Magnolia

Magnolia_360P

source: Magnolia

This is no BOOGIE NIGHTS. This is what happens when one of these young hot-shot writer-directors get too much power too soon. A three hour yawn-fest, this film drones on and on with nowhere to go and nothing relevant to say about anything. It's an exercise in super-arsty filmmaking with no reason to watch other than to observe the director's almost ridiculous level of self-indulgence. The script is just plain weak. It follows five or six characters that sort-of interconnect with one another. But it's hard to put any stake in these characters and situations. The dialogue is like meaningless poetry, where the characters talk at length about love, life and blah-blah-blah. What's the point? One of the stories, featuring William H. Macy as a former game show child-star facing a midlife crisis, is an absolute waste of time. It could be cut entirely and nothing else in the movie would be affected. Shouldn't that tell you something? The rest of the stories you could find on any average prime-time TV drama. The fact that they're well acted and directed with some sense of flair helps, but doesn't serve to rescue the film from tedium. You know it's a bad film when it could end at any time after the ninety-minute mark and it wouldn't be a jolt to the audience. The thing goes on for three hours, but if you leave at the second hour, you won't miss anything too important. There is no proper denouement in any of the stories aside for the TV game show host (Phillip Baker Hall) subplot. It's obvious that Anderson had no predetermined outcome for this thing. By the time the third act rolls around, and there's no ending in sight, Anderson attempts two audacious narrative tricks to act as half-baked resolutions. The first is a song, which each character, at their own crisis point, sings along with. It's hard to describe. It's as if the entire film was a super-long prologue to a Tori Amos video or something. It's a bit embarrassing. The second trick is probably the only redeeming thing in the movie and since most of you will go see this mess anyway based on the strength of BOOGIE NIGHTS, I won't reveal it. It's quite imaginative and original, but worth the three-hour set-up? Hell no. Why can't these guys make a movie with some high stakes and a few compelling situations and characters? Is that not "cool" anymore?

A rich slice of modern life presented wonderfully by Paul Thomas Anderson. Nine or so "broken" people are followed through the film, each of them at least vaguely interconnected to the others. We are shown where they are currently at in life, and find out what has happened to have brought them there. By the end of the film, they are finally at a point where they can confront what is making them so unhappy and perhaps take control of their lives and look forward to a brighter future (even if their time is limited). Some people have complained about the ending of the film, perhaps hoping for everything to be neatly tied up, or at least for something less absurd than we get. In my opinion, however, it is perfectly apt for things to end as they do. We dip into these characters' lives in the present, learn about their past, and leave with optimism for their future. I would have found a cinematic "group hug" to be overly sentimental and highly unnecessary. For that alone, the director must be applauded for exercising some restraint. It would have been far too easy to extend the story a bit further and portray the characters as now being "mended", but this is not how real life is and would not have rung true with the film's overall tone of "this is just something that happens". The sheer ambition of the director is also welcomed. It looks like pre-millennial tension sparked off a mini-renaissance in Hollywood, with this film and others such as "Fight Club" and "American Beauty" harking back to the period in the 70s when there was no distinction between "mainstream" and "arthouse". A-list actors and directors were not afraid to take a few risks and box-office gross was not the only factor used to denote a film's success or failure. It remains to be seen whether the current revival is just a blip. Let's hope not. As for Mr. Cruise, although this may be his best performance to date, at times he looked a bit out of his depth. At the bedside scene, for example, the clenched fist, intense gaze and facial grimace instantly shattered my suspension of disbelief. This trademark Cruise gesture (as much so as Bruce Willis' smirk) crossed the line between character and actor, turning "Frank TJ Mackey" back into "Tom Cruise - Movie Star". For most of the film his performance was convincing, but when the role required some real emotion or loss of control, his limited acting range was exposed. I don't think he'll ever be able to achieve the credibility he'd like, but a good start would be to take on more such challenging roles, with the proviso that they are not obvious vanity projects or oscar-vehicles. To sum up, I found this film warm and sincere, not pretentious as some have suggested. As for the frogs? Well, don't strain yourself looking for some deep, hidden metaphor, just take it at face value and enjoy the pure spectacle that you get from the sheer number and size of the frogs. It's a visually stunning sequence, up there with other truly classic moments in cinema. From reading some of the comments presented here, it seems a shame that many people can't get past the swearing, drugs, running time or "arthouse cinema" tag. To really enjoy this film, you probably need to watch it without any such prejudices, and to leave your cynicism at the door. Don't be afraid of not "getting it", take it as you find it. Just sit back, let it envelop you and you'll be rewarded.

Seldom has a movie been this highly praised been such a pointless bore.3 hours plus to build up to precious little.yes the acting is good but the film goes nowhere very very slowly.if this is so great why did it fail.in my opinion just like Fight club people a few thousand enjoyed it while the more entertainment driven mainstream audience chose wisely to avoid this.i made the terrible mistake of buying this on dvd i soon traded it in.

A film such as Magnolia does not come around often enough. Though I felt that Boogie Nights attempted the same effect: exposing the base, unrelenting, human desires of Angelinos, it failed in several ways. Magnolia does not. Mr. Anderson sets out to show the underbelly of Americana, much like Mr. Mendes has done spectacularly with American Beauty. At the end of the century, these two films stand as landmarks in the evolution of the American. What we pursue in name only, piety, commonness with our fellow man, family, fame, fortune, and peace of mind, come crashing together in Magnolia, in an apex of misfortune, misunderstanding, forgiveness and renewal. These two films should scare the living daylights out of Americans, especially those living in Los Angeles. The stories show us that merely giving lip service to morals, self-improvement and camaraderie is not enough, we can fake it for only so long, before life overtakes us in a deluge of happenstance and retribution. Mr. Anderson is a wonderful storyteller, and Magnolia is the most visually and aurally satisfying film in years. Ms. Mann's music and the ensemble acting are symphonic. This movie is as tightly composed as any work in cinema one can remember. Obviously, I highly recommend it.

A dazzling epic of coincidence and fate during one day in the San Fernando Valley. This opens with a short story about some "true-life" examples of coincidence designed to show us that these things can't "just happen" and that there must be more to it than that. It then flies into the lives of a handful of different characters in a exhilarating introduction to a game show host, a sex guru, a police officer, a dying father, a male nurse, a drug addict to name a few. After this the speed slows down slightly and the characters are given time to develop and the stories begin to interlink. Paul Thomas Anderson continues to get better and better with Hard Eight, Boogie Nights and now this. Here he gives a human touch to the director where someone like Altman would have been colder and more clinical. He seems to care about these characters and encourages us to do likewise. The direction is astonishing - it moves at a fast pace when it needs to, it is still and watching when appropriate and, at times, it is downright beautiful in a visionary way. Anderson's tries some audacious tricks and manages to pull them off - a scan round all the main characters singing an Aimee Mann track while they contemplate what's become of their lives is not only daring but works as one of the most moving moments in the film. The acting is flawless - Cruise deserved the Oscar for this performance, but he is only one of an amazing range of actors including Julianne Moore, William H. Macy, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, John C. Reilly, Jason Robards, Philip Baker Hall etc. They are all excellent in their roles and make you care for all their characters - no matter how terrible they seem or how bad their crimes. Direction is faultless, performances border on the brilliant, the script is totally convincing and moving. The only weak link is the biblical ending which may annoy some but I think fits in well with the tone of the film, after all, like the film says, "but it did happen". If only all films could meet the standards achieved by this beautiful piece of work.

The dialogue: Repetitive, cliché, full of cursing and is in no way original. The characters: Are either hysterical for no reason, dying, or just plain down trodden fools with no sensibility in their lives and were really not relatable. The script: Completely lacks suspension of disbelief. Seems like it could have been written by an amateur in high school who does not know how to make the story believable. A real disappointment from Paul "Boogie Nights" [10/10] Anderson. 1. There is NO WAY a real game show would have ever played out like that on television. 2. There is NO WAY a 10-year-old could escape a television studio and then bust the library window as deft as a professional burglar. 3. There is NO WAY a cop would ever ask out woman who acts like a TOTAL drug addict every minute she is on the screen, no matter how pretty she is, even if he is sensitive to swear words. 3. There is no way a wife would use "You should know better!" as her best scolding to her husband that has just confessed that he may or may not have molested their now grown daughter. 4. Donny was a pathetic, juvenile-minded dummy who "Doesn't know where to put his love." He thinks braces with attract his guy crush. This is a grown man! Even then, there isn't the smallest semblance of a relationship with him and Brad the bartender. They don't even speak to each other! He doesn't know how he's going to pay for the braces, yet his appointment is the next day. 5. Even the nurse was a total fool in letting the pills spill on the floor and telling the dog "Not to eat it." And at the end no closure is made. Terrible film.

I saw Boogie Nights before Magnolia, so I was obviously excited about this film. Three hours later, I found that my excitement had turned to boredom. This film's major flaw is the characters. None of them are 3-dimensional and we really have no reason to care for any of them. They simply exist to go through random occurrences for the sake of randomness. None of them are given anything exciting to do, and none of them are nearly as developed as they should be. In fact, some of the characters don't even serve a purpose in the film at all! Julianne Moore's character is the prime suspect of that crime. She's addicted to drugs, cries over her dying husband, and tries to kill herself. And somehow, we're supposed to feel sorry for her. Guess what? Doesn't work. We are given no REASON to feel sorry for her. We are never given any reason to feel sorry for ANOBODY in this movie. They are simply there. They do things and that is it. Seriously, why the hell am I supposed to give a damn if some know-it-all brat pisses his pants? The beginning of this film showed promise. In an over-long opening sequence, three urban legends are examined for their mysterious coincidences. But sadly, there is nothing even remotely as bizarre or exciting in the actual movie. People meet other people and that's the extent of it. Speaking of people, let's take a look at some of the characters: There's some kid who pisses his pants, a dying old man and his overly emotional male nurse, the old man's wife who does nothing, a cop (the most interesting character, mostly because of John C. Reilly), a drug addict (not the old man's wife, a different drug addict), the guy played poorly by Tom Cruise (unsure of his official title), a gay man who wants to get braces to impress a bartender (what?!), and many more. Instead of actually having any reason to care about these character's unhappy lives, we are TOLD to care. Doesn't work. Cinematically speaking, this film is actually well-directed, edited, the cinematography is great, but the music is over-used. The film could also be shortened by about a half hour by simply not following around unimportant character from place to place before they vanish and are never to be seen or heard from again. What a total waste. If you actually believe that this film is original at all, just watch Short Cuts and you'll see the truth. Magnolia is a rip-off. A bad one where everyone has to cry every 5 minutes and sing together at the end before something totally outrageous happens for no reason at all and with no explanation. And speaking of Exodus 8:2, you will notice a lot of 8's and 2's in the film. Thing is, it's too overt. It's pretentious because Anderson is showing people how clever he is instead of actually being clever and letting people see it on their own. I'll even give an example of this whole "cleevrness with numbers" deal with THE SHINING: Danny wears a jersey with number 42 Danny and his mom watch the movie Summer of 42 Half of 42 is 21 There are 21 pictures on the Gold Room wall The July 4th Ball was in 1921 The mirror image of 21 is 12 (mirrors play a key role in The Shining) The two times shown via screen titles are 8 PM and 4 PM (8+4=12) The radio call sign for the Overlook Hotel is KDK 12 Anderson has a lot to learn.

The first encounter that I ever had with Paul Thomas Anderson was through "Boogie Nights." I admit, I first saw it because of I heard that it was about the * industry. However, I was surprised to discover an intimate look into the damaged lives of several very interesting, well-developed characters. I also was delighted to have found a new and exciting director whose career and films I will be sure to follow. Anderson's cinematic flamboyance, technical bravura, and inspired storytelling ability make him a talent who is emblematic of the resurrgence in creative and dynamic filmmaking that has occured in this past year. Like Fincher(Fight Club), Mendes(American Beauty), Jonze(Being John Malkovich), and the Wachowski Brothers(The Matrix), Anderson has created a truly unique film that stretches the boundaries of cinema. Many who I saw the movie with grumbled repeatedly about it's length. Clocking in at about three hours and ten minutes, "Magnolia" is long. Even if you are as strong an advocate of the film as I am, you will think that it is long. I really had to go to the bathroom the whole time. But I did not want to miss a single second of Mr. Anderson's fascinating opus. The prologue is very well done, doing a good job of drawing in the viewer. It makes an interesting commentary on coincidence, wjich segues nicely into the rest of the film. The first half hour of the film is the most wonderfully done I have ever seen. Just as Anderson does in "Boogie Nights," the prodigy weaves a fast-paced web of intrigue, flashing tidbits of the many characters' lives that leave the viewer thirsty for more. The rhythm of the film slows down for the bulk of it, as we learn more and more and become more intimately involved in the lives of the wonderfully flawed characters. The film seems to build and build into something bigger than itself. In a way, that is the main flaw of it, but also the beauty of it. Anderson's ambitiousness is huge, but I wouldn't call him an overreacher. This film is so full of great performances. It is probably the best ensemble piece that I have witnessed. There has been much Oscar buzz on Tom Cruise's behalf, but I honestly believe that there are so many Oscar worthy performances in this film that it is a futile effort to mention them all. Particularly strong in the movie is the editing, which allows for the interconnected stories of the various characters to be placed parallel to each other very smoothly. The cinematography is wonderful, obviously influenced by Scorcese. I really don't believe that this film could have been as good as it was if it were any shorter. Seeing it is truly an experience. I was almost sad to see it end.