Boogie Woogie

Any film about the modern art world should be cynical, boorish, ironic, sarcastic and angry - and Boogie Woogie does this. It is irreverent and aims to show the shallowness and the intrigue; but fails. What we get is kind of a mix of different threads, it's hard just to see why she's sleeping with him, who is sleeping with her and she's sleeping with her (too) etc; we get video installations and linear stories at the same time, and it's meant to be about voyeurism etc; but with a great cast, it just fails to push to the ridiculous and aims instead to be a film about relationships, all of them ugly and meaningless. The women come off far better than the men here, and Joanna Lumley in particular, otherwise there's just no gravitas here whatsoever, which may be the point, but it makes for very shallow viewing. All in all, just unenjoyable, only occasionally is the humor really on spot and truly spiteful, mostly it's just ranting or something.... If art and relationships are your number one thing you might enjoy this - we couldn't find either here....

This is a good criticism of the whole art world. It is fine, but unfortunately does not end in triumph. Much of it rings true and the pretentiousness is astounding. A couple of women have fine legs and superb bodies. I would put the feminine beauty in this film next to Helter Skelter, Air Doll and Paradise Kiss. You can enjoy the story or distract your wife/girlfriend and enjoy the incredible legs on these women.

It is a film with good characters and actors like Christopher Lee. It has several pretty girls and a couple of them show us their wares and are quite natural. It mocks the pretentious art world. These are all good things, but the morality does not quite gel.

The only reason I rented Boogie Woogie is the DVD box had on it the words "Gillian Anderson" and "Strong Sexual Content". However, the fact that Agent Scully did not get naked is the least disappointing thing about this film. This movie doesn't work as a comedy. It doesn't work as a drama. It doesn't work as a dramedy or a comada or any other genre or style that you could possibly imagine. Perhaps it all makes sense if you're an aficionado of the London art scene where this story is set, but for everyone else it's like looking at a wall of Egyptian hieroglyphics. You know it's supposed to mean something but you have no idea what it is and you quickly get tired of staring at it. Like Love Actually..., this is a tale about a large cast of characters whose lives intersect. Unlike Love Actually, this one is neither funny nor touching nor remotely evocative of any other human emotion. Art Spindle (Danny Huston) is a big time art dealer and gallery owner who's been laughing a fake laugh his entire life and no longer knows how to not do it. Jean and Bob Macelstone (Gillian Anderson and Stellan Skarsgard) are a wealthy, art loving couple who live in a home that looks like the secret hideout of a Batman villain. Beth Freemantle (Heather Graham) is Art's assistant who's also working behind his back to launch her own gallery with Bob's help. Joe (Jack Huston) is a young artist who is banging Beth and quickly becomes the boy toy of Jean. Continuing on, Dewey (Alan Cumming) is a hanger on in the art world who walks Jean and Bob's dogs and ineffectually manages the career of Elaine (Jaime Winstone), an edgy video artist who turns everything she points her camera at into part of her work. There's also Alfred Rhinegold (Christopher Lee), a sick old man who owns a legendary painting that Art lusts after, and Alfred's wife and butler (Joanna Lumley and Simon McBurney), who are pressuring him to sell it. Paige Prideaux (Amanda Seyfried) is a young girl who falls down and has a parasitic twin living inside her. Oh, and the entire cast of the 70s TV show "The White Shadow" also show up and play a charity basketball game. Yeah, I'm kidding about that but sweetness and light! There are far too many people in this lackluster motion picture. I'm not going to go into any more of the plot because, honest to goodness, I don't understand it. I could follow along but I could never figure out what was supposed to be funny and what was intended to be serious and when it was being satirical and when it was trying to be earnest. Watching Boogie Woogie is like listening to a stranger tell you about the funny thing that happened one time at his place of work and you don't know any of the people involved in the story or what's funny about it. There's a point where it is revealed that a character is gay and the reaction to that revelation clearly indicates that it's supposed to be a big deal…but I don't have slight slightest clue why that character being gay would be a big deal and whether I was meant to be surprised, shocked or amused by it. Now there is some nudity here, though none of it involves Gillian Anderson, and there's more than enough talented and capable actors doing their level best with this script. The movie is also reasonably well directed and effectively paced. The only problem with Boogie Woogie is it's incomprehensible. If you spent a summer interning at a London art gallery, you might be able to might sense of this thing. I could have watched it in reverse and it wouldn't have made much difference. Oh, and if you do want to see Gillian Anderson get naked, go rent a film called Closure. She looks good and the movie's not that bad.

Gillian Anderson gives a luminous performance. The only time I laughed out loud in the movie is when she tries to pronounce "I want a divorce." Terrific. Apart from that the film, although it tries to give us the sarcastic delight of lecherous emphasis on lecherous subjects, does not succeed in juggling its elements, it rather passes form one stance to the other and does not wind up its end quite well. There are worthy passages, from listening to Cristopher Lee playing with accent, to Rampling's trivializing "I'm famished!" just to give two minute examples, but it seems the film draws its moral from the art it exemplifies. The moment poor Paige (Sayfried) discovers the black surprise of her heart transplanted in one of Hirst's formaldehyde cubes and bursts in tears, we do not so much nod our heads in agreement as recognize the grisly limitations of such artistic nihilism (by that I also mean the gross gesture of offering such a thing). That there is an ersatz classic cautionary tone in the film it makes it seem more of a construct, where it should benefit from a more carefree tone like in that scene of sweeping irony in "The Big Lebowski" where Marianne Moore - was casting Anderson inspired by this, by their somewhat similar looks? - attacks the canvas flying. And please restrict those jazzy soundtracks that signal pop englishness. They are as overused as Alan Cumming's mannerisms. All they can do is give the film a more dour look, and not an intimate look on dour matters.

A comment on the pretentious and wealthy but ruthless world of art and art dealers, where it is difficult to tell if it is taking itself seriously or not. The plot is not just one paper-thin story, but in fact seems to be several strands that randomly inter-connect with each other, all loosely revolving around the painting from which the film gets its name. Numerous characters seem to want to purchase the painting, while the owner refuses to sell, even to ward off financial ruin, as he clings to his 'most prized possession'. What follows is the ensemble bickering over numerous pieces of art in several plot lines, but the attempt at a multi-character multi-strand plot a la Magnolia only comes across as a pale imitation - or art merely imitating life! The characters all have different roles in the high-end art world of London, with dealers, artists and gallery owners all vying with each other, backstabbing each other - and sleeping with each other -to demonstrate their various arty credentials. Unfortunately, with nearly all of them having more money than they know what to do with other than spend it on the latest ridiculously over-priced 'masterpiece', very few of them appear to have any redeeming features, leaving barely a single character for the audience to actually like. Quite the ensemble cast lends the piece considerable artistic weight - including Gillian Anderson, Stellan Skarsgard, Heather Graham, Joanna Lumley, Danny Huston, Alan Cumming, Charlotte Rampling and the venerable Christopher Lee, who all serve to highlight the film's seemingly lofty art house ambitions. Most of the cast do their jobs adequately but without really standing out from the cluttered cast list, although Danny Huston's attempt at scenery-chewing and film-stealing is little more than grating, with the pseudo-evil chuckles and 'god-damn its!' only missing a scene chewing on a stogie and bacon sandwich to make his performance any more hammy. The plot (such as it is) manages to be both dully pretentious and simultaneously ludicrous; even the title itself adds to the film's uncertain nature - is it a serious comment or a satire? It's rather difficult to tell, and with very little in the way of narrative thrust, the film just meanders seemingly aimlessly along. The numerous plot strands are occasionally difficult to keep track of, It's a good job most of the cast are quite pretty - better works of art than the paintings and statues that they squabble over. Overall, rather a load of pretentious, self-important twaddle.

Well Cast, well acted, atrociously written look at the art scene....then again my experiences talking with people in galleries makes me feel that maybe they have the dialog right and the people are this vapid, self serving and in need of slapping. The dialog is just awful and the characters are largely monstrous twits and I couldn't stand them. I lasted about a half an hour before I turned the film off and went to bed last night (Thank you IFC in Theaters). The cast which has Stellan Skarsgard, Christopher Lee, Johanna Lumley, Heather Graham, Alan Cumming, Danny Huston, Amanda Seyfried and others is spot on. The trouble is everything they say and do seems false and pretentious (its as if its reaching for a point just off screen), which is owing to some art people I've talked to probably one target The question I had was why was I watching these people when I wouldn't take the time to spit on the characters on the worst of days? I couldn't answer that so I turned off the movie.

First of all, I have never read the book; this review is based purely on a number of viewings of the film. Reasons to like this film: 1. Simon McBurney (Robert Freign). The only character worth caring about, mainly because he does not have a lot to say. Reasons to dislike it (or at least, reasons I was disappointed): 1. The characters, apart from covering a good range of stereotypes, are insufferably pretentious, irritating and unsympathetic (in particular the characters of Beth, Art and Jo). From start to finish I could not bring myself to care what happened to them. Everyone is gay or lesbian, everyone is sleeping with at least two different people at any one time, and everyone is either a rich art dealer/buyer or a struggling "artist". It gets boring very quickly. 2. The script reads like a check-list of clichés. Lines and situations are casually thrown in without, it seems, even an attempt at originality. An example is a scene that takes place in a posh restaurant. Two of the richer characters are served by a "foreign" (read Eastern European) waitress who does not understand, conveniently setting it up for the lines: "What is that? Hungarian?" -- "Polish, I think". The entire screenplay feels forced, contrived and timeworn. The storyline, while it appears to be making a clear point - to wit, "the art world" is shallow and requires a hard heart to handle it - does little more than go around in circles repeating the same message in an all too obvious way. 3. It seems as though the creators were unsure about whether to make the film in a documentary style or otherwise, and got stuck somewhere in the middle. Therefore the film feels disjointed, as if whole chunks of action and repetitive dialogue were filmed and then thrown together in a random order. All in all it is disappointing, because one look at the cast for this film - while the subject matter might have been interesting and dramatic if better handled - and you would be forgiven for assuming that Boogie Woogie ought to be better. Unfortunately, a choice cast is completely wasted.

I'll admit that it didn't take much persuasion for me to go and see Boogie Woogie, but even though I admit part of me went to see *, I also went for the all-star cast and interesting and unique concept. It's a film with a Hollywood cast set in present day London with a focus on the art scene of the city; exploring people like artists and collectors. It's a refreshingly unique and modern set-up for a film and it works. The story itself focuses on a painting called the Boogie Woogie by an artist named Mondrian. It's currently in the ownership of Alfred Rhinegold (Christopher Lee) and his wife Alfreda (Joanna Lumley). Their fortune is declining and so Alfreda decides to put the painting up for sale. Among those interested are aggressive gallery owner and ambi-sexual Art Spindle (Danny Huston) and the deep-pocketed collector Bob Maclestone (Stellan Skarsgard). Bob is married to Jean (Gillian Anderson) who he frequently cheats on with his secretaries and assistants. Beth Freemantle (Heather Graham) works for Spindle but manages to get away thanks to her intimate relationship with Bob. Then there's gallery girl Paige (Amanda Seyfried), whose financier dad bagged a fortune and helped launch his daughter before being caught and imprisoned for unspecified fraud. Also inhabiting the decadent art world of the film is emerging young painter Jo (Jack Huston), who snorts coke and beds the horny older wives of extravagant collectors. The final character of note is Elaine (Jamie Winstone). Elaine is a lesbian art student with a fondness for cocaine and Heather Graham's *. As you can tell, it's a massive cast of extremely colourful characters full of drugs and sex. All the actors do a terrific job thanks to their sharp acting and also the witty dialogue provided by the interesting script. The problem with having such a huge cast is that it's a bit hard to keep track of things. The main plot strand seems to be Lumley's character trying to sell the painting, but then all the other characters seem to have their own stories as well which need to be fitted in. As great as the characters are, there simply isn't enough time to develop them enough to make some of them worthwhile. Some of the sex also seems a bit forced, the lesbian subplot with heather Graham and Jamie Winstone is hot and all but is it really needed (my heart says yes, my brain says no)? The director Duncan Ward is clearly at home though as some research led me to discover that he has history in the art world. He manages to make it very compelling and keeps the slightly bewildering but also interesting plot enjoyable. He is most definitely in his element and it shows; the film looks great. Boogie Woogie is a very entertaining film. The concept is unique, the cast is excellent, the script and dialogue are very amusing and it looks great. The director also puts in a fine shift. Unfortunately, there's just too much going on; it's a brave and daring effort to release a film so different and props to the cast for signing up to it. If you can keep your head around all the plot strands then the great performances and script will keep you entertained. 3/5

How can you dislike this piece of cinema, I have recently become quite depressed with British Cinema, I have sat through hours and hours of mediocre films portraying how rubbish life in England is. ( that have some how received critical acclaim, Because some middle aged gout ridden man, who lives at home with his mother and twelve cats decides life really is rubbish and we should only watch films that say just that.) Furthermore if I have to watch another film set on a council estate or any other "Grey lens" rubbish I am ether going to kill myself or move. But too my surprise when I went to see "Boogie Woogie" it was as though the clouds had parted and I was met with a burst of colour, a witty script and for once a story and theme that inspires me. Enabling me to leave the cinema with a smile and a springing my step, wanting to live in the art world. To be brief This Film has some features that make it a great film. * A great cast with some great standout performances, but in all a great ensemble performance. * Beautifully lit and shot - The DP John Mathieson who did "Gladiator" * A story that mixes Art, Sex and Money * Some incredibly sad moment then instantly followed with some brilliant jokes and one liners. * so all in all a Fun and fast paced up tempo film. That makes going to see British cinema at long last a joy again.