Magnolia Reviews

This is an unforgettable film that has a lot of things going for it leading to an unexpected climax never seen before.

Writer/director P.T. Anderson proves not only that he is no one-hit wonder ("Boogie Nights") with his latest screen effort, but that he is a master of pithy dialogue and dynamic juxtaposition of character. In his third feature, the director brilliantly sets apart ten characters who support and oppose each other in revealing set-pieces, confirming the film's loosely optimistic leitmotif that "strange things happen all the time...Just as something so reliably surprising as the weather can modify people's behavior, "Magnolia" encompasses an inter-connective human bond that accepts reality's blind spots. Purity of intention, as the story suggests, is a happy accident that can hit everyone.

I already saw this movie when it was released but since it was such a long time ago, I was quite eager to check it out again. Well, even though ‘Boogie Nights’ had made quite an impression at the time (I really loved this flick as well), it was with his 3rd directing effort that Paul Thomas Anderson really had his breakthrough though. Personally, I think he is one of the best directors at work nowadays and this might be his best movie so far but I would have to re-watch ‘There Will Be Blood ’ to make up my mind for good about this. Basically, ‘There Will Be Blood’ is indeed a great flick but it mostly deals only with one character whereas this movie was dealing with a whole bunch of people played by an impressive cast. This movie was also responsible of making the hyperlink gimmick so popular (several loose story lines are intertwined and usually ends up together) and it must be the best movie in this genre. As a result, it displays some really interesting characters and stories, some strong directing and all the actors involved gave some very good performances. Indeed, even though Tom Cruise might be insane, he definitely can act and when he leaves his comfort zone, he can be pretty amazing (see also ‘Collateral’, ‘ Interview with the Vampire’ or ‘ Eyes Wide Shut’). Anyway, to conclude, I really loved this flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Paul Thomas Anderson’s work.

''This happens. This is something that happens.''

An epic mosaic of several interrelated characters in search of happiness, forgiveness, and meaning in the San Fernando Valley.

Tom Cruise: Frank T.J. Mackey

''Sometimes people need a little help. Sometimes people need to be forgiven. And sometimes they need to go to jail.''



Lets just say, Paul Thomas Anderson has succeeded in putting into film a rather clever interpretation of a butterfly effect.
Anderson creates a vast canvas of barely-related and briefly overlapping storylines and characters that come together under the blooming flower concept of a single major theme and a few minor ones. Anderson's concern is to explore the ideology of forgiveness and to examine the part it plays in the redemption of ourselves. In this film, dying characters have inner demons and turmoils to face and to make amends with the loved ones they will soon leave, while estranged characters grasp tentatively to establish bonds that must link them to other members of humanity. Anderson humbly denotes 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 American Actors. 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 condensed Boogie Nights. I tend to disagree. If anything, Boogie Nights, by limiting itself to a much more narrowly restricted milieu 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 story-lines 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 huge, lengthy movie project, 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.



''And there is the account of the hanging of three men, and a scuba diver, and a suicide. There are stories of coincidence and chance, of intersections and strange things told, and which is which and who only knows? And we generally say, "Well, if that was in a movie, I wouldn't believe it." Someone's so-and-so met someone else's so-and-so and so on. And it is in the humble opinion of this narrator that strange things happen all the time. And so it goes, and so it goes. And the book says, "We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us."

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 religious 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.
Perhaps in doing so Anderson finds another way to connect his characters together with the event happening, being something that happens. Adding to another line up of threads and debates.
When it does happen, theres no way your expecting it, granted you maybe expecting something unexpected, but what that said thing is, turns out to be a wondrous surprise.
So the questions pile up, answers and speculation seem far in the distance, while Magnolia succeeds in doing in my mind what many other films in this era have done before. Whether it be Donnie Darko, 21 Grams, or realistic Babel, to me Magnolia seems to be another film following the trend. Perhaps if I'd seen it sooner I wouldn't question it's originality, but I do, and I have. Having said that it's a great film regardless and it tries very hard to be clever and ambitious, which to me is commendable.
Director Anderson has harnessed an array of first-rate performances from a talented, Hollywood drenched 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 visage as a shield to hide the hurt caused by a father who abandoned him and a mother whose slow, painful death he was left to deal with. 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 lacking purpose, but it does manage to get under one's skin, and, unlike so many other, less ambitious works, this one grows on you.

''Why are frogs falling from the sky?''

Magnolia didn't really satisfy me when I first saw it but after rewatching it, I loved it! It is a very dark, thought-provoking film that keeps you glued to your TV and chair all the way through the film. It is a film set in one day and I love films like that anyway! I think the main thing I loved about Magnolia is that I saw men and women in almost all categories of struggles in life. Every storyline has its powerful climax where almost all of them join together.


There are a lot of incredibly talented actors in this film! The cast includes John C. Reilly, Tom Cruise, Julianne Moore, William H. Macy, Jeremy Blackman, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Melora Walters, Philip Baker Hall, Jason Robards, Felicity Huffman and Alfred Molina. The best performance of the film is definitely Tom Cruise who portrays Frank T.J. Mackey. Frank is a man who is like a guide for men to "tame" women. I'm not really a big fan of Tom Cruise but his performance in this one absolutely blew my mind! I mean, Cruise was probably the best choice because Frank is a slimy character and he's good at playing characters like that but also he surprisingly shows a very heartfelt emotional side to the character. After Cruise, the best performance, in my opinion, was from Julianne Moore as Linda Partridge. Linda is a woman who is trying to deal with her much older husband Earl Partridge's teriminal illness and feeling guilty of adultery. She is also Frank T.J. Mackey's stepmother. Magnolia is up there with The Godfather, Gone With The Wind, Closer, The Dark Knight, Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? and A Fish Called Wanda on the list of best performances from the entire cast.


Paul Thomas Anderson is a director of creating dark films in the modern world. He gave us Boogie Nights and most recently gave us There Will Be Blood. To be honest, I have absolutely no idea how one man can write a script for a film that is over 3 hours long. I mean, that is talent!! He has a great gift as a great director and screenwriter. I just wish he would make more films. The script is a bit like a Quentin Tarantino sort of script but a bit darker. I think the Tarantino film script I would compare with the Magnolia script is Inglourious Basterds. Magnolia earned only 3 Academy Award nominations: Best Supporting Actor (Tom Cruise), Best Original Song ("Save Me") and Best Original Screenplay but didn't win any of them. However, Tom Cruise did win the Golden Globe award for Best Supporting Actor in 1999.


Overall, Magnolia is a fantastic, extremely underrated and dark drama with a great ensemble cast! Anderson is a genius!

''This happens. This is something that happens.''

An epic mosaic of several interrelated characters in search of happiness, forgiveness, and meaning in the San Fernando Valley.

Tom Cruise: Frank T.J. Mackey

''Sometimes people need a little help. Sometimes people need to be forgiven. And sometimes they need to go to jail.''

Lets just say, Paul Thomas Anderson has succeeded in putting into film a rather clever interpretation of a butterfly effect.
Anderson creates a vast canvas of barely-related and briefly overlapping storylines and characters that come together under the blooming flower concept of a single major theme and a few minor ones. Anderson's concern is to explore the ideology of forgiveness and to examine the part it plays in the redemption of ourselves. In this film, dying characters have inner demons and turmoils to face and to make amends with the loved ones they will soon leave, while estranged characters grasp tentatively to establish bonds that must link them to other members of humanity. Anderson humbly denotes 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 American Actors. 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 huge, lengthy movie project, 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.

''And there is the account of the hanging of three men, and a scuba diver, and a suicide. There are stories of coincidence and chance, of intersections and strange things told, and which is which and who only knows? And we generally say, "Well, if that was in a movie, I wouldn't believe it." Someone's so-and-so met someone else's so-and-so and so on. And it is in the humble opinion of this narrator that strange things happen all the time. And so it goes, and so it goes. And the book says, "We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us." ''

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 religious 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.
Perhaps in doing so Anderson finds another way to connect his characters together with the event happening, being something that happens. Adding to another line up of threads and debates.
When it does happen, theres no way your expecting it, granted you maybe expecting something unexpected, but what that said thing is, turns out to be a wondrous surprise.
So the questions pile up, answers and speculation seem far in the distance, while Magnolia succeeds in doing in my mind what many other films in this era have done before. Whether it be Donnie Darko, 21 Grams, or realistic Babel, to me Magnolia seems to be another film following the trend. Perhaps if I'd seen it sooner I wouldn't question it's originality, but I do, and I have. Having said that it's a great film regardless and it tries very hard to be clever and ambitious, which to me is commendable.

Director Anderson has harnessed an array of first-rate performances from a talented, Hollywood drenched 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 visage as a shield to hide the hurt caused by a father who abandoned him and a mother whose slow, painful death he was left to deal with. 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 lacking purpose, but it does manage to get under one's skin, and, unlike so many other, less ambitious works, this one grows on you.

''Why are frogs falling from the sky?''

There are stories of coincidence and chance, of intersections and strange things told, and which is which and who only knows? And we generally say, "Well, if that was in a movie, I wouldn't believe it." Someone's so-and-so met someone else's so-and-so and so on. And it is in the humble opinion of this narrator that strange things happen all the time. And so it goes, and so it goes. And the book says, "We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us."

Magnolia is writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson's answer to Robert Altman's Short Cuts. The film is an epic mosaic of modern American life and a tightly woven tapestry of several interrelated lives in the San Fernando Valley over the course of 24 hours. The stories of these characters are told through a series of poignant vignettes - all characters are lost souls searching for redemption from the collective misery that is their tortured contemporary lives. What binds the diverse characters' stories into a complete and coherent whole are the various stimulating themes running the full length of the movie. In one thematic thread, Anderson proposes that life is not a succession of logical linear happenings that have a reasonable outcome. He suggests life is instead dominated by pure coincidence and chance. Secondly (and perhaps more centrally) the director explores the manner in which humans treat each other; specifically the relationships between parents and their children.

Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia is a film that deserves your attention. It won't be for all tastes, in fact many tag the film as overlong and self-indulgent (even the actors warned Anderson upfront of the film's over-length), but I found the film absolutely riveting and brilliantly engaging for its three-hour running time. From start to finish I was immersed in the filmmaking spell being offered - mesmerised, shocked, rapt and thoroughly engrossed. This is a remarkable, unique and magnificent production rich in underlying themes of coincidence and chance. Although it may not seem obvious, every piece of this 180-minute film is solidly there to serve a purpose. There are also various subtle inclusions that require additional viewings in order for one to absorb.

This is Paul Thomas Anderson's third feature film. He's a director who shows improvement with each new outing. Hard Eight and Boogie Nights were merely stepping stones to assist the director in reaching his zenith. Further exemplification of this point is in Anderson's 2007 film There Will Be Blood. Whether you're a lover or a hater of Anderson, it's difficult to deny his deft and dexterous touch behind the camera.

The opening sequence (narrated by Ricky Jay) explains a number of remarkable coincidences. For example: in the 50s a young man committed suicide by jumping off the roof of a building. Mid-fall he's hit with a shotgun blast before continuing to fall into a safety net that had been installed days earlier. The shotgun was fired by the young man's mother who accidentally fired the gun during an argument with the young man's father. As it turns out, the young man had loaded the shotgun a few weeks earlier in the hope his parents would get into a brawl and accidentally kill each other. All of this is allegedly true. This theme of outlandish coincidences is layered thick throughout the duration of Magnolia. The ten vibrantly-drawn protagonists lead seemingly unconnected lives, yet over the 24-hour period their lives converge either through chance meetings or lifestyle similarities. Presented as a collage of tangential sub-plots, Magnolia tracks each of these characters as they undertake an emotional journey. Each is pushed to the edge of despair by circumstances out of their past, and ostensibly beyond their control.

Excellent scripting and directing, as well as a terrific ensemble cast make Magnolia a poignant and powerful cinematic experience. There is no central narrative, no single protagonist, and no top billing. Each of the film's sub-plots (presented concurrently) offers a profoundly moving and incisive character study - each a well-crafted drama. The directing and editing are so effective that as Anderson cuts back and forth between various stories he builds a compelling dramatic tension that leaves one awe-struck. Each of the sub-plots feeds the dramatic tension at just the correct rate, simultaneously culminating in an apocalyptic, shocking climax of Biblical proportions. It's a bit of a shame, though, that Anderson annoyingly cuts away from a story just as it's getting interesting.

Three hours is a long time to keep an audience involved, but Anderson almost pulls it off. One of the reasons why the movie's energy level remains high is due to the way Anderson and his cinematographer Robert Elswit (the two also collaborated on Hard Eight and Boogie Nights) vary the film's visual style. Aside from the customary variety of quick cuts and intense close-ups, there's a curiously large number of long-lasting, unbroken takes. Music plays an imperative role in Anderson's approach as well. Not only are Aimee Mann's songs meticulously woven into the movie's fabric, but the score (courtesy of Jon Brion) is virtually omnipresent. During the first two hours of Magnolia, just about every scene is bestowed with background music. Only throughout the third hour are there a larger number of sequences that have been traditionally scored.

Magnolia is lengthy and occasionally tedious, nevertheless it's utterly enthralling for its duration. Anderson provides ample time for the characters to develop - just letting the camera track his actors and allowing them to flourish. Some may feel that Magnolia is the worse for it, as Anderson seeming drags out each chunk of exposition into excruciating monotony. For others (myself included), writer/director Anderson has created marvellous characterisations brought to life by capable performers. Granted, there is a bit of a lag during the initial parts of the third hour, but an astonishing occurrence towards the film's end (that I described as being of Biblical proportions) re-invigorates the proceedings. The climax will unquestionably be the most hotly debated feature of the film. For some it may be too unbelievable, and may ruin an otherwise deeply penetrating examination of human behaviour and interaction. On the contrary, those who share my opinion will collectively agree it simply elevates the movie to a new level. Nothing prepared me for the film's stunning conclusion.

At the film's heart, the smart writing and dexterous direction are only half the battle...the actors are the ones that have to carry the show. There's a terrific ensemble cast to behold. The standard for each actor is uniformly excellent.
This is a new revelation for Tom Cruise. Cruise was nominated for an Academy Award for his performance as the egotistical, misogynistic sex guru who offers advice to horny and frustrated male bachelors. Cruise is given a number of absolutely wonderful lines of dialogue to work with. Like when his character's secret past is revealed by a TV reporter...Cruise sits silently and informs the reporter "I'm quietly judging you".
John C. Reilly takes an unexpected turn with his endearing portrayal as a moderately incompetent policeman. He's a good guy with good intentions. He's basically among the few characters in the film who actually acts like an adult and looks beyond pitying himself in order to extend a hand to others. He's rather awkward when on a date with a girl, and is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but who really knows how to do everything perfectly 24 hours a day? His compassion offers hope in an otherwise thoroughly depressing film.
Melora Walters is utterly stunning as a struggling drug addict. She unreservedly lavishes her rage and anguish until she realises it'll completely consume her. Walters is compelling, powerful and unflinching.
William H. Macy, as always, is among the strongest actors in the cast. Macy is definitely one of the greatest actors of this current filmmaking generation.
The rest of the cast never tread a foot incorrectly. From Philip Seymour Hoffman's thoroughly passionate (and fascinating) performance as a nurse, to Julianne Moore's performance as a suicide-prone almost-widow, to Philip Baker Ball, Alfred Molina, Jeremy Blackman, Jason Robards, Melinda Dillon and even Ricky Jay - there isn't a faulty performance in sight.

Despite its three-hour length, Magnolia is undeniably a masterpiece. Each story is well-written, the directing is so proficient, and the acting is so moving that we can almost forgive Anderson for being a tad self-indulgent. Some of the film's highlights include a number of beautiful montages that are topped off with poignant narration. Magnolia demands a lot from its audience. A single viewing is barely adequate to absorb all the intricate details. Yet it supplies a satisfying and exhilarating cinematic experience - one that lingers long after the credits roll.

8.9/10

"Magnolia" is extremely well done. With a well-assembled cast including William H. Macy, Tom Cruise, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Julianne Moore, John C. Reilly, and more, the characters are excellently acted. The story is great, and I could watch this movie over and over again just for the music, which is by Aimee Mann and completely fabulous.

I love watching this movie, even despite the fact that a couple of the actors in this movie are not my favourite actors. It is a great film, with a great story, cast, and music.

A cheap attempt to use Quentin Tarantino's script equivalent to Pulp Fiction, in a more dramatic setting. By the times the paths finally crossed, I think I was asleep. It is too bad Magnolia came out the same year as American Beauty, or else it might have had a better following.