Incannerax What a waste of my time!!!

Konterr Brilliant and touching

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

CinefanR Movies like Lost Highway, American Beauty and other high-profile, big-budget productions have been praised for their original takes, but in fact it was "Schizopolis" that explored those possibilities first. I find it refreshing and inexplicably underrated. The film is a very funny and bizarre look into the creative mind of its author, Steven Soderbergh. Press conferences on horse urination, marital dissolution, dysfunctional families, work, love, death, identity, the hilarious (and tragic) absurdity of life– everything is scrutinized here under a mask of randomness which makes everything unpredictable and crazy funny. "Schizopolis" gleefully delves into the absurd and blends it with satire in a most original social commentary, mocking all conventions and confinements. This type of humor is my kind. For fans of Kafka, Eugene Ionesco and Urmuz, Samuel Beckett, Kurt Vonnegut or David Lynch, this will be a blast. On a third viewing, all this "mess" makes perfect sense, and it's beautiful. "Sneeze!"

MisterWhiplash 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)!

Marc Sparks 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"

ericm4 I had passed over this title at the rental place several times and the week I decided to get through the entire Bergman Scenes from a Marriage TV version, I figured I'd need something lighter to turn off my brain for a while (I don't actually watch television). The box looked like perhaps it might be good, sadly, it was not, and after 45 minutes or so, I found my mind wandering.Just because a film juxtaposes bizarre images and ironic situations with ironic reactions does not mean that the film is saying anything concrete or penetrating any depths of human understanding.For example, one listens to the music which is a sort of modern counterpoint as it begins, which, as a musician, caught my attention. Sadly, the counterpoint that could have been interesting relied on that over used cliché, a female making noises of "enthusiasm" which can be found in lots of commercial piped music you find on your commercial radio stations today. It is not edgy. Nor is this movie.They try to do a similar thing with the film itself, make a counterpoint of irony and situations, however, it fails. One reason is that they are trying to make the film seem like a vignette film visually and with the pacing, yet it is not. They do not compensate this lack of cohesion, which is fine, with anything substantial to make the format work.I'm going to go read a book instead.