one of my absolute favorites!

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

A first film in Paul Thomas Anderson's California Suite (all taking place in California). It shows that the director has studied Scorsese carefully: long tracking shots, period disco music, but the characters seem to come with the laid-back California lifestyle. More than that if conveys the mentality of the era.What could be more interesting than a film about the porn industry; but it's really about the film industry, with it's star behavior, drugs, bored, behind the camera people going through the motions and its share of misfits hoping for a bit of glamour. Its a comedy until toward the end it isn't, and the butchers bill comes for people who play meat on camera.The film skillfully evokes an era and a time (starting with the mid-seventies) when making porn was almost a family affair, and those who came to Hollywood seeking their fortunes find that paying the bills leads them to the productions of Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds in his best role) a pornographer. It'd a transitional period in which the standard sex scene are still played, not the hard core stuff that goes nowadays.One of the best scenes shows Jack Horner's girlfriend, a porn performer, gets it on with a boy she really wants to make love to, and does it on camera right before Horner, who thinks it's a wonderful 'performance'.Boogie Nights also interweaves the lives of dozens of characters, who try to communicate things they can't articulate, so that even the most obvious double-entendre is taken seriously. They're way over their heads, playing with fire, and don't know it.Unless your older, you won't remember eight-track tape, HI-FI systems, bell bottoms, disco, Corvettes as status symbols, coke on everyone's coffee tables, or a dozen other period artifacts.I think the film is great if you've not seen it before. I tried watching it a second time and fount it a bit confining, as almost all the action takes place at Jack Horner's home or a disco named 'Boogie Nights'. The few scenes that don't seem shoehorned in, and don't work.If the acting seems bad, remember that the film wants the characters to be stupid... like the characters in a porn movie. The length of the film (you won't be bored) promises larger ideas than the film finally delivers, and that is that. No big message, and maybe that's a good thing.I recommend it highly if you haven't seen it. Just remember this is deeply ironic and humorous film - don't take anything seriously and you'll have a good time.

Can't say I've seen many theatrical released dramas about adult films, so this is new territory. Pornography is, obviously, very popular and this film showcases the rise of said industry in the 70's and its downhill in the 80's. It centres around the fictional Dirk Diggler (that name...it's just beautiful) and how he finds success through a adult film director named Jack Horner. Being in that type of business, Dirk starts becoming susceptible to the lavish lifestyle and the drugs and crime that follow. A fascinating albeit daring subject to tackle, director Paul Thomas Anderson manages to make it a rather compelling story. Slight tonal inconsistencies, particularly in the third act where it just loses steam but overall I found this to be thoroughly entertaining with dark comedic moments. It's another Anderson movie where his direction takes precedent. Super nice long takes that just lets the characters interact. Whether it be having sex, sniffing cocaine or running away from a shotgun wielding psychopath, the characters resembled the 70's. The disco attire looked fantastically authentic and really made me want to get down and boogie in my lounge (was so tempted...). Acting was outstanding all round. Julianne Moore and Burt Reynolds deserved their award nominations. Mark Wahlberg pulled off that sparky confident teenager role well. When it came to filming the pornography, the acting was incredibly cheesy which was sooo good to see. They honestly nailed it. Then seeing how porn progressed to amateur and drive-by within the 80's was interesting. I'm not addicted to porn or anything, but it's a refreshing subject to watch instead of slavery, haunted houses or World War II. So yes, despite the inconsistent tones this was incredibly enjoyable with phenomenal direction.

Paul Thomas Anderson directed his second feature film called Boogie Nights, at twenty seven years old. This is really something, because from a technical point of view, everything is well-put together. The photography, scenery and lead actors are all great. Even though, the film's running time is almost three hours, the deep development of the characters and the clever plot gives more and more tension to the viewer. The editing of the movie but the story as well, is a mature look on a world which is unacceptable and offensive for many people. You can decide to not judge the strange family of Dirk Diggler but familiarize with them, even like them and maybe, try to understand them. This film refers to the 70s and 80s when the industry of porn was still evolving fast, when film was replaced from videotapes and when people used to watch soft porn movies in public theaters. Even if the last half of the movie is more violent and dramatic, the movie keeps a balance between the possibility of drama and the option of acceptance and conscience.

Having grown up on watching movies and having no reason for making them other than to ape his idols, Anderson lifts the template from Scorsese's Goodfellas in this adolescent ripoff. Tell me - Which film am I describing here? Narrative structure: Set primarily over the course of the mid-1970s through the 80s, a young high-schooler has troubles at home and has to live with abusive family members. He feels trapped in this environment, and to help him escape, he grows attached to a surrogate family whose activities revolve around moral and societal vice. He finds that he excels in this environment and rises quickly in this new family hierarchy, earning both respect and riches from it. He eventually becomes fully initiated into this new family when he passes a test that demonstrates his commitment and talent to the vices that they support, and he is then rewarded by this new family with a celebration. At near mid-point, a "retro reel" involving 8mm or 16mm home movies and photos are used in a montage to express the passage of time and the deepening relationship between our protagonist and the other members of his new family. Things are going swimmingly until, at what is supposed to be a fun social occasion among friends, violence unexpectedly breaks out, resulting in murder and death. This scene mid-way through the plot tells the viewer that not all is well within this "fun" social structure, and that its very mores helped to contribute to the mindset that would lead someone to murder. But our protagonist tries to brush aside this violent event as a mere aberration, not wanting to question social world he has embraced. After eventually reaching a pinnacle of success, cultural shifts along with an infusion of drug abuse drag our protagonist down to the point where the same elements stemming from the vice and the surrogate family he joined now work against him until he hits rock bottom. When he hits rock bottom, he has a falling out with his surrogate "father figure" who turns against him for his betrayals and now uncontrollable drug use. All of this nearly kills him - but he still manages to survive rock bottom (unlike some of his friends around him). He is eventually able to pull himself up from rock bottom and settle into a less-than-ideal but by no means awful life, wistfully thinking back on the good times and how they are likely gone forever. Stylistic elements: Wall-to-wall music to help set tone, establish the time setting and occasionally provide an additional commentary on the action itself. Swish-pans, rapid editing sequences to convey frenetic energy, punctuated by extensive dolly and tracking shots to convey more leisurely times of our characters and cover the spaces of the lively nightclubs that they frequent. Title cards placed late in the film in order to subtly tell the viewer that the upcoming scene, times or sequences will be especially significant to the lives of the characters, followed by a shift in editing style to highlight the stresses that the protagonist has gotten himself into - which systematically builds the dramatic tension in the sequence until it results in a conclusive tipping point in his life. Which movie am I describing here? Boogie Nights? Or Goodfellas? Which one came first again? The final scene where our protagonist talks to himself in the mirror and looks back on his experiences is obviously ripped off from Raging Bull rather than Goodfellas, but that is still another Scorsese work.Anderson has nothing to say other than he wants to be thought of as a great director, but he needs to ape the true pioneers that came before him to make that happen. He just needed to make sure he adapted Scorsese's work into the porn world in order to appeal to his adolescent male fan base that eats up anything that helps mainstream their sexual fantasies. Don't fall for the hype. This is an extremely derivative, mediocre work.