Boogie Nights

Marky Mark Walhberg has a large penis in it...
image via wikipedia

In 1997 Paul Thomas Anderson (later of There Will Be Blood fame) released his second film. Boogie Nights tells the story of Dirk Diggler, a young pornstar, and his associates in the late 70s and early 80s when the industry was beginning its movement from film to video. The film is generally regarded as possibly one of the most important films of the 90s. This first review comes from Amazon.co.uk:

I can't understand why this is such a highly rated film!! (The second exclamation mark really helps to lend credence to your argument...) There is nothing good about it except mindless violence (The violence isn't 'mindless', it is very important to the plot of the movie. It is necessary to reinforce the idea that the porn industry was not a fun place to be.), drug taking (Again, Diggler's fall from grace wouldn't pack much punch without a reason for it...) and stupid sexual innuendos (It's about the porn industry, what did you expect?). Fair enough this film is based on the porn industry so I would be a bit confused if there was no sex in it whatsoever but it's just the way it's shot and acted that seems so tacky (I believe it was meant to be tacky. Like the films and industry it is portraying). I apologize to people who have put this at the top of their hundred greatest films list but I really disliked it! (Well, at least you show remorse I suppose...)

I don't expect any such apologies from any body else. Speaking of which, here's some more from Amazon.com:

Badly written (That'll be why it was nominated for best screenplay at the Oscars then...), badly directed (It really wasn't.), well acted (Yup), well made (Yup. So surely those last two points could have resulted in at least 2 stars then?). It cannot conceal the fact that it has absolutely nothing to say (It has a lot to say. For instance: that stardom, in this instance pornography, is not all its cracked up to be. Getting all that you wanted does not necessarily make you happy. And, more obviously, that drugs are bad). It simply mills around for about an hour, and then decides to throw some graphic violence on the screen as a last-ditch effort for some kind of Artistic Significance (No. It had artistic significance right from the off. The violence was there to bring several of the stories to a proper conclusion. That and, as previously said, to make the industry less glamorous). Avoid this film. It is utterly without any kind of value whatever. (Avoid this review. It is without any kind of value whatever. Unlike the film)

And here's another:

A long, boring, absolutely awful movie (It is 2 1/2 hours, so I suppose the claims of it being long are valid...). It introduces us to a lot of characters (It's an ensemble film, they always have a lot of characters), follows them around for a while, and then, when it seems to realize that nothing is going on, gives us a scene of graphic violence in a vain attempt to add significance to what must be the most empty film to be made in the wake of Quentin Tarantino's equally vapid Pulp Fiction. (It's actually an incredibly intelligent movie with an awful lot to say on its chosen subjects. I'm fed up of people saying violence in anything other than an action film is immediately bad. The violence works. It works because of the mood set by the rest of the picture. If you think both this and Pulp Fiction are vapid, then what precisely do count as depth?)

To close I'll leave you with this brilliant review:

THIS IS THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE. PURE GARBAGE. DEFINATELY definitely NOT WORTH SEING.