Magnolia (1999) User Reviews (1,598)

Not Sure What to Think But I Know How I Feel

[bkrauser-81-311064 · 8/10 · 5 May 2016]

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.

A positive, joyful film

[joey_zaza · 9/10 · 29 March 2003]

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.

A really creative film that is certainly not for everyone...

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 13 March 2018]

"Magnolia" is an incredibly unusual film...sort of an experimental project in it's style. Because of this and the occasionally extremely graphic language and depressing stories, it's a film that many would find hard to like...though I remember professional critics practically falling all over themselves praising it for its originality. So did I like it? Read on.

As far as how the film is experimental, it features many different stories that are interwoven throughout the story and it is really not apparently what connects them all during much of "Magnolia". There are also many rapid edits and jumps that make it difficult to follow as well as the three hour plus running time.

There is a prologue where several stories (including at least two urban legends) are all used to illustrate death and that perhaps in life there are no coincidences...and you can only assume the disparate stories that follow must be related to this...maybe. So what are the stories? Well, there are too many and too many parts to tell but they involve a dying man (Jason Robards) and his caregiver (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a woman who appears to be strung out (Julianne Moore), a cop who seems to go from one crisis call to another (John C. Reilly), a man who is dying and wants to reconnect with his angry daughter, an ex-quiz kid who now feels like a loser, a sociopathic motivational speaker (Tom Cruise) and many more. And do they all come together to make any sense? Well, they are mostly pretty depressing...at least I can say that without hurting the viewing experience.

As I watched, I found "Magnolia" very hard to stop watching. Despite not necessarily enjoying much of the film, it sure kept my attention. Much of it was because the film features a lot of great actors and they had some amazing moments in the movie. Is it a film I loved? No. But I do respect it for trying to be different. And, on balance I am glad I saw it. But I agree with the director/writer when he later said the film might have been better had it been pared down a bit.

An Instant Classic

[gogoschka-1 · 10/10 · 11 February 2018]

The music; the way the camera moves; the performances: this amazing ensemble piece takes everything to the next level. Although the influence of Robert Altman and Martin Scorsese can be felt throughout the whole film, P.T. Anderson doesn't copy them but merely uses some of their trademark techniques to create his very own, unique brand of film.

There are so many creative ideas and standout scenes in this film: I'm sure that, similarly to how filmmakers of Anderson's generation are citing films like 'Nashville' or 'Goodfellas' as their inspiration, the next generation of aspiring directors will be citing 'Magnolia'. The film is not "just" a masterpiece, but also hugely influential and an instant classic. 10 stars out of 10.

Favorite films: IMDb.com/list/mkjOKvqlSBs/

Lesser-Known Masterpieces: imdb.com/list/ls070242495/

I have never before spent so much time analyzing, discussing, or viewing a film...

[McWoop · 10/10 · 12 January 2000]

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.

Spellbinding ride through one day

[bob the moo · 8 November 2001]

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.

Even liked the frogs

[jasonsacks · 10/10 · 27 January 2001]

"Magnolia" is a film of great passion, wonderful directorial virtuosity and stunning acting. In an age when filmmakers are afraid to make films that are actually about something. P.T. Anderson made a film that is about the most important thing: simply living day to day with all the tragedies and frustrations that can happen in our lives. That he does it with an incredible energy and spirit and passion makes the film even more powerful.

I got the feeling all throughout "Magnolia" that directory P.T. Anderson really loves his characters. As the camera moves over each of the characters, allowing us to see their lives, there's a constant feeling that we are seeing the characters souls laid bare on film. When we see Quiz Kid Donnie Smith in a bar ogling the bartender he loves, so much of the character is conveyed in one or two small gestures by actor William H. Macy. In five seconds Macy has conveyed the whole inner life of this character who we then see for three more hours. It's a spectacular moment in a film that is filled with spectacular moments. We seem to see Donnie Smith's soul in that moment. And the film is filled with scenes like that.

This film is over three hours long, but every scene fits well in the movie. It's hard to imagine anything being cut, as every scene adds depth and feeling, not to mention the back story for each of the characters. I was entranced all the way through this movie; I never noticed the time at all.

This film has haunted me since I first saw it. I kept thinking about quiz kid Stanley Spector just wanting to go to the bathroom, and the haunting soliloquy by Jason Robards on his death bed, and Tom Cruise shifting uncomfortably as he was interviewed. So many amazing characters, so many amazing performances. And yes, I did think about the frogs. Unlike most people, I liked the frogs. It leant a magical realist moment to a realistic film, and symbolically acted as a kid of purification for the painful lives of the characters. Anderson included the frogs for a reason, and they fit his concept of the film brilliantly.

This is one of the best movies I've seen in years. I'd give it a 10. It's the kind of film that only comes around once every few years.

mag*no*li*a - a tree with large, fragrant flowers of white, pink, or purple

[Don-102 · 10/10 · 7 January 2000]

A serious wake up call to the land of cinema has arrived with the incredible film MAGNOLIA. Human pain and suffering, as well as the ability to avoid making familiar mistakes, are hypnotically explored in P.T. Anderson's intricate motion picture. This is the best movie I've seen in over a year and hopefully will set a new example of realistic cinema depicting real human loss and tragedy. You grow and suffer with each and every character in this huge ensemble movie.

MAGNOLIA is indeed a sort of tree with varying branches of people, situations, and irony. To get into any plot aspects would be absurd. This is a 3 hour film that flies by so fast, you want more. You won't like every character, but you will find every character extremely interesting. I've rarely ever seen such deep character portraits in a major motion picture. The title makes much sense after witnessing such vibrant, different colors of the human spirit.

P.T. Anderson has arrived, especially after BOOGIE NIGHTS, which he parallels with this effort. His prior film had many of the same human aspects of right and wrong, life and death, but were guised by the porn industry. This guy just explodes with presence and energy, swallowing us with the events on screen. His camera roves everywhere and does not miss a beat. It takes place over a 24 hour period with roughly 12 major players whose lives interlock in multiple degrees of seriousness and sadness. Some begin sad and end hopeful, but these are the few and the lucky ones in this picture.

The standouts of the huge cast in particular were Julianne Moore as the shattered wife of TV mogul "Earl Partridge" (Jason Robards), existing now only to watch him die before her eyes of cancer. She is one of the unlucky ones, a character who made so many mistakes that she cannot do over. Philip Baker Hall is great as the host of "What Do Kids Know?" a game show with a truly engrossing side-plot. Hall is also dying and may have done irreparable damage to all around him.

John C. Reilly is the centerpiece of this extraordinary film. His cop character is the moral middle at the center of some nasty events. He is also the most likable character because he knows how to treat people, unlike most of the others. He sees how mistakes can't always be made up for. I must also mention Tom Cruise in a career altering performance that took some courage to do. He is completely original, yet not the end all and be all of a film for once.

This particular day, as captured and presented by writer-director Anderson, has had a profound effect on me. If you see it, you may know what I mean. Some scars last forever in this life and we all suffer and feel pain equally. MAGNOLIA is like FIVE EASY PIECES on speed. We see numerous people just trying to get along under some extreme circumstances in a labyrinth method, much like the structure of the film's title.

RATING: ****

Pretentious, incongruous, and simply boring.

[Egg_MacGuffin · 6/10 · 27 July 2005]

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.

Autopsy of the Human Condition

[PhxCrtv · 10/10 · 11 January 2000]

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.

The Calculated Genius

[carlostallman · 6/10 · 2 January 2007]

I remember being startled when I saw "Magnolia" back in 1999. I enjoyed it throughly and I sang PT Anderson's praises. We're in 2007 now - two days into the New Year - and I decided to see "Magnolia" again with a couple of people who were seeing it for the first time. Shocking really. The brilliance is still all there but I couldn't help seeing through it. It all felt so damn calculated that its smart ass phoniness took over my senses. Only Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance made me "feel" something. When I was with him I was somewhere and Tom Cruise is fun to watch. Julianne Moore is unbearable and the whole movie drags from, by now, predictable turn to predictable turn. The frogs are wonderful but they are just frogs pouring over the Valley. I'll see it again in another six years and let's see what happens. I feel that Mr Anderson, if you forgive the impertinence, needs a doses of humbleness. Talent he has, in enormous quantities.

Best film of 1999

[hal-47 · 10/10 · 15 March 2000]

Magnolia is a film of epic proportions. A film that is our generation's. It's about real life, real people and real coincidences. These things happen, this is happening as Stanley Spector states. Magnolia is as perfect a film as you will see these days. P.T.'s camera acts as the protagonist, and the ensemble cast is one of the most solid in film history. Told in 24 hours, set up by a remarkable prologue and finished with a beautiful epilogue, Magnolia finds beauty in the darkness of life. In the redemption of the filth life sometimes brings us. It shows us that we are all connected through pain and suffering and sinning and yet, it does not give us this pessimistic view. Certain films cannot be described, they must be viewed and everyone should view this masterpiece!!!

My brief review of the film

[sol- · 7/10 · 16 March 2004]

A taut, tense and mesmirising film that unfortunately loses power due to its length, however it is otherwise good. The film is an interesting, well acted and for the most of it well shot cinema piece, concerning how one person can affect others unintentionally. It is, however, too complex and often hard to understand, which tends to lose a viewer's attention. In addition, the film is not dissimilar from other films about interconnecting lives that the film industry has presented before us. This one however tries to add some extra meaning to the genre, only in part succeeding, because although the philosophy at the start of the film seems appropriate, the end sequence metaphor seems somewhat ill judged. Tom Cruise's superb performance earned him an Oscar nomination.

It's unique I'll give it that

[DarthVoorhees · 5/10 · 7 August 2008]

Never have I seen a more smug film than Magnolia. It's a movie that thinks very high of it's self. It's not an important film or the masterpiece everyone thinks it is. I find it funny seeing the defense of this movie because dissecting a movie shouldn't be rocket science. Like the smugness of Magnolia as it's cast seems to wink at the audience saying "This is deep material we are covering here" the fans of Magnolia seem to say that if you don't appreciate this film you don't have their level of intelligence. Magnolia isn't overly complicated, it's a three hour mess about self-hating individuals complaining about how life has been so cruel to them. We are meant to think it is quirky and intelligent by having over the top performances and an overpowering and unfitting soundtrack in the background.

The plot if you can even claim Magnolia has one tells the story of loosely intertwined lives, if you can even call what these people have "lives". All most every character in Magnolia isn't likable. Fair enough, Paul Thomas Anderson was able to make a masterpiece with the villain Daniel Plainview as the main character, but with Magnolia the characters aren't compelling or interesting either, certainly not interesting enough to fill 3 hours screen time.

I'll try to explain the story of Magnolia and why each story didn't work. The most popular game show in town is What Do Kids Know? It is hosted by the dying Jimmy Gator who has hosted the show for it's 30 year existence. Jimmy molested his daughter Claudia who has grown up to be a coke addict who is pursued by LAPD patrolman Jim Kurring. What Do Kids Know's record is about to be broken by young Stanley Spector, the previous record holder Donnie Smith has become a drunken has been longing for the love of a bartender with braces whom he thinks will love him if he gets braces. Magnolia is essentially two stories because the link between the story of the dying Earl Partridge is very weak. Earl Partridge is dying of cancer, he has married a gold digger named Linda. Earl spends most of his time with his nurse Phil who tries to fulfill the old man's dying wish by bringing his miserable son Frank TJ Mackey to his deathbed. Frank is the founder of a "self help" system which guarantees the men who subscribe to it that they will be able to turn any woman they want into their sex slave.

That's the long and drawn out plot and we think it works because there are loose connections. However the connections mean little to nothing in the long run. They have little significance to the characters and how they change over the experience of the film. In fact I wouldn't say that any of these characters change at all. They just suffer even more with or without each other. The beginning of the film intrigued me, it suggests that rare phenomena occurs through these sort of connections. Nothing phenomenal happens here though other than the biblical plague of frogs raining from the sky with no explanation other than loose references to the bible passage by repetition of the number 82(Exodus 8:2) through out the film.

I can't completely condemn Magnolia though, it has potential and interesting concepts but it just isn't executed that well. The performances aren't all bad, like any ensemble picture there are characters and performances you like more than others. I was a fan of John C Reilly's character because he is the least flawed of the group and his relationship with Claudia was interesting, I think P.T.A could have had much more depth there. I think Magnolia's problem is that it's too crowded. I surely would have removed some of the characters and subplots. If you want the central theme to be the connections between these lives than we have to see it and how it has the ability to change these people. Magnolia would have been a better film if it would have come to a much deeper conclusion with these characters because the audience and the characters need to get something from their three hours.

often brilliant, occasionally forced film

[Buddy-51 · 3 September 2000]

`Magnolia' seems to divide audiences as much as it bewilders them. Some there are who see it as a brilliant exercise in creative, thought-provoking moviemaking, a film that challenges the notion that modern American cinema is comprised exclusively of formulaic retreads of earlier films or slick, mechanical displays of technical virtuosity, devoid of meaning and feeling. Others view `Magnolia' as the nom plus ultra of pretentiousness and self-satisfied smugness. Which of the two assessments is the correct one – or does the truth lie somewhere in between?

Actually, there is much to admire and cherish in `Magnolia.' Writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson has done a commendable job in putting on the screen a relatively unique vision – a qualification I feel forced to make because it does seem patently derived from much of the trailblazing work of director Robert Altman. Like Altman, Anderson creates a vast canvas of barely-related and briefly overlapping storylines and characters that come together under the umbrella of a single major theme and a few minor ones as well. Anderson's concern is to explore the concept of forgiveness and to examine the part it plays in the redemption we all seek through the course of our lifetimes. In this film, dying characters struggle to make amends with the loved ones they will soon leave behind, while estranged characters grope tentatively to establish or re-establish the bonds that must link them to other members of the human race. Anderson presents a tremendously wide range of characters, though for a film set in the northern areas of Los Angeles, `Magnolia' provides a surprisingly non-diverse sea of Caucasian faces. However, in terms of the ages of the characters, Anderson's crew seems more comprehensive, running the gamut from a pre-teen wiz kid to a terminally ill man in his mid-60's. Many of these characters seem to have created any number of facades to help them cope with the miseries and disappointments of life – and much of the redemption occurs only after those masks are stripped away revealing the emptiness and hurt that, in many cases, lurks so close to the surface.

Thematically, then, Anderson's film is a compelling one. Dramatically, however, it suffers from some serious flaws. Many viewers and critics have called `Magnolia' an artistic advancement, in both depth and scope, for Anderson, whose previous film was the similarly dense, moderately freeform `Boogie Nights.' I tend to disagree. If anything, `Boogie Nights,' by limiting itself to a much more narrowly restricted milieu – the 1970's porn industry – and focusing intently on a single main character, managed to connect more directly with the emotions of the audience. `Magnolia,' by being more expansive, paradoxically, seems more contracted. The pacing is often languid and the screenplay, running a bit over three hours, often seems bloated given the single-mindedness of its basic theme. Certainly, a few of these characters and storylines could have been dispensed with at no great cost to the film as a whole. By lining up all his characters to fit into the same general theme, the author allows his message to become a bit heavy-handed and over-emphatic. Anderson seems to want to capture the whole range of human experience on his enormous (and enormously long) movie canvas, yet because the characters seem to all be tending in the same direction - and despite the fact that the details of their experiences are different - the net effect is thematically claustrophobic.

The controversial ending, in which an event of literally biblical proportions occurs, feels generally right in the context of this film, though with some reservations. It seems perfectly in tune with the quality of heightened realism that Anderson establishes and sustains throughout the picture. On the other hand, the ending does pinpoint one of the failures of the film as a whole. Given that the screenplay has a strong Judeo-Christian subtext running all the way through it, one wonders why Anderson felt obliged to approach the religious issues in such strictly oblique terms. None of the characters – not even those who are dying – seem to turn to God for their forgiveness and redemption. In fact, one wonders what purpose that quirky ending serves since the characters are well on their way to making amends by the time it happens.

Anderson has marshaled an array of first-rate performances from a talented, well-known cast. Tom Cruise provides a wrenching case study of a shallow, charismatic shyster, who has parleyed his misogyny into a lucrative self-help industry. Yet, like many of the characters, he uses this façade as a shield to hide the hurt caused by a father who abandoned him and a mother whose slow, painful death he was forced to witness alone. The other actors, too numerous to mention, turn in equally worthy performances. Particularly interesting is the young boy who, in counterpoint to one of the other characters in the story, manages to save himself at an early age from the crippling effect of identity usurpation that it has taken so many others in this film a lifetime to overcome.

In many ways, `Magnolia' is the kind of film that could easily serve as the basis for a lengthy doctoral dissertation for a student majoring in either filmmaking or sociology. The density of its vision would surely yield up many riches of character, symbolism and theme that a first time viewer of the film would undoubtedly miss. Thus, in many ways, `Magnolia' is that rare film that seems to demand repeat exposure even for those audience members who may not `get it' the first time. As a viewing experience, `Magnolia' often seems rambling and purposeless, but it does manage to get under one's skin, and, unlike so many other, less ambitious works, this one grows in retrospect.

Stunning and Emotionally Moving Drama

[Tulsa90 · 9/10 · 20 November 2000]

I rented this movie from Blockbuster without knowing anything about it. I was hooked from the opening scene until the final frame and was sad to see the movie end. The character development, plot, and acting were magnificent. I was moved on many levels and felt almost every conceivable emotion at one point or another. The characters seemed so real to me that I was hard pressed to think of a movie that had the same strong level of character development across the board. The only negative comment I can make is that I felt like there were a couple loose ends when the movie finished. But this may have been intentional and was a minor blemish in an otherwise very fine film. Even Tom Cruise reached new levels as an actor in this film. I gave it a 9 out of 10, only because a perfect 10 is a once in a lifetime film in my opinion. A must see for serious dramatical movie lovers.

The sins of the father...

[BrianM-6 · 10/10 · 17 January 2000]

That is what this film is about and "Strange things happen all the time" are the best ways I can think of to describe the overall plot of the film. The story of a dozen people, on one incredible day, in one very wet valley, on Magnolia Avenue.

I could list reason, after reason, after reason why this is one of the finest films I've ever seen... I really could. From the fact that every cast member gives an oscar-worthy performance, to the fact that this film has upwards of 10 amazing sequences I have never seen before, and probably will never see again, in any film.

This film gets my highest recommendation and a definite 10. I say see it right now, and see it as many times as possible.

The best movie of 1999.

[The Truth · 9/10 · 6 April 2000]

Forget American Beauty, The Sixth Sense, Eyes Wide Shut. Magnolia is definitely the best movie of 1999, and one of the best American movies ever made.

Boogie Nights, Paul Thomas Anderson's previous effort was already a promising effort, but it was a bit too long. Magnolia is even longer, but it's filled with such a spectrum of touching stories and such a quantity of wonderful characters, that I didn't even notice the three hour length. Magnolia is a mosaic of intertwining and intercepting stories, dealing with such issues as forgiveness, hurt, redemption, sin and the role of chance in our lives. And though the film offers a deep emotional catharsis, it never loses it delicate, humane tone. The people Magnolia displays are not the best of men, but none of them are beyond forgiveness. That, to my opinion, is the most important message the film conveys.

As many have already said, Magnolia is an ensemble piece. Acting is superb throughout the film, and though Magnolia has approximately ten lead role and a bunch of supporting characters, there isn't a single member of the cast who is misplaced. My personal favorites are Philip Seymour Hoffman as the sensitive nurse (compare this role to the sleazy characters he played in Boogie Nights, Happiness and The Talented Mr Ripley and you'll notice what a great actor he is), Tom Cruise as the self-made seduction guru (his best performance ever) and William H. Macy as the former child prodigy who never grew up (his role resembles the one he did in Fargo, but in Magnolia he is redeemed of his sins).

No film is perfect and even Magnolia has it's flaws, but I'm still so stunned by this masterpiece that I haven't even started to think what they could be. That, I think, says it all about the quality of this film.

Rating: **** (of ****)

A film which impresses with great performances, a great storyline and maybe the best beginning ever.

[Phisk · 10/10 · 1 July 2011]

I first saw this movie when I was 17 years old. My expectations were high and I have to admit, that it belied them. At this view, approximately 3 years ago, the performances shined out for me and I've not really engaged myself in the rest of this mediocre film.

My second viewing was nearly 2 years back. Regarding the plot, I was very confused because the beginning stayed in my head the whole 188 minutes and at the end, I couldn't see a satisfying connection between it and the rest, especially between the beginning and the ending. I was expecting some 'Crash'-like connections between the characters.

So I gave 'Magnolia' a third shot and I was blown away by it. Therefore, I give it 9 out of 10 and it's in my Top 10 movies of all time. First of all, I have to write about the incredible performances by the whole cast. Everyone is so much into his character and it seems that each actor was very free concerning his play. For example: Julianne Moore plays the spouse Linda Partridge, whose husband Earl (Jason Robards) will die of lung cancer. She never loved her husband but now, he is in extremis and she discovers an unprecedented love towards him. Linda doesn't take care of Earl because she wants to smooth things over by reason of cheating on him several times. She takes care of him only because she really loves him. She even wants to change Earls last will although all of his money would be hers, just because she feels dirty concerning her past. The pharmacy-scene is very important to see how she feels. Linda doesn't want to be called lady, because in her own eyes she isn't a lady anymore after all the things she has done to her husband: "You ... call me lady? Shame on you!" We only see Jason Robards lying in the bed but he manhandles the role perfectly not least because of the dialog. Julianne Moore proves that she can handle dramatic roles. Philip Seymour Hoffman (Phil Pharma, the nurse of Earl Partridge) shows that he can pull out a lot of supporting roles. Then, there is Tom Cruise who was nominated for Oscar for his role as Frank T.J. Mackey, Earl Partridges son. Mackey and Partridge are out of touch and Earls last will is, that Phil Pharma brings Mackey to Earls deathbed. Mackey is leader of his own seminar, in which he learns men how to seduce women with his program "Seduce and Destroy. Philip Baker Hall, plays the show presenter Jimmy Gator who has an icky relationship to his drug-addicted daughter Claudia Wilson Gator (wonderfully played by Melora Walters).

Last but not least, there's John C. Reilly. In my opinion, Reilly is the best of the cast. He plays the officer Jim Kurring who takes his job very seriously. He becomes acquainted with Claudia Wilson Gator and a relationship is about to start between these completely different humans. William H. Macy is Quiz Kid Donnie Smith, a Man who won in Jimmy Gators Show many years ago. His character is very curious, Smith robs money from his work to can afford a brace with which he, as he thinks, would be loved by a barkeeper who also has one. Jeremy Blackman, the youngest cast member plays Stanley Spector, a very intelligent child who is going to be the new Quiz Champion. He suffers under the severity of his father . You see, there are thematic overlaps between the characters, for instance education.

The beginning is amazing, maybe the best I've ever seen. Three accounts are told and all are just too improbably to believe them. And at the end of the last account, the narrator says: "This was not just a matter of chance. This strange things happen all the time".

At the end of the movie there are frogs falling from the sky. A frog-rain. There's a reference to the Bible's book Exodus 8:2, which says: "And if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs". The numbers 8 and 2 are also present in different parts of the movie. So, after my first two viewing I have never seen a conclusion. After the third view, 1 week ago, I spent a lot of time discussing and analyzing this movie. I don't think, that God made the frog fall from the sky just because there's a line in the Bible which comes up with the same phenomenon. But i definitely think that there's a higher force. I have to say: The frograin is really important for all of the characters. For instance Jimmy Gator wants to take his life because he will die of cancer and because of his vague past with his daughter (he doesn't know if he abused her or not). He puts the gun to his head and in the same moment a frog is falling into the kitchen, onto the gun and the shot goes into the television which starts to fume. Kurring is driving home and helps Smith to give the money back he's stolen before. Earl Partridge awakes because of the frograin and realizes that his son came for visiting him. And Stanley Spector is sitting in front of some textbooks, sees the frograin, smiles and says: "This is something that happens". And here, the circle is complete! There are things in life we can't believe. Things that are very unlikely. Not only natural phenomena also phenomena between human beings. At the beginning we hear: "This was not just a matter of chance". So that says that there is sort of an 'act of nature'. "This is something that happens", and it's not a matter of chance.

This was my first review, hope you liked it. I finally entrust 'Magnolia' to you and I hope you can enjoy it as I did. Thanks for reading.

Strange and brilliant

[eonbluedan-1 · 10/10 · 22 January 2011]

My real introduction to P. T Anderson, the man who would go on to create "There Will Be Blood", this film is not one you watch lightly, but rather one you set aside a whole evening for, lights out, preferably alone or with someone equally as enthusiastic (as is the case with most of his work) and engross yourself in for a good three hours.

That three hours is an unusual urban tale in which a host of strangers' stories intertwine, each affecting another in some way. The film is about death, regret and lost opportunities (uplifting stuff!) It is moving beyond measure, a good 90% of the film set to a stunning soundtrack, including powerfully relevant tracks by Aimee Mann, that becomes as vivid and important a character as any of the screen players.

This is unconventional cinema that requires some patience, but rewards that patience massively, with great, complex characters, played by a top-notch cast amongst whom there is not a weak link: Tom Cruise is a perfect scumbag with whom we empathise anyway; Julianne Moore is at career-best as a woman who was a gold-digging leach, and who then fell in love with a man whose fate is now out of everyone's hands; William H Macy is an ex boy-genius, now a lost soul just looking to fit in for once, and the young Jeremy Blackman is the current boy-genius, sadly destined to follow in his footsteps. We have Philip Seymour Hoffman, who it would appear can do no wrong, in a relatively small but impacting role as a carer, John C. Reilly as a devoutly religious cop, who is in love with a cocaine-addicted no-hoper, played with intensity by Melora Walters. And there's plenty more...

P.T. Anderson's ability to manage tone is remarkable, the film at once funny, heart-warming, sad and heartbreaking, part music video (at one point quite literally), and with a surreal final act, which can put some people off, but whose religious reference is important to those who would understand it. Anderson is a fascinating filmmaker, and love or hate it, you certainly won't walk away from "Magnolia" unchallenged or without reaction. He would go on to up his game with "There Will Be Blood", but this is nevertheless a superb and strange drama that has high impact.

complex web of stories

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 22 March 2015]

The movie recounts incidents of coincidences. LAPD Officer Jim Kurring (John C. Reilly) falls for drug addict Claudia Wilson (Melora Walters). Her father is dying children's game show host Jimmy Gator (Philip Baker Hall). The show's former producer Earl Partridge is also dying of cancer. Phil Parma (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) is his caretaker. Linda Partridge (Julianne Moore) is Earl's wife. Donnie Smith (William H. Macy) was a former champion in the show but now he's broke, got fired from his job and obsessed about getting dental braces. Frank T.J. Mackey (Tom Cruise) is a chauvinist pickup artist guru who is actually Earl's estranged son. These and many others form a web of connections that results in surprising turns of events.

The movie starts with a memorable small vignette of a compelling convoluted incident. It may have been too good because I expected even better for the main story. The varied complex story lines interactions are compelling at times. At other times, I get lost and honestly lose interest. Tom Cruise's commitment to his role is admirable. It is possibly too much of a good thing from Paul Thomas Anderson. This is a movie that is about the complexity of the web rather than the beauty of each individual strand. It's a fascinating movie and also a frustrating one at the same time.

Films like this makes us appreciate the smaller things in life

[Keithtopher · 9/10 · 17 October 2000]

Wow! When I first rented this movie and saw the length of the film to be a little over 3 hours, I thought it would be a waste of a good 3 hours of studying time. I had to return it 4 hours later at Blockbuster and I thought...what the hell, I want to see why there was so much fuss about this movie. After about an hour into the film, I noticed that there was no absolute plot leading the story into any foreseeable direction. No plot, no point, I loved it. I've never seen a film with so much force and the pacing was absolutely astounding. The story was filled with little vignettes and constantly jumped from one scenario to another scenario with such a smooth transition that I was in movie heaven. I loved the 3 hours spent on this great movie. Definitely an art piece that people should not miss.

Premature ejaculation

[rooprect · 6/10 · 25 December 2006]

Heh, now that I got your attention with my title, let me tell you what it means. This movie begins brilliantly. Like a thrilling sexual encounter, the opening scene hooks us. From there it builds up very nicely. A lot of intensity, passion, power, throbbing scenes and undulating rhythms. Ooh baby. Then right at the halfway mark--whoosh! An awesome climax.

And for the next hour I'm sitting there saying, uh OK, why am I still here? The second half had none of the thrill. The music (which was wonderfully prominent for the first half) is nonexistent. Julianne Moore's performance (which was tantalizing for the first half) becomes histrionic and overplayed (how many times can she yell the f* word with tears flowing?). And, contrary to what the great introduction promised us, the plot does not come together in one marvellous unifying event. Rather, things just sort of drag on until time runs out.

It's not a bad movie. But much like that aforementioned sexual encounter, it just peters out early. Maybe the director should have thrown in a scene about baseball, just to hold back a bit. Know what I mean, guys? Tee hee.

What was the point of this film? PLEASE? ANYONE?

[saurabh_j_paranjape · 1/10 · 28 December 2007]

The minute you give an 'art film' 1/10, you have people baying for your ignorant, half-ass-ed, artistically retarded blood. I won't try and justify how I am not an aesthetically challenged retard by listing out all the 'art house cinema' I have liked or mentioning how I gave some unknown 'cult classic' a 10/10. All I ask is that someone explain to me the point, purpose and message of this film.

Here is how I would summarize the film: Opening montage of three unrelated urban legends depicting almost absurd levels of co-incidence. This followed by (in a nutshell, to save you 3 hours of pain) the following - A children's game show host dying of lung cancer tries to patch things up with his coke-addicted daughter, who he may or may not have raped when she was a child, and who is being courted by a bumbling police officer with relationship issues, while the game-show's star contestant decides that he doesn't want to be a failed child prodigy, a fate which has befallen another one of the game show contestants from the 60s, who we see is now a jobless homosexual in love with a bartender with braces and in need of money for 'corrective oral surgery', while the game show's producer, himself dying of lung cancer, asks his male nurse to help him patch up with the son he abandoned years ago, and who has subsequently become a womanizing self help guru, even as Mr. Producer's second wife suffers from guilt pangs over having cheated a dying man; and oh, eventually, it rains frogs (You read correctly). And I am sparing you the unbelievably long and pointless, literally rambling monologues each character seems to come up with on the fly for no rhyme or reason other than, possibly, to make sure the film crosses 3 hours and becomes classified as a 'modern epic'.

You are probably thinking that I could have done a better job of summarizing the movie (and in turn of not confusing you) if I had written the damn thing a little more coherently, maybe in a few sentences instead of just one... Well, now you know how I feel.

A touching film with some incredible performances

[laconian · 2 February 2002]

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.