Three years after Robert Zemeckis and "Forrest Gump" tackled the sixties with a might previously unseen in film, it seems fitting that someone would approach the seventies with something of the same zeal.
Ang Lee tried (I think) to do so with "The Ice Storm" and instead left audiences tired, bored, and depressed. But Paul Thomas Anderson, with "Boogie Nights" succeeds in portraying an era, providing all of that time periods quirks, just like "Forrest Gump" did.
As many critics would have it, "Boogie Nights" will, in twenty years, be viewed as Mark Wahlberg's breakthrough film. Wahlberg plays Eddie Adams/Dirk Diggler, a young stud at odds with his family until an adult-film producer discovers him, and bestows upon him a new life.
I'm not quite so sure that anyone will ever concern themselves with what Mark Wahlberg's breakthrough film was, or how many films he will do after this, but he was indeed perfect for the part. The wide eyes, the calm assurance, and the innocent good looks all made Dirk Diggler the Forrest Gump of the 70s.
To describe the plot any further would take eons, so instead I'll provide introductions to all the characters.
Burt Reynolds plays Jack Horner, the producer that finds Dirk. Reynolds is consistently interesting in his character turns as of late, turning up everywhere from a military hero in "Bean" to a perverted senator in "Striptease." Here he is a combination of both.
Julianne Moore plays Amber Waves, Horner's live-in girlfriend (I think) and favorite female star. She immediately takes a liking to Dirk, and is in the midst of a custody battle for her son.
Perhaps the most interesting character in the film besides Dirk is Heather Graham's "Rollergirl," a porn star that never takes off her roller skates. She doesn't get much in terms of good scenes, but the newcomer steals all that she gets.
Don Cheadle is another one of Horner's stars, Buck Swope. Buck works at a stereo store, and hopes to eventually open "Buck's Super Stereo World," a discount store where he explains the ins and outs of hi-fi equipment to his customers.
Also, as interesting as ever, is William H. Macy as "Little Bill." Macy is every directors favorite loser (see both "Forrest Gump" and "Fargo") and fills the bill here as well, as he watches his wife sleep with every guy she meets.
"Boogie Nights" isn't the best film I've seen lately, nor will it probably win very many Oscar nominations, but it is tremendously interesting. I can't remember the last two and a half hour film I sat through where I didn't once get bored (excepting, of course, "The English Patient").
Also notable is the lack of actual sex/nudity. "Boogie Nights" made industry waves for months as it worried about an NC-17 rating and reaching a mainstream audience. While it certainly isn't Disney, it's no "Crash."
There is enough material in "Boogie Nights" to keep a reviewer rambling on for hours. I'll try not to do exactly that, but I'm not quite done yet.
At times, Paul Thomas Anderson's style seems almost identical to that of Oliver Stone's most recent work (excepting the quirky, out-of- character, "U-Turn") - "Casino," and "Nixon." Both films were lengthy, detailed, docudrama-ish pictures, a moniker that fits "Boogie Nights" perfectly.
I'm not sure whether this speaks well of either Anderson or Stone, but the key to picking out the differences in the styles lies in the endings. I won't give away more than I have to, but both "Casino" and "Nixon" felt like long, spiraling descents into nothingness - a hole "Boogie Nights" easily could've fallen into.
Yet somehow, despite "Boogie Nights's" Stone-esque first two hours and fifteen minutes, it somehow rebounds to a cheerful Hollywood ending without the annoying Hollywood polish.
Regardless of how it compares to "Forrest Gump" or "Nixon," "Boogie Nights" is a tremendously interesting film in its own right, yet can claim little more. The somewhat wandering nature of the script detracts from the obvious wealth of material present in the subject.
The middle hour or so, after the plethora of fascinating characters have been paraded out, and before the film even approaches a conclusion, is where directors like Zemeckis and Stone can keep (or at least effectively try) an audience's interest, and where Anderson didn't perform up to expectations.
From a purely voyeuristic perspective, the entire film was a blast, but on second thought, the actual artistic merit of "Boogie Nights" isn't quite what the pre-release hype talked it up to be.
Undoubtedly, one of the supporting cast (the question of which one might pose the biggest problem - Reynolds, Cheadle, and Macy should all be contenders) will win an Oscar nomination, but don't look for Mark Wahlberg or Paul Thomas Anderson to live one through this film like Hanks in "Gump," Fiennes in "English Patient," or even Hopkins in "Nixon."
Grade: C+