Boogie Woogie (2009) User Reviews (21)

Entertaining and a great cast but too much going on

[floorpopcornblog · 6/10 · 24 April 2010]

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 boobs, 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 boobs.

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

Bright spots merging too quickly into grey

[Chris_Docker · 5/10 · 14 April 2010]

With its many stars and connections eminently qualified to speak about the art scene, I was well-primed to enjoy Boogie Woogie to the utmost.

It's based on a successful novel by author and screenwriter Danny Moynihan. The movie is a sexy black comedy set amid the hustle-bustle of fine art acquisition, dealers and galleries with concomitant affairs, in contemporary London. Characters slyly draw on real people. Critics and art experts have consequently been falling over themselves to show their knowledge of closely-linked actual persons and events. Whatever the disclaimer says.

Boogie Woogie has gone to great lengths for authenticity. Real masterpieces are cleverly interwoven with fictions. Even the title work is so closely allied to the real thing that it makes you wonder. (Boogie Woogie is the name of a series of prized paintings by Mondrain, and the central artwork in the film is an accurately fictionalised piece, only destroyed afterwards at the request of Mondrain's Estate).

Dealer and gallery owner, Art Spindle (Danny Huston), wants 'Boogie-Woogie.' A painting he covets above all else. Its current owner, Alfred Rhinegold (played by Christopher Lee), is desperately ill. Rhinegold's wife (Joanna Lumley) wants to up the ante by encouraging rival bidders. Especially Bob Maclestone, a collector incisively played by Stellan Skarsgard. The plot is further complicated by everyone jumping into bed with temptingly wrong people and for deliciously wrong reasons. The BBFC, after a spoiler alert, goes into not inconsiderable detail over the somewhat singular sexual content. So I won't. Fans of funky erotic subject matter have no fear: you shall find out for yourselves.

Boogie Woogie brims over with great actors. Nobody needs to be ashamed of performances here, with or without clothes. They are cast in great roles and throw themselves into performances in a way that belies their love of art and desire for the picture to succeed. And so if its reach is slightly greater than its grasp, I nevertheless feel a bit uncomfortable explaining why it doesn't put woogie back into my boogie.

Comedy, like abstract art, is to an extent subjective. But Boogie Woogie tilts at both windmills without embracing either. 'Ripping the lid off the art world,' is a great and noble concept. But the result here, for one reason or another, is uneven, woefully ill-judged, and a squandering of talent that borders on sacrilege. Gags aren't very funny, it doesn't arouse our passion for art, and most of the 'in' references are pointlessly unintelligible to anyone not already familiar with finer details of the respective power-brokers' sex lives.

Danny Moynihan has relocated the story of his novel from New York to London: this is where some of the problems arise. Lines sound inauthentic, unconvincing, as if desperately trying to persuade us that this is Real Cockney Art-World. Subtler tones of any backstory also seem damaged. Mondrian's last painting, for instance, 'Broadway Boogie Woogie,' represents the restless motion of Manhattan. Its grid-like patterns suggest New York's ordered chaos. It has a prominent yellow which is the yellow of New York taxicabs. And a metaphor to jazz in the title echoes the movement and rhythm that are seen as analogous to Mondrian's painted marks. There are even deeper studies about the art referred to, which relate to the nature of perception, but the film seems to have lost these at the word go. Any eponymous substance has long been abandoned before such thoughts could kick in.

We are, however, treated to a constant (and at times intrusive) jazz soundtrack. And much arty chat. All delivered at a speed guaranteed not to detract from the sight of Gemma Atkinson (or Gillian Anderson) treating us to glimpses of their more tangible assets. As both Moynihan and director Duncan Ward have been intimately involved with art, not to mention Damien Hirst being present as consultant, one might be forgiven for wanting a little more meat on this bone than provided by the purely, if you'll excuse me, pornographic aspects of such a pun.

Joanna Lumley reprises some of the flavour from her hit TV series, Absolutely Fabulous. The familiar clash of taste and gobbiness is in full flow. But whereas Ab Fab scored with visual gags and highly developed comic characters, Boogie Woogie's attempt to lampoon style-over-substance seems injudicious and hollow. Whereas Mondrian's actual work bristles with luminous colour, the film tries too hard to be bright and ends up lacklustre. In a word, inadequate to the task. Leading parts are not charismatic enough to command or sustain appeal for the full hour and a half, even with such great actors. Timing of jokes seems rehearsed rather than spontaneous. The overall effect is ironically artificial.

One of the best things about Boogie Woogie is that it might inspire you, as it inspired me, to read the original novel. The book is not everyone's cup of tea – but it is undoubtedly original, well-written, quite often shocking, and does everything the movie set out to do and doesn't.

Strangely, for a film I have to admit I didn't like very much, I am strongly drawn to watching it again. I want to imagine it as it could have been. Should have been. A film that makes us care about art. Laugh about the shenanigans. Feel shocked or excited by sex and drugs and jazz. And I desperately, desperately, want to see a note at the end-credits that reassures me: "No actors were harmed in the making of this train wreck." Boogie Woogie is an oddity. Not quite bad enough to be good, and not good enough to wholeheartedly recommendable. But, like a painting where the oils contained the wrong amount of linseed, the effort that has gone into its ill-fated brushstrokes is nevertheless sadly commendable.

My 351st Review: More Flaccid Acid Than Boogie Woogie

[intelearts · 4/10 · 2 December 2010]

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....

Dull ensemble piece or overly pretentious art flick?

[Mr_PCM · 3/10 · 24 March 2013]

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.

Dracula, Scully, and TWO rollergirls--who could ask for anything more?

[charlytully · 7/10 · 16 September 2011]

Featuring a de-fanged Christopher Lee (in one of his final roles) as a stubborn but dying owner of a Mondrian painting worth up to $30 million, and Mulder-less Gillian Anderson (whose files here are more likely to be triple than single "X"), along with the passing of the roller skates from infamous BOOGIE NIGHTS "roller girl" Heather Graham to on-screen skating newbie Amanda Seyfried, director Duncan Ward's ensemble flick BOOGIE WOOGIE has features bound to intrigue nearly everyone. Modern art credits for movie usage include Jake & Dinos Chapman, Gary Hume, Constantin Brancusi, Banksy, Gavin Turk, Danny Moynihan, Jessica Craig Martin, Faile, Sarah Lucas, Michael Landy, Robert Gordon McHaig III, Sam Taylor-Wood, and Jim Lambie--all curated by Damien Hirst. Worth the price of admission is the verbal deconstruction of a divorcing couple's collection, including pieces by Picasso, Smith, Kelly, Judd, Flavin, Brancusi, Warhol, Beuys, Hockney, Magritte, Struth, Giacometti, Lucas, Katz, Mapplethorpe, Bacon, Emin, Currin, Landy, Hirst, Rusche, Barney, Dogan, and "the Jew in the library," accomplished through inter-cut parallel scenes between the wife and her thrice-divorced confidante, counterpointed by the conversation between the husband and his divorce lawyer. Plus there's nude chicks.

Shame

[kimberley-swift · 2/10 · 9 October 2009]

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.

Boogie woogie, piggy wiggy

[sandover · 1 September 2010]

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.

Great cast but I couldn't care about any of them

[dbborroughs · 2/10 · 5 June 2010]

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.

Move along. No naked Gillian Anderson to see here.

[MBunge · 4/10 · 18 August 2011]

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.

Solid Effort

[Riveter · 8/10 · 7 November 2009]

If you enjoy watching bad people go down in flames, this film is for you. First-time director Duncan Ward shows a deft hand managing multiple story threads set against the malodorous intestinal cavity of the contemporary art world, while John Mathieson's photography, pleasing to the eye as always, works splendidly with the up-tempo jazz phrasings of composer Janusz Podrazik.

A sterling ensemble, led by Stellan Skarsgard, Gillian Anderson and Danny Huston, keeps us guessing and amused as lives and careers unravel. Special kudos to Jaime Winstone, who in the role of a fiercely ambitious performance artist looking to carve a name for herself, delivers the film's strongest performance. We are treated also to appearances by Christopher Lee, Joanna Lumley and Alan Cumming -- the film's most likable characters -- whose upright aims provide elegant counterpoint to the opposing riffraff inhabiting the story.

The film's only noticeable weak spot lies in the characters of Beth, played with limited effect by Heather Graham, and Joany, played by Meredith Ostrum, who seems to be impersonating a tree. Otherwise, a fine independent film. It will be interesting to see what Ward comes up with next.

Mildly Pornographic and Not Funny

[graham-ashby · 1/10 · 31 December 2011]

I couldn't finish this. I was expecting a comedy, but not a single titter.

The plot seems to involve getting a Mondrian from an older couple who need the money, but that seems to be it, apart from some rambling character development. But there's not much development, and not much of a plot.

But there is Sex. Lots of it. Crotch shots; innuendo; sex toys, lesbian action. However, given the calibre of actors involved, not quite what I had in mind.

So, a waste of time really. Wasted acting, and definitely no laughs.

high art world

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 27 June 2016]

Dealer Art Spindle (Danny Huston) is trying to talk the Rhinegolds (Christopher Lee, Joanna Lumley) into selling an art piece. Beth Freemantle (Heather Graham) is his assistant. Robert Freign (Simon McBurney) is the couple's butler. Couple Bob (Stellan Skarsgård) and Jean Maclestone (Gillian Anderson) are Art's competitors. Bob is sleeping with Beth. Jean wants artist Jo Richards (Jack Huston) who wants Art's new assistant Paige Oppenheimer (Amanda Seyfried). Elaine (Jaime Winstone) and Joany (Meredith Ostrom) are a lesbian couple and Dewey Dalamanatousis (Alan Cumming) is their manager.

The world of London high art is probably great for satire. It's a lot of characters doing selfish things for themselves. None of them are that compelling. It's hard to root for anybody. I don't care about any of them. Also it's not funny. That would have really helped. Danny Huston is probably the most compelling character for me.

An aimless collage of happenings in the art world

[Gordon-11 · 20 June 2013]

This film is about a group of buyers, dealers, workers and creators in the art world.

"Boogie Woogie" tells the story of the superficial and pretentious group of people in the art scene in London. The plot follows a dealer who tries to buy a painting, a manager who wants to open an art gallery, a video artist who films everything and a wealthy couple who does not bat an eyelid when paying millions for a painting. The numerous characters are somewhat connected, but they feel more like characters in distinct subplots that are not interrelated. With the exception of Alan Cumming, the characters are unlikable. I feel sorry for Alan Cumming's character as he is truly a victim of the art world, and the only character in the film that evokes sympathy from me.

The constant description of what I think is not art with the most flowery description gets on my nerves. The scene where Amanda Seyfried receives a specially prepared artwork from Stellan Skarsgard truly revolted me. Is that really art? Is that what people would describe as honest and brave, exposing the real life etc?

"Boogie Woogie" has a great ensemble cast, but unfortunately the plot is too loosely held together and lacks engagement. It looks more like an aimless collage of happenings in the art world.

Follows the wheeling and dealing in the upper echelons of the art world.

[suite92 · 7/10 · 4 February 2014]

There are several threads running through this film, rather like the more complicated Robert Altman films.

Art Spindle is the dealer who attempts to swindle every one he knows. He also likes to run his hands over younger people (man or woman) in the art world.

Jean and Bob Maclestone are in their prime, in some senses, but their marriage is falling apart. Bob is having an affair with Beth (Art's assistant), while Jean is dallying with the artist Jo Richards. Plus they disagree on just about every art decision. Jean drops her high heel while hiding with Jo in a men's rest room stall. Bob notices its exact shape and size, then kicks it back to her. Later she asks for a divorce, and is shocked when he agrees immediately.

The older couple, Alfred and Alfreda Rhinegold, own the art work 'Boogie Woogie' which so many people want in the film. Alfred has had it for 50 years; Alfreda recognises that they are broke and need the money.

Art fires Beth for moving toward starting her own business. Then Art gives Beth a party that Jean thinks is 'so moving.'

Jean leaves Bob and goes to Art's place, inadvertently interrupting a liaison. Speaking of breakups, Elaine decides to break her business relationship with Dewey. As her erstwhile agent, Dewey gave her a place to live and supported her art career. Beth offers Elaine a better deal, so Elaine decides to go with Beth who wants an exclusive (business) relationship. Paige visits Jo's studio, which we see doubles as his seduction pad, particularly his 'peripheral vision' project. Paige objects, "Aren't you with Beth?"

Art Spindler deals with Freign, who has Alfreda's ear, in an attempt to finesse Alfred's desire to keep the piece by Mondrian. Bob and his lawyer deal with splitting resources deal with splitting resources, while Jean and her lawyer Emille do roughly the same. That goes on for a bit too long, but seems reasonable given how much property the couple has. Well, had...the lawyers will soak up some of it. Emille gives Jean good advice, which is about the best relationship in the film. Bob attempts an end run around the process with the lawyers.

Will the Mondrian get sold? Will the divorce get settled in a half way reasonable fashion? Who will get clobbered in this demolition derby?

-----Scores------

Cinematography: 7/10 Often outstanding, but also sometimes wretched, mostly during the hand-held phases.

Sound: 10/10 Just fine.

Acting: 7/10 Stellen Skarsgard, Gillian Anderson, Christopher Lee, Danny Huston, Charlotte Rampling, and Joanna Lumley were marvelous. Unfortunately, Jamie Winstone, Simon McBruney, Gemma Atkinson, Amanda Seifried, and Jack Huston were in the cast. I usually enjoy Alan Cumming's work, but not this time, not by a long shot.

Screenplay: 6/10 The story was slow getting off the ground, and continued that way for too long. It picks up some speed after context is well set. I liked the ending, since it showed some story threads leading to crashes and others going on to more success.

Amazing cast, amazingly pretentious....

[FlashCallahan · 3/10 · 12 February 2013]

London's contemporary art world, everyone has a hustle.

Art Spindle runs a high-end gallery and he hopes to flip a painting for millions. One of his assistants, Beth, is sleeping with Art's most acquisitive client, Bob Macclestone.

Beth wants Bob to set her up in her own gallery, so she helps him go behind Art's back for the painting.

Bob's wife, Jean, sets her eye on a young conceptual artist, Jo, who lusts after Art's newest assistant, Paige.

Meanwhile, self-absorbed lesbian Filmmaker is chewing her way through friends and lovers looking to make it. If she dumps her agent, Beth may give her a show.....

The cast are great, and the film looks amazing, even though it took me ten minutes to realise the film wasn't set in the seventies, but all in all, it's just too busy, and it gets lost up its own backside.

The director must think that when you get such a beautiful cast, things like plot, narrative, and character study do not really matter, just throw in a couple of nude scenes and the public will be interested.

It seems that this must of been a pet project for him, and I guess he's some kind of 'luvvie' in theatre, but the man cannot direct.

It's full of people moaning about money and being good looking and wanting more and more, and then losing it all and shouting, and taking drugs and alcohol.

If I want that, I can just go into the city on a Saturday night.

Awful and pretentious, but Winstone is fantastic.

"A Painting is Worth a Million Strokes"

[Kamurai25 · 4/10 · 30 September 2020]

Bad watch, probably won't watch again, and can't recommend.

There are so many good actors in this movie, and I watched it specifically because it was a movie with Amanda Seyfried about which I hadn't heard. I understand that it had a point (sort of), but it did feel like there was somewhat unnecessary fan service with her and Heather Graham, and they are unfortunate highlights of the movie.

This is all about the "art world", which means it's not about art, the quality / value of at all: it's all about capitalism, so it becomes an business / politics movie. It's all about these people we don't know or care about diddling each other and trying to out extort each other.

It would be more interesting if it was a nature documentary.

Watching rich people shuffle money about for no reason just isn't interesting to me.

And if I never hear Danny Huston laugh like that again, then my life will be better.

Hideous - the total doesn't equal the sum of the parts

[duggies70 · 3/10 · 1 September 2022]

I'm guessing keeping each of the scenes so short is to keep the character development to a minimum. So what we're left with is just a very shallow group of "artists." I think the most contemptible of the characters is Elaine (Jaime Winstone) who seems to gain some gratification from taking video of people she pretends to care for when they are in pain. A threat from a "friend" to commit suicide is treated like so much dirt laundry. But then all the characters are petty. The only character you are left to feel compassion for are Alfred Rhinegold (Christopher Lee) and Paige Oppenheimer (Amanda Seyfried)

I am not an art lover or a foodie, the fascination with either confounds. I'd much rather see a real flower than a painting of one. I do hope this does not accurately represent those in the art world.

The actors do a decent job. But Gillian Anderson's accent is awful and not believable. I wouldn't recommend this unless you've nothing better to do.

Boogie Woogie-Great Cast, Great Film

[carolineannestubbs · 8/10 · 20 October 2009]

Boogie Woogie is a refreshing look at a subject which has hereto been dealt with in a clichéd and stilted way. Being involved in the art world myself this is the most accurate rendering of it I have ever seen.

Danny Huston is brilliant at the slippery but charming art dealer Art Spindle who delicately spins his collectors into buying and selling works or art.

Christopher Lee is the cantankerous old man who refuses to sell his Boogie Woogie Mondrian while his wife Joana Lumley tries desperately to make him see sense.

Gillian Anderson is particularly fabulous as the spoilt collectors wife who is having an affair with Jack Huston. Jamie Winston is an ambitious lesbian artist who is determined to make it at any cost including seducing Heather Graham to have a show in her gallery.

Amanda Seyfried climbs the greasy pole of the art world in spectacular fashion. There is a particularly funny scene between Gillian Anderson and Charlotte Rampling inter cut with Stellan Skarsgard and his lawyer carving up the assets for their divorce.

The film reminded me of Altman with many stories interwoven around a central theme. The script is both horrific and funny. How art is manufactured, exhibited, dealt with and abused as well as worshiped could not be more on the money.

It is worth mentioning the art in the film which has been chosen by Damien Hirst. There are paintings by among others John Currin, Paul Fryer and Michael Craig Martin. This is a must for any art student wanting to know about how the art world works.

See it for the babes....

[kbarnhart-48446 · 5/10 · 19 July 2018]

In what has to be one of the more stranger/esoteric cast-ensembles, this film never really finds itself. Is it a dark dromedy', a spoof on the art world, is the film deliberately pretentious and self aware to mirror the self-importance of the modern art world, or just poking fun at the clueless rich? I can't figure it out, thats the directors fault. Gillian Anderson, one of Hollyweird's hottest lesbians, who only seems to only get prettier as she ages, as the lead, sucks the life out of every scene, poor lassie can't act. She needs to stick to pensive brooding and muted soft-spoken pouting, with the posed slow-motion blinking. Otherwise the cast is very talented, all with discrete character development: none of them very redeeming or likable. Most unusual, is the setting which takes place in London, yet feels like its in lower Manhattan, half of the cast is American; I thought Madonna was the only wealthy American to transplant despite the indigenous draconian tax-rate. Most everyone is a self-assumed art critic or "genius" and nearly all of them are perverted in one way or another. Again, see it for the babes, especially the Amanda Seyfried up-skirt scenes.

If you know anything about the art world, this is the film for you

[nickdoff · 9/10 · 12 October 2015]

There are a lot of in-jokes and the script is quite dense so for me really benefited a lot by a second viewing.

This film is definitely "Marmite"> You will notice pretty well all of the prior reviews are either highly praising, or castigating. Personally I feel the film has flaws, but the more you see it the funnier and better it gets - not many films stand up so well to repeated viewings.

Duncan Ward is one of the wittiest directors. He comes from the art world being both initially a video artist, art collector, whilst also honing his directorial skills in the lucrative world of commercials. He married Mollie Dent-Brocklehurst, the gallery professional / owner who had links to the world famous Gagosian Gallery, Abramovich and many other colourful characters and respected (and not by some) galleries and people. So there was no one with a better view of the art world to have made and written the Screenplay than Ward!

Just Great Fun!!

[chesebritches · 10/10 · 19 October 2009]

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.