User Score
5.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 232 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 76 out of 232
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. 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 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
  2. 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 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
  3. Oct 7, 2012
    6
    Most peoples favorite PT Anderson movie is probably my least. I don't dislike this film, it just hits me on a less emotional level than his other work. There is plenty to like here. Reynolds in particular is excellent. The scenes between Wahlberg and Reilly's characters are among the most memorable in any Anderson film. There is a lot more humor from scene to scene than in most AndersonMost peoples favorite PT Anderson movie is probably my least. I don't dislike this film, it just hits me on a less emotional level than his other work. There is plenty to like here. Reynolds in particular is excellent. The scenes between Wahlberg and Reilly's characters are among the most memorable in any Anderson film. There is a lot more humor from scene to scene than in most Anderson films, ironically that may be why I didn't connect with these characters as well as would have liked. The scene where Diggler and the boys go to a drug dealers house to rip him off best illustrates this. This is a scene that is ultimately where the protagonist of the movie hits rock bottom, but instead of feeling that emotion, I was laughing and shaking my head in disbelief. Don't misunderstand, I enjoyed this scene, and I think Anderson wanted us to see the absurdity. However instead of connecting with these characters as I have in other Anderson films, these moments disconnect me. For me moments like this are what takes this film from being great to just another good movie. Expand
  4. 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.
Metascore
85

Universal acclaim - based on 28 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 25 out of 28
  2. Negative: 0 out of 28
  1. 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.
  2. From the second it begins, Boogie Nights seizes your senses and pulls you right in: no turning back, no time for debate, no regrets.
  3. 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.