Advanced Search Beta »
Basic Search Fields
Boogie Nights
User Score
7.7 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 65 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 52 out of 65
  2. Mixed: 3 out of 65
  3. Negative: 10 out of 65

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

view
per page
  1. OLuc
    Jul 27, 2006
    10
    Sometimes, I come back to this movie and I think about it, and I wonder, "Why isn't this movie being praised as well as othe movies of it's era, like Fargo, or Titanic?" More and more I wonder why people look more towards Quentin Tarantino then P.T. Anderson when it comes to directing, because this movie is just one of those movies that really is brought togethor by the film9;s atomesphere and screenplay, which were both done by Anderson. This movie is better than what many grade it to be, so if you like Robert Altman, than see Boogie Nights, the modern-day Nashville!… Expand
    • 2 of 2 users said yes
  2. 2GUI2
    Jul 7, 2011
    10
    The moment you start watching "Boogie Nights", written and directed by the artist Paul Thomas Anderson, it is quite visible that the movie isn't just very bold and distinct from all the other films of the 90's but that it represents a matter that hasn't been approached almost at all. It is in the 70's and the 80's that the film is set, around the pornography-film-industry. Filled with astonishing performances (from practically every supporting actor and Mark Wahlberg in the leading role) and a great script, "Boogie Nights" is one of the year's must-see.… Expand
  3. DonK.
    Apr 3, 2001
    10
    Incredible filmmaking. We've come to expect so little these days (2000-2001) in terms of good movies, it's great to pop this one in the DVD player to remember what a great film is all about.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  4. DanM.
    Jan 28, 2004
    8
    Burt Reynolds can act. And he is very good in this film.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  5. GilbertTheSurnameBoycotter
    Oct 2, 2002
    10
    Paul Thomas Anderson has entered the building.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  6. MihaG.
    May 3, 2003
    2
    I'm sorry to opose to all the previous reviewers, but I find this film really bad. Characters are fake, acting is bad, camera is poor, everything sux. So what if chicks can see a big cock at the end?!? That does not make a good movie...
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  7. MichaelM.
    Oct 23, 2004
    10
    An excellent movie! I really enjoyed it. It was a bit disturbing at parts, but still very good. You'll notices great performances given by Burt Renyolds, Julianne Moore, Don Cheadle , John C. Reilly, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Robert Ridgley and Alfred Molina (considering he had a very tiny role, he really did alot with it). I wasn't too thrilled about Mark Wahlberg's performance. In my opinion I don't think he is a very good actor. He always plays the same part in every film he stars in. The directing and writing in the film are absolutley outstanding. I was especially taken by the direction of the donut shop shoot out that appears about 2 hours into the movie. If you are looking for an interesting movie to watch, rent or buy Boogie Nights. Be sure to get the New Line Platinum Series. (1/23/03)… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  8. JaredS.
    Oct 15, 2003
    9
    Very, very entertaining! PT Anderson has made his Scorsese-que masterpiece. Anderson's major influence consist of Scorsese, Robert Altman, and Jonathan Demme, and I feel he has achieved a similiarity to each of those filmmakers. With Hard Eight, he made his Demme-like film. With Boogie Nights, his Scorsese film and with Magnolia, his Altman-like film. Now, Punch-Drunk Love, on the other hand, is unlike any other type of filmmaker. So, I define PDL as PTA's own style. Anyway, back to B Nights. Great film, and a tour-de-force through the rise and fall of the porn industry as well as entertainment in general ranging from the late 70s to the early 80s. Often hilarious, and often powerful, this is definitely worth your time and money.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  9. Dr.SteveH.
    Jun 19, 2003
    5
    Mildly amusing at times. Acting is a bit cornball. Heather Graham is gorgeous and sexy, Mark Wahlberg can't act his way out of a bag. Using real porn star Nina Hartley in a minor role was nice touch. Cool cars.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  10. KeithE.
    Sep 19, 2003
    2
    This movie was horrible. The characters were very two dimensional. The only redeeming part of this movie was being able to see some nice t n' a.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  11. AndrewM.
    Aug 8, 2004
    5
    I was not won over by this film. I will admit there are scenes that are wholly effective and work...but the finished product is unimposing and somewhat vacuous. The film doesn't really give us anything; there is a lot promised, little delivered. For those that say it was an insight into the ropey, debauched lifestyle prevalent in the American adult industry during the 60's and 70's, just what exactly was so illuminating? What stunning revelations were shown? It all seemed to me second-hand news... drugs, parties, disco, money.... uh-huh, really, I did not know that! Anyway, I don't want to be too harsh... The film does have some redeeming qualities and is not without merit. Burt Reynolds is fantastic. He embodies his character perfectly and is impressively convincing. Graham and Moore aren't given much to work with but both do favourably. Wahlberg is as good as Wahlberg gets, which is average. The cinematography and production sets are the real high points - the film looks exactly like what it is portraying in most scenes. Very skillfully shot. But all in all, it's a film that is weaker than the sum of its parts and all the more undistinguished for it.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  12. J.RyanG.
    May 23, 2005
    7
    I own this movie on DVD, and I've seen it at least a half-dozen times. Still, I don't quite get what it is trying to say. Perhaps that's why I keep going back--trying to solve a magnificent puzzle. Everyone in the film is brilliant--especially William H. Macy--and a very real atmosphere is created by the throbbing music, the virtuoso camera work, and the precise editing. But I get the feeling that the writer-director, Paul Thomas Anderson, did not make a complete statement. Why tell this story? I say, enjoy the film for what it has to offer; but be aware that, unlike its main character, the film has its shortcomings.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  13. KeytonE.
    Jul 22, 2005
    2
    Quite possibly the most overrated film of all time. I was bored to tears, which is truly unfortunate because I wanted to love this movie, and I tried to love this movie, but it's just boring.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  14. VinceJ.
    Dec 7, 2002
    10
    Although completely different, it ranks right up there with 'Goodfellas' as a movie one can watch over and over... and always be entertained. Wonderful film.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  15. A.A.
    Apr 24, 2002
    10
    One of my personal "ten best" of all time. Stunning ensemble acting. Stunning capture of that period, of course, from a pornographers viewpoint. I'm now 45 years old, and I was lucky enough to catch about 6 months of Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin at the nightclubs as a more/or/less underage 19 year old before it all turned to disco. So I can rightfully say I was a witness to the perversity of disco. Can you imagine, in 2002, that hard rock ever defined a pure and true artistic period? Well, yes it did, especially compared to disco. I hated disco, but I LOVED Boogie Nights. … Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  16. YoonC.
    Sep 14, 2003
    5
    Overreaching, meandering, shapeless cross-threading of narratives revolving around the porn world. Generally, a wallowing in self-pity, tiresome thematic gobbledygook about redemption, rather dumb and dirty exposure of America's cultural underbelly, all of which are made even more ludicrous by Anderson's cutesy quirky humor that aspires--laughably--to metaphysical vision of cosmic absurdity. Foul movie but not without decent performances and some nice touches.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  17. JonathanM.
    Jun 15, 2004
    10
    This is a great film. What more can one want, great direction, script and acting are all in this movie. Simply wonderful.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  18. benido326
    May 8, 2012
    8
    Set against the backdrop of late 1970’s L.A., Boogie Nights tells the rise and fall of Eddie Adams, played by the young Mark Wahlberg, as he enters the business of adult film. Discovered one night as he is busing tables by film maker Jack Warner, played in a comeback role by Burt Reynolds, Eddie is whisked off and thrown into the world of adult films. The film features a number of supporting players, including Philip Seymour Hoffman, Don Cheadle, Julianne Moore, William H. Macy, Heather Graham, John C. Reilly, and Thomas Jane, all have a role in the industry and many have a side story that we get involved in. But it’s Wahlberg, in his first of what I like to call his “coming of age films” with films like Rock Star, Invincible, and the Fighter, and Reynolds who rule the film here. Wahlberg’s character, who changes his name to Dirk Diggler, to better fit the industries tradition of unusual names, shines as the young man caught up in the excitement, but then who sinks so low so fast. And Reynolds does fine as he follows a similar path. He makes great films, but as soon as the VHS is introduced, he is reduced to selling girls almost on the street. Now since this is a film about adult films, you have to expect a fair amount of nudity, even a surprise final scene of male nudity. There’s also drug use and even a few murders. Now I think that’s it is interesting to note how everything turns sour once the film goes into the 1980’s. New Year’s night even, a very dark occurrence happens and you just know that everyone is just gonna turn ugly, and ugly it turns. And since the film tries to parallel the life of real life 1970’s adult film star John Holmes, you can tell that the film may not end so nicely for Diggler, he is even involved in a drug deal gone back much like Holmes. My only problem with the film is that is that it may end to abruptly for some. It’s a good film, but everything is turned around and wrapped up within the last five minutes, but that really is my only complaint. 3.5/5 B+… Expand
prev next
Page:
  • 1

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
85 out of 100

Universal acclaim - based on 28 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 25 out of 28
  2. Mixed: 3 out of 28
  3. Negative: 0 out of 28
  1. San Francisco Examiner
    Reviewed by: G. Allen Johnson
    88
    I'm not sure all of this works out as convincingly as Anderson intends in the movie's somewhat unsatisfying ending, but getting there is a wickedly enjoyable journey.
    Read full review
  2. Austin Chronicle
    Reviewed by: Marjorie Baumgarten
    89
    From the second it begins, Boogie Nights seizes your senses and pulls you right in: no turning back, no time for debate, no regrets.
    Read full review
  3. New York Daily News
    Reviewed by: Jami Bernard
    100
    Writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson has perfectly wedded form to function by filming Boogie Nights in a style suggesting the grainy texture of porn and the ambivalence of the era.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »