Costing little over $1M and grossing almost $25M domestically, "Sex, Lies & Videtope" was Miramax’s first commercial hit. Although the studio has undergone a change since then, becoming a marketing machine for Oscar winners such as "The English Patient" and "Shakespeare in Love," it is still a studio that prides itself on releasing quality, artsy, smaller films. "Full Frontal" seems to fit this mold, as it is a film that challenges the reality of filmmaking. Of course, it is also a film with an Oscar-winning director and an impressive group of Hollywood talent.

From what I understand of the movie’s plot, Julia Roberts plays an actress playing a reporter who’s interviewing Blair Underwood’s character, who is also an actor playing a character. David Duchovny’s appearance in the film as a Hollywood producer seems to be very much connected to the title, although I do not think any of the actors actually reveal all. There is a murder, a Hollywood party, and a coming together of the principal characters in the end. The trailer, simply a black screen with an audio track of the actors acting out dialogue as their names appear in white letters, tells us nothing except that maybe, this film is about listening. It’s not about the stars, but about the story.

Reaction to the film so far has been mixed but as "The Hollywood Reporter" pointed out in its review, a director as successful as Soderbergh should be given room to experiment if he pleases. At $2M, I believe the film will easily make its money back and if audiences are disappointed, perhaps that was already understood when cast and crew chose to make it. It is clearly not a conventional film and such films are not intended for everyone.

"Full Frontal" was shot in 18 days. There was no makeup or wardrobe. No stylists. No trailers. The stars seemed to surrender themselves to Soderbergh’s vision, come what may. And now, their time has come -- time for release. August 2 is right around the corner and finally, the public will see what Soderbergh amd friends have put together. Released on an estimated 200 screens, audiences will have to look for it. Promotion for the film has been very indie-like. So far, I think I’ve seen only one commercial. Like any other art-house film, "Full Frontal" will have to be sought out.

I think a fair amount of people will see it out of curiosity, out of fandom, out of support for the director and the actors. As said, it’ll make its cost back and then some, but I don’t believe it’ll enjoy a tidal wave of support, such as "Sex, Lies & Videotape" did in 1989, "Gosford Park" last year and "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" this year. With so many quality, highly-anticipated films coming out, including Soderbergh’s own "Solaris" in November and the Miramax release of "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" in December (in which Roberts co-stars), I think "Full Frontal" will quietly recede to the background after its starry hype dies down.

And we must not forget that M. Night Shyamalan’s prestige film, "Signs," starring Mel Gibson, comes out the same day and will no doubt arrest the attention of moviegoers and critics alike. "Full Frontal," although admittedly small budget and independent, will have to contend with this force and I believe, will lose coverage.

In a way, its Los Angeles premiere and after-party last week distorted its "indie-ness," but I like to think "Full Frontal" is content with being an art-house film as it should be. Whether it gets a wider release later, we will have to see. Its marketing campaign has been quiet and clever, portraying itself as a movie in need of cash. If I had to say right now, I believe it’ll live in the art houses and not open wide, existing instead alongside other independent films that cost less, feature non-stars, and receive better reviews.