Magnolia

Paul Thomas Anderson; when filmophiles say the name, it is uttered with such reverence that the man may very well be canonized the contemporary patron saint of film. Offering a comparatively limited array of millennium masterpieces, PTA as he is lovingly sometimes referred to, perfectly balances his films' complex intellectual tapestry with a strong emotional core. The man is an admitted film-freak, listing influences as varied as Martin Scorsese, Stanley Kubrick and Max Ophuls. Pare enough layers and you can see how PTA apes certain images from these infamous auteurs. Yet his themes are wholly their own, mixing loneliness, isolation, family dysfunction and in the case of Magnolia, cosmic coincidence as a means to his cinematic end.

Magnolia follows an ensemble of interrelated and fatally flawed protagonists over a three day period. All are somehow connected to the L.A. based Partridge Productions owned by the elderly Earl Partridge (Robards). Earl is dying of cancer and asks his nurse (Hoffman) to contact his long-ignored son Frank (Cruise) who now makes his living as a professional pick-up artist. Meanwhile Partridge Production staple, the quiz show What Do Kids Know? is airing live with host Jimmy Gator (Baker Hall) who is also dying of cancer. Gator struggles to repair his relationship with his daughter Claudia (Walters) who has developed a cocaine habit and lives in relative anonymity. Meanwhile one of the show's contestants, Stanley (Blackman) is waffling under the pressure of his domineering father. The film is also book-ended by narration provided by stage magician Ricky Jay who offers further tales of the Ripley's Believe it or Not variety.

I am truly at a loss of what to think about Magnolia. It's a messy, dense and demanding movie that grabs your attention through the power of sheer pathos. The common thread of resentment towards fatherly bonds certainly begs the question and offers theories about what Magnolia is about. Yet any interpretation on PTA's singular vision falls short; torn asunder by complex editing, parabolic storytelling and characters histrionics. The film is big, the film is ambitious, the film (at over three hours) can feel punishing. And in the end resolutions are left frustratingly obscured amid the chaos. Many audience members will likely feel jipped though I remind you, life itself often makes no sense; why should we presume to find intellectual cogency in our art.

As we bounce energetically from one story to another, the audience is never feels lost in time, rather the film condenses and expands time in playful and interesting ways. For example: the quiz show for all its cerebral quality, is used as a stapling plot-point for most of the film's threads. Presumably the show takes place over half an hour, yet within that time, more than an hour of the film is un-spooled.

Magnolia is unequivocally a minor masterpiece of world building. The film reaches its emotional apex twice; within the first 20 minutes and within the last 20. Characters fiercely clash with one another like starved rats in a cage, helped in some cases by the presence of drugs, alcohol and in Tom Cruise's case alpha-male braggadocio. After a time, the characters settle into a routine awaiting the next existential crisis that gives them grief and the audience indigestion. Tension builds and builds as heroes and villains face off. And just when you think you can't take anymore, the film rewards with a plot-point so out of left field that you'd swear the Old Testament God was smiling on Magnolia's L.A. denizens.

I don't know what to think about Magnolia, but I know what I feel and I'm certain the feelings evoked by this film are purposeful and prove PTA to be a masterful storyteller. The film makes its audience run the gambit of emotional resonance, elevating its broad-stroke temperament with near operatic persistence. The camera, with its near omnipotence forces us to ask questions about the story and more importantly about ourselves. How do we control or alter our reality? When should we forgive? What problems left dormant in the past effect our lives in the present? We may not be provided with clear-cut answers but at least after watching Magnolia you may be pushed to wise up.

And it is a FILM. It is no ordinary movie. As a fan of Boogie Nights, I couldn't wait for Magnolia. Although its running time has made at least 20 people leave the auditorium, I have stayed for every single second. The mood and stories and characters keep building and building and building, and when it finally comes down, I feel this immense sense of relief and wonder at how PT Anderson was able to come up with something so clever and intertwining and wonderous, and was able to pull it off. This "movie" is not for everyone. It is thinking-hat required. I have also never been so excited to look up Bible verses before. The cast, as you have probably read, is superb. I have never been so impressed. This film has "restored my faith in the filmmaking industry. To see these actors, crew, and the writer/director/genius at work is inspiring." These people obviously love their craft, and one of my friends even said that the cast was "touched by the hands of God..." to which I whole-heartedly agree. He also has said, ""This film not only teaches film makers how to make films, but it teaches movie watchers how to watch movies!" to which I again whole-heartedly agree a thousand times over. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is absolutely outstanding as the only character who is "normal." His performance has made me smile and shake my fist in the air the three times I've seen Magnolia since it opened. Tom Cruise is also spectacular. As with every single last character, every line he utters is important to his character and what it means for the rest of the stories. Another outstanding performance/character is the part of police officer Jim Kurring, played by John C. Reilly. His character is just so perfect and JUST SOOOOO PERFECT that it makes me smile every time he is on screen. Add to all of this one incredible soundtrack, and you have something that will go down in film history as legend and probably one of the most underappreciated, misunderstood, and definitely underseen films of all time.

The soundtrack, oh, the soundtrack. When listening to the songs, I can picture each exact moment as if I was watching the movie all over again, and it brings unexplainable feeling. Aimee Mann's songs, especially, are a perfect fit to a perfect story and mood. This film is not for everyone, but, if you want to see glorious filmmaking, acting, writing, and characters in action, I HIGHLY suggest you see Magnolia.

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.

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 porn 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.

Judging from the comments archive, I can see why this film polarizes its audiences as much as it does. This film defies convention in all possible senses--characterization, dialogue, narrative structure, heck, even the introduction. To be honest, this movie is truly strange. But that doesn't necessarily make it bad. Quite the contrary, actually. In my opinion this is one of the best movies I've seen. The acting was superb, and the performance I got from Tom Cruise was surprising to say the least. I don't expect much from him other than crocodile tears and beaming that thick smile, but here he credibly displayed a wide range of emotions. The photography was excellent, the pacing was quick (despite the 3:15 runtime!), and the structure! the best thing about it. Although the movie does dwell on a very central theme--the price and necessity of salvation--much of the movie is left undone, as raw material for thinking about later, as if the characters just keep on living. As I said, it's not your standard movie fare. But don't dismiss it for what lies most visably on the surface; instead, sit through the movie, soak it in, and when it's done, turn out the lights and think about it for a while. You'll be glad you did.