SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

MaverScare I have to admit I wasn't going to watch this film thinking it was another "Skinemax" softcore film (which I needed like I need a hole in the head) but after reading the storyline I decided to at least see what it was about. I'm glad I did. I am somewhat into film-making also (not porn) so anything about indie film-making grabs my attention. I think if this film had been filled with nudity or exploitative (as it could've been) it would've lost me and I bet many others as viewers. (As one-sided as it was I liked "Breast Men" but I thought the naked breast between scene were simply there to sale an unneeded skin factor). This was a real story. If you like this you may like another film like it called "Diary of a Sex Addict". While not as good as this it really manages to keep you on the edge of your seat considering what happens to the main actor. Also it's shot in video which was great for the narrative although it tried to be a bit exploitive but managed to not really go there.I know people who have been addicted to porn so watching this film (both of them actually) really spoke to me. Another funny thing is when enough people know you own a video camera, someone will always eventually ask you would be willing to make a porn film. Porn is a very powerful drug. I love the way DeGood looked at the camera when it came in the mail and the scene between DeGood and the lawyer. She really takes him to task about it, but the way the scene ended was great too because she didn't hate him she just thought what he was doing was really sleazy and broke it down to him. I also loved his reaction which was somewhat of shame but this was something he really wanted to do. Very well directed. Another thing was watching him get his girls for the films. I had a laugh about it somewhat considering this is almost similar to how indie directors of non-porn films try to get actors. The most quiet of us can become Mr. Marketer when it comes to getting talent for a project. It's a great film and considering all the crap I've seen it's memorable.

generic230 After seeing this I was impressed by so many things, but it felt so After School Special, and here's why: The writing is really good, and the writer Doug Atchison did a wonderful job of getting some amazing performances out of his actors, but the whole damn thing is lit like a sitcom. There is absolutely no MOOD, or AMBIENCE or TONE. Like in Boogie Nights. The shots are all really flat, and lit like a sunporch. The camera wasbasically locked down and aimed at the scene. That is a real shame, because this movie could have been even better. Doug, you;re an amazing writer, but PLEASE, let someone else direct it next time. You need someone who has a visual style. Like Alan Ball had Sam Mendes on American Beauty. The writing was stellar, but the director put it together visually. I hope you make more films, you did an excellent job.

fahqueue The Pornographer is a pleasantly surprising movie. Contrary to its name, it is not a pornographic film, nor even a chincy hard R. Rather it is an insightful movie about a man who toys with the idea of making adult films.This movie helps communicate more about the too little (seriously) explored male experience, just like Swingers did. Consequently, I disagree with some of the other posters' evaluations of the main character's lack of social ability.With regards to sexually attracting women, young males often experience forms of frustration, humiliation, and insatiable, unfilled longing--unbeknownst and probably incomprehensible to most women who grew up with the privilege of being able to attract decent, fairly attractive members of the opposite sex with comparatively little effort and (little more than passive) risk of rejection. I know that the indignation and sense of injustice that I felt over how unbalanced the distribution of sexual power is scarred me for life. I am certain that it has had a significant (though publicly unacknowledged) negative effect on most men's psyches, even if the men were unable to identify it or verbalize it.If you think that the main character is socially inadept, then you have missed an important part of the movie's context. The protagonist, Paul Ryan, is a typical twentysomething who lacks Don Juan's confidence and charm, an MBA, MD, Harvard Law degree, or high paying computer science job. Most young males have difficulty sexually attracting decent women with regularity. The protagonists' experiences at asking women out for a date were very ordinary and sadly all too commonplace.If he truly lacked social skills he would have had difficulty fitting in at a high-powered law firm and his character would not have seemed as endearing to us. He did not seem to have difficulty talking to women; he just did not have the desire to expend large amounts of effort attracting them.In the film he explained that he was satisfied with prostitutes, but as his character develops he comes to realize that he desires an actual romantic relationship and not just sex. The real tragedy of this movie is that his past experiences and propensities kept him from seeing the forest for the trees. He could have had a real relationship with Kate, and I think he wanted to, but he was so fixated with breaking into the world of pornographic film that he turned her into a business opportunity. I get the feeling that, as a result of his previous frustrations, he was almost unable to conceive of the possibility of his having a relationship with her, which is real sad.The film raises an interesting question. Why didn't he enter into a romantic relationship with Kate instead of trying to push her into the world of pornographic film? Had he completely given up on women? Was he just determined to succeed as a pornographic filmmaker at any cost-even the heavy cost of foregoing a real relationship? Or was he unable to conceive of it?The movie raises another interesting question that the filmmaker may not have intended to raise. Do men perceive a significant difference between (1) paying women for sex, which seems like a straightforward and honest undertaking and (2) asking, begging, bending over backwards to please women in the hopes that they will one day agree to go to bed with them, risking rejection and spending the same money (while investing much more time) wining and dining them? Is it possible that, for some frustrated men like the protagonist, he may have found more satisfaction and less degradation with prostitution?This movie was good for the aforementioned reasons. However, in light of these questions, I wonder what the movie would have been like with a talented, serious scriptwriter who could further explore and develop those issues while maintaining the film's same overall tone and feel. It really does show just how far a good idea and content can take a film-the director produced a much better film than most of the big budget junk.The Pornographer and Swingers are the only two movies I know of that seriously explore the male experience from a point of view that is at least peripherally sympathetic to males.

Jelly-4 Doug Atchinson deserves much more notice than indie filmmakers like Kevin Smith, Ed Burns, and Tarantino. Here he has created a film with great casting, acting, dialogue, plot, and pacing.What really makes this film gripping is DeGood's incredibly believable portrayal of a lonely, awkward, yet likeable young man.