed in the book Rebels on the Backlot), it feels like it's coming from the heart a good lot of the time, which uplifts the comedy. A running gag late in the film, as certain scenes from earlier with the perfectly dead-pan Soderbergh and Brantley are repeated, has Soderbergh being dubbed over in Japanese, French, and Italian, though in scenes that involve break-ups, awkward sexual tension, and a reconciliation.

This is not to say that Soderbergh isn't also more devilish than he's ever since been with his innuendo- make that outright hilariously immature sexual comedy- and it's amazing to see Soderbergh read a 'love letter' he's written to his "Attractive Woman #2", describing his profession of emotions in very graphic ways. And if Soderbergh does some strange things to surprise as the only time he's starred, let alone acted, in one of his films (the scene where he's in the bathroom making faces at the mirror is one of those pure moments in absurd cinema that speaks to the success of paying homage to Richard Lester movies), his going for broke stylistically pays off too. Or doesn't, depending on how one can take the mix and match of film stocks used from grainy 16mm to the usual 35mm, jagged hand-held racing after the exterminator man beating up on a man and woman, extreme fast-motion film-speed, perfectly composed images like a boy in right field missing a baseball, and even documentary style in the scenes with T. Azimuth Schwitters. On top of the dialog being continuously crazy and self-conscious (what's that film crew following along?), it's possibly the best, or at least most fun, that Soderbergh has to offer as an independent filmmaker.

So see it at your own risk, definitely check out the trailer beforehand to get an idea of what's at hand (if the poster wasn't sign enough what a tailspin one can expect to get into), and if one is already a fan, if only in the guilty pleasure sort of way as I know I am, do check out the Criteron DVD for Soderbergh "interviewing" Soderbergh commentary, including the story how the deal for David Lean to direct two years after his death fell through (damn Showtime channel)!

Weird, wacky fun!

[dvanhouwelingen · 7/10 · 1 November 2000]

SCHIZPOLIS is one of the strangest films you will ever see. It has no real story, yet somehow emerges as a very funny satire on our modern world. The best part of the movie maybe the very first scene where director/writer/star Steven Soderbergh addresses the audience directly with lines like "There will be parts in this movie you will not understand. This is your fault, not ours". To describe the film would be impossible- but be warned this film is different- really different- it makes BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS look normal. If you latch onto what he's doing early, you'll probably roll with the punches and enjoy it. If however you think the first 5-10 is stupid, you might as well stop the video right then- because it doesn't get any different.

It's like, um....

[chl-6 · 4/10 · 11 March 2000]

Well, it's different, that's for sure.

I took this movie out on video because I was in the mood for something different, and on that front it certainly fulfilled my expectations. On the other hand, I was also after something entertaining, and on that front it - unfortunately - didn't, except in fragments.

The film starts with Steven Soderbergh blowing a metaphorical rasberry at the audience, standing in front of the movie screen advising (not an exact quote, just a paraphrase) - "This is the most important movie you will ever see. If you do not understand it, the fault is yours, not ours, and you should see it again and again until you do understand it, and at full price too."

It then follows a small cast of characters (some of whom can't act... or maybe that's the point?) in a series of intersecting stories... though if you can articulate the plotlines you're a better person that I! There's some sort of satire on Scientology, though as I know almost nothing about that particular cult/religion the allusions unfortunately pass me by. I guess, though, that John Travolta is unlikely to make a movie with Soderbergh anytime soon.

I did enjoy a few bits, particularly when Soderbergh is playing with the conventions of film making (like deliberately having the boom mike "accidentally" drop into shot). Favourite among these is when he has his characters talking in a kind of meta dialogue, a cinematic shorthand which comes across like the actors are reading off the film's treatment rather than script. Ie, instead of saying things like "Hi Honey, I'm home. How are the kids?" they say something along the lines of "Banal greeting to wife. Obligatory inquiry after offspring."

Unfortunately these moments are too few. This would have made an interesting short subject, but at over an hour and a half it really didn't sustain my interest.

Guess I'm a traditionalist at heart.

"Caution: This film makes wide turns. Following too close may result in injury."

[cathcacr · 9/10 · 10 December 2004]

I will echo a comment that someone made about -The Big Lebowski- (my #1 favorite comedy followed by this delightful mess). "Warning: this film transmits on a strictly limited wavelength." If you don't catch this curveball, you're likely to be bored. I won't say that if you don't like it on first viewing, then you're never going to like it. In my case, certain movies get more enjoyable on repeat viewings even after receiving a ho-hum response the first time around. This is one of those movies. With a narrative more fractured than your average David Lynch film, there are connections between one scene and another that jump out and take notice only on repeat viewings, sort of like "portals" from one part of the movie to another. Music that plays, pictures shown on the wall, one-sided phone conversations, that sort of thing. Aside from the already-limited-wavelength humor, these amplify the laugh factor. This is a movie destined for some kind of limited cult-following someday, but keeping to a murmur level when you're standing next to an air conditioner. The Criterion DVD has some good features and outtakes, like the "Maximum Busy Muscle" segment extolling the virtues of all products vinyl.

Update Nov. '06. Re-watching this almost on a whim, and it all comes together (such as it is) even more. This is truly hilarious, a comedy masterpiece reveling in all its many absurdities, which come one after the other at a highly accelerated rate. I'm upping my vote from 9 to 10.

"You will learn something from me here today." --Elmo Oxygen (Noooo!!! Oooogghghgh!!)

Don't understand Schizopolis? Thats your fault.

[iF.... · 7/10 · 1 May 2000]

I have to start off by saying that I truly liked Schizopolis. It's unlike anything I've ever seen, in the traditional sense that is. In any case, I'm not a real fan of studio movies so Schizopolis was right up my alley. People might wonder what strived me into seeing this film. Well, it was by luck actually. I was looking at some movie matches for psychologically yet offbeat inclined films such as Dark City. I came up with one choice, Kafka. I saw that and it was a nice movie, I own a copy of it actually. Then when I looked up movie matches for Kafka I think I got Schizopolis. It was either that or I simply looked up what other movies this director named Steven Soderbergh had directed. Schizopolis seemed like an interesting movie, catchy name and incredibly high offbeat ratings, I couldn't go wrong. Well, I was right! By the time I finished seeing this film I was left entirely confused but amazed at the good piece of filmmaking by this guy named Soderbergh. Eventually I had to see some of his other films, and of course, they were as good as I had hoped. By this time I became a follower of Soderbergh and had to see The Limey opening day, again I was pleased.

Schizopolis is a self reflective movie Soderbergh style. Fellini 8 ½, Woody has Stardust Memories, Soderbergh has Schizopolis. According to what I have read behind the making of this film is that Soderbergh thought of quitting filmmaking once and for all after the critically panned The Underneath. His thoughts were put to the making of this film. The result is a film that is so absurd it left critics speechless because they obviously didn't know what to think of it. They couldn't really ridicule it because that would just mean they didn't understand it. Hence the introduction of the film `in the event that you find certain sequences or ideas confusing keeping mind this is your fault not ours'. Soderbergh is indeed a genius of avoiding negative feedback from critics and instead he mocks them indirectly. As for the film's moments, the introduction and closing of the film are highly amusing. The funniest sequence is probably when Soderbergh is making funny faces in front of the mirror. As for another funny portion of the film is when the Soderbergh characters speak with terrible Japanese and Italian dubbing.

This is definitely a film that is worth viewing. Its good to see a new type of cinematic film style from a filmmaker that is truly passionate about film. If you are looking for something new and inspiring cinematic wise, look no further. Come Early! Come Often!

A real stinko! I've liked other S. films, but...

[jack_94706 · 1/10 · 15 January 2001]

I can see lots of enthusiasm for this film in the comments of other imDb members. I most agree with the person who said if you don't like the first 5-10 minutes, hit the exit. I managed about 20-25 minutes, really hated to give it up since I am a fan of the director, but kept feeling worse and worse about what I was watching. I might have made it through more like 35 minutes, but it felt like torture most of the way. And so I missed the "gratuitous frontal nudity" near the end, as another viewer's comments mentioned. Unbelievable. Is it actually there -- or was that just a disguised marketing ploy? But seriously -- is frontal nudity ever truly only gratuitous? Is there no God? What does it all mean?

A very bizarre look into Soderbergh's mind...

[satellite1980 · 20 October 2003]

The first time I saw this movie, I wasn't really sure what to think. It is very strange and bizarre and quirky. It's definitely not for everyone, but if you're a Steven Soderbergh fan, I would check it out. Don't let the hard to follow story deter you from finishing this crazy film. And if you rent it, watch it at least twice before returning it, because you will understand it much more the second time through. Schizopolis is full of schizophrenia, so that's what you should expect. I think it's good in it's own way... rather artsy, in a poignant and ambiguous way.

An interesting and fun experiment

[mike-seaman · 6/10 · 26 February 2013]

Explaining Schizopolis seems counterintuitive. The movie is a mixture of autobiographical self- examination and self-deprecation. At the same time the film seems to be tackling some larger cultural themes and postmodern concepts of language and communication.

In the end, I think the movie is a fun assortment of ideas being exercised together in a rather harmless fashion. Schizopolis never seems to take itself seriously, the movie is made on a small-budget, with a purposefully contained cast, self-aware and referential humor, taking stabs at life, narratives, movies, culture, and humanity while never entirely aiming at any single target (except perhaps the filmmaker himself). I recommend this movie not because it is a fully realized concept (because it isn't) or because it is a hidden gem that must be discovered (because it isn't) but it is refreshing to see an experimental film created playfully, aware of its self-indulgence and entirely at ease with it.

A perfect departure from film as usual

[lilianelle · 10/10 · 21 January 2004]

I have to agree with some main themes already given here - it's brilliant, it's unconventional, it's not linear, it's hard to follow, its production values and casting are not the highest quality, and it's incredibly funny. This is one of the best movies for catch-phrases I've ever seen - it's got witty dialog, great character names, and it doesn't really matter that the plot doesn't go anywhere important - it's just funny as hell. Anyone who liked Waking Life will like this film, but if you have to have movies develop in meaningful ways, just pass it up and don't feel guilty. If you do rent it, be prepared for oddly named characters, spoofs on Dianetics, conversations in gibberish, and random odd scenes that all conspire to show how meaningless life can become if you let it.

I'd really like to know more about how and why Soderbergh made this - it doesn't have any credits or production info on the VHS version, and it is so radically different from anything else he's done. It's hard to believe the same person who did Erin Brokovich and Traffic did this, but I'm eternally grateful - I kind of wish he'd do another one sort of along these lines, just to add more irreverence into filmmaking.

No quick summary possible...

[Meat_Trademark · 10/10 · 27 July 2000]

If big star Hollywood movies are your favorites, this might not be for you. You should give it a chance, though. It's very fun.

Schizopolis is an incredible treatise on communication and perception in a cinematic form. Supposedly, Soderberg made this movie as a way of cleansing his pallet.

(As pallet cleansing or writer's block bypassing projects go, it ranks up with the Coen brothers hitting a writer's block around the third act of Miller's Crossing, putting the project on hold and writing the screenplay for Barton Fink, a movie about an author with writer's block.)

Our concepts and perception of reality, especially about communication, seems to be the main playing ground for this movie. Schizopolis is an experimental project, yet flaunts its three act structure. The movie can give you new ways to think about daily life and reality, without resorting to sci-fi religious hogwash, which the movie also lampoons perfectly.

The movie has no credits, if that says anything. The movie's title is shown on a T-shirt worn by an otherwise naked man being chased. And that's just the start.

Unwatchable

[Bored_Dragon · 1/10 · 28 June 2017]

I get the idea behind this movie and I must acknowledge few really ingenious dialogues and monologues, but overall, the movie is almost completely unwatchable. It is satire so technically speaking it is a comedy, but it is not funny or entertaining at all. It's just plain boring. It is obvious that movie is done by someone very smart who has many things to say, but who is at the same time so self-involved in own smartness that he made this movie understandable only to himself. The movie is unwatchable, both in the story and in an aspect of technical realization. It is extremely rare, but it happened - I gave up on this movie before the end. I did it just a few times in my life, gave up on single digit number of movies out of thousands I saw so far. But I could not force myself to see this through. This is one of those things that remind me that life is too short to waste it on literally every crap I run into. I'm sorry to do this because I can tell that basic idea was awesome in authors had, but he terribly failed to make something good out of it. So I must rate it

1/10

Its hilarity is absolute!

[lkirkner · 10/10 · 27 March 2001]

Soderbergh apparently worked on this movie with a video camera and several friends. The movie was an effort on Soderbergh's part to return to the most basic elements of film making, without the big budget, big lights, and big names. He succeeded ten times over. I've seen the movie many, many times and it only gets better. Its humor is at times subtle and at others out-right raucous. Each time through you'll be certain to notice something new and amusing that you'd missed before. Fantastic!

Steven Soderbergh Has Zero-Charisma

[StrictlyConfidential · 3/10 · 1 April 2020]

"Schizopolis" (from 1996) is clearly a "cult movie" wannabe that is so conceited about its own apparent genius that at the beginning of the film director, Steven Soderbergh (in a truly condescending tone) personally addresses the movie-audience, telling them that if they don't understand this picture's story-line, then, they must keep viewing it over and over again until they do. (definitely no funny)

Produced on a modest budget of just $250,000 - "Schizopolis" is clearly one of those movies where I swear that they were making up all of this asinine nonsense as they went along.

With "Schizopolis'" story being consistently disjointed, fragmented, shallow, and empty-headed - I was completely bored with this amateurish rubbish within the first 15 minutes.

"I believe so strongly...in mayonnaise ."

[framptonhollis · 9/10 · 16 July 2017]

The average viewer will no doubt be baffled and often confused by such a film as this. It functions like a David Lynch movie but has the tone of a quirky indie comedy as directed and written by a hybrid of a former Scientologist, a surrealist pioneer, an avant garde filmmaker, and Tim and Eric. It's...really, really, really weird and breaks every possible cinematic convention in a thrilling way. Few films are as fresh and as funny as this feat of satirical cinema that seems to take place in multiple dimensions. This is the type of film in which the accompaniment of a chart would be of great use for anyone attempting to figure out the events that had just occurred before their now- squinting or boggling eyes. Scenes are repeated with different styles/dialogue, the main character has a doppelganger, characters occasionally speak in tongues that are seemingly just gibberish, some moments include actors acting extremely alien, while in others their mannerisms are uncomfortably realistic, etc. The film works mainly as a comedic and upbeat version of "Mulholland Dr."

Original, funny, definitely interesting...

[sr2ugs · 9/10 · 6 October 2003]

Not everyone will get this movie. In fact, I imagine most won't.

That's not to say that people that don't like it are idiots, it just means that this isn't their kind of movie. It's not particularly linear, there's no obvious through line to cling onto and no real conflict to overcome in the traditional sense. This isn't your average, run of the mill, production line movie. This is different. This is original and the fact that it manages to be entertaining and challenging at the same time is a testament to a very good film maker.

I make films myself, and I learnt a lot from this movie in terms of structure and the expectations of moden movies. It doesn;t always have to follow the path. It's a shame that its so hard to find in this country. Anyway, thats by two bits worth...

Duals

[tedg · 1 February 2011]

I am glad that Soderbergh is making films, even if every other one is a glossy mess. Like many filmmakers, he lives in and loves the medium. Unlike most of them, he experiments in film with things that matter — and he does it while pretending it is a joke.

This will be seen by many as a bizarre hoax, a vanity project, a sandbox. But I think not; I receive it as a small, complex personal project. His marriage was falling apart. He was baffled by matters of duality: simultaneous understanding and confusion. So he made a film featuring himself and his already ex-wife. In it, time faces itself; everyone has dual lives among which they shift.

You'll only get part of what is going on the first time around, but this rewards multiple viewings.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

This is a movie about nothing. People don't use words to mean what they are. People come and go. It was dreadfully boring.

[CelesteKD · 1/10 · 13 January 2002]

I like experimental film, but this was awful. It moved very, very slowly and the dialog was original (the characters often did not use words to express themselves as much as tone of voice) but seemed overall pointless. I think that the movie was trying to hard to be different and, in the end, suffered for it. Save you're $3 dollars and rent something else. If you feel like being a humanitarian, rent the movie, and then destroy it so no other unsuspecting victim accidentally wastes a night watching this garbage.