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....

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.

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.

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.

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.