nourenme84 Reviews

Boogie Nights (1997)

Overrated and over the top.

[2/10 · 18 November 2004]

I had so many problems with this movie. I understood that it was cinematic genius and ended up with cinematic excrement. I came into the movie uninfluenced by the good reviews it naturally gets, but it was still to no avail.

Here's my beef:

First, Boogie Nights tried to hard to have that deep message about how a life of moral decadence leads to regret and a general waste of innocence. We all know this, we all think about how empty the dirty stripper is on the inside. Second, I have no beef with Anderson, it's just that his cinematography was so over the top. I fully understand that he has the capability to make long shots on tracks, cranes, dollies or with a steady cam, but not every single shot has to be a long shot. I don't want a porno version of Raging Bull. Third, Burt Reynolds really didn't deserve an Oscar nomination for his role. It was a good character, but not nomination worthy. The only thing he deserves is the Awesome Mustache Trophy Fourth, this movie gets so much damn praise from people. I can't figure out why. I think it's the classic ideology that something risqué has to be good. This movie is over inflated because of the type of content (in this case, the pornographic type) in Boogie Nights instead of the quality of the content (which was weak). Fifth, this movie was filled with too many 70's stereotypes. It was overdone. Sixth, Mark Wahlberg's acting wasn't that great. It was subpar at best. I'll give it him on that he was good in the scene recording his album because it was pretty funny. Regardless, he was too dramatic and and over worked the nonchalant attitude of his character. Seventh, too many useless characters. I love William H. Macy, but his character was useless. I'm indifferent on Phillip Seymour Hoffman, but he too was useless. Eighth, this movie had that feel where if you keep waiting patiently, it will get better. It never did. I hate when movies do that. Ninth, I personally think the writing for this movie was unimaginative and boring. Such a cliché story, boy goes on his own, boy makes porn and becomes rich and famous, boy finds drugs and hits the gutter, boy finds his way back to glory. Seen it before, let's write something new. Tenth, too many useless side stories. If Anderson would have completely cut out the black guy making it in the stereo business with stolen money, Phillip Seymour Hoffman's homosexual journey, Luis Guzman's club adventures and William H. Macy's marital frustrations and this movie might have been somewhat less aimless.

Overall 2.3 out of 10.

Run Ronnie Run (2002)

It all depends on your opinion of Mr. Show.

[7/10 · 4 November 2004]

This movie is generally funny, but I can't imagine someone who hasn't seen the Ronnie Dobbs skits on Mr. Show finding it as funny as someone who has. It has a lot of really funny moments. Lots of fresh white trash jokes, not the same old recycled trailer park jokes from before. You can't beat a vomit eating dog. Then again, there were a lot of forced jokes, a bit of trying too hard to make me laugh. For some reason there were more cameos than you can shake a stick at. But the real stars of the show are David Cross and Bob Odenkirk and their sense of humor. It doesn't really apply to a wide demographic, but people that have enjoyed Mr. Show and Cross' stand up will appreciate the sense of humor. I do wish they played more than two or three roles and involved more of their Mr. Show characters into the movie. It did have Three Times One Minus One, which is good. It had Jack Black, which is very very bad. If you liked Mr. Show, you'll love this movie. If not, you won't pick up on everything and the magic of Ronnie Dobbs. It's like the Mr. Bean movie in how you'll appreciate it more if you liked the show, but dislike the recycling of the same jokes from the show.