Rating: 
Summary: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Review: Too long. Too much crying. And why does every character in this movie have some deep, dark secret from his/her childhood? BORING!
Rating: 
Summary: Nice topping but no pizza.
Review: So what you need to do is get 7 or 8 short stories each 20-30 minutes long and chop them up and play a bit of each of them at a time until all have finished and your 3 hours are up. It doesn't matter if the stories are completely unrelated as long as each can make a casual reference to something or someone in one of the others. For example you could have a story in which an old guy is dying. The old guy used to be a TV producer. This would allow another story to be about a guy who once appeared on a TV show made by the very same producer. Yes it's a tenuous link but that's fine. Get some very good script writers and excellent actors and you've got an award-winning formula. Oh...and don't forget to throw in a wacky ending that 'links' and ends the last couple of stories; how about it raining frogs (or toads if you wish). That'll get their attention. Yes that about sums up Magnolia. A superbly scripted, acted and directed set of short stories bundled together and called a movie. Each one in it's own right is a gem; you can't fault them. Unfortunately it doesn't work as a movie. It's like ordering a pizza and getting the base, tomato, cheese, ham and pineapple in separate cartons. It may be mighty fine ham but it ain't a pizza.
Rating:
Summary: pointless pretentious garbage
Review: proof that if you try hard enough to make something as dull as possible there will be a sizeable part of the population that will consider it art.
there is only one redeeming feature - the end
Rating:
Summary: mediocre and overblown
Review: A unique film in one respect, i was told it was amazing and would blow me away by a couple of people. so, watched the first hour in complete bafflement and turned it off completely bored and disinterested, and would haqve left it there, but felt maybe it all came together in the last two hours, so watched from beginning again, i was right the first time. The critics reviews leave you scrathing your head, as do the recomendations, it was incredibly depressing and pretty pointless, as too being about coincidence i found that whole concept so dumbed down, as to be painful. The singalong is indeed a real turn off moment, and maybe this is a more real tom cruise but some of his monologues are just boring and you are itching too reach for the fast forward. Julianne moore is almost unwatchable completely overacting and just awful. The quiz kid story was the best and most original, and the cops story was initially good, but got lost badly in confused misdirection. i think this is a film for those who want to be told they are watching something meaningful, and length = deep and meaningful.
Rating: 
Summary: Flawless
Review: Magnolia is a story of real emotion and power about one day in Los Angeles in which 9 peoples lives are intertwined. Theres a cop, drug addict, sick game show host, dying man, male nurse, a wife, an ex quiz kid, a current quiz kid and a man from an infomercial. All of these character weave a beautiful story that looks like is all going down the drain until the hand of god plays a role. A large pheonmenon happens that i won't reveal but is hinted at because of the prologue or Richard Jay talking about strange things that happen. Some critics were angry or baffled at this but, i thought it was brilliant. The perfect touch to a perfect movie with incredible acting, story telling and music all combined to make a modern classic. I recommend this movie to anyone who is breathing and has love in their heart. 9/10 "And the book says "We may be through with the past but, the past ain't through with us""
Rating:
Summary: WORST MOVIE EVER
Review: And yes, I did "get it", all of the artsy, symbolistic nuances to appease our pretensions to erudition, but I think movies are a form of entertainment, and should be that first. If they can also manage to be artsy and carry a message, so much the better, but the message should never come at the expense of entertainment. What this movie lacked most was an editor. An editor for the script, an editor for the film. There were entire scenes and subplots that served no purpose to the film, and were left unresolved at the end. And one of the most cardinal rules of writing is broken here - "never cheat the reader". What is meant by this is, don't just throw in something at the climax or denoument of a story that comes out of nowhere, and is incongruous to the rest of the story. That invariably infuriates people, and is no different here. Even if the ludicrousness of the amphibian-laden ending does sometimes happen in nature, I found it more than just a little troubling that none of the characters seemed to question it. Maybe it was just a catalyst to spur resolution, and if the characters don't question it, then neither should I? Fine, then next time, please insert a flashing sign that says "suspend disbelief here" for us non-arthouse crowd types.
Rating: 
Summary: It's very artistic isn't it?
Review: --"Yes, but it's good anyway." Is how legend has it that two little old ladies responded after the first act on opening night of a Eugene O'Neill play. The same could be said of PTA's "Magnolia." Three hours long and starring well known actors, it suffered in marketing and failed to capture the Oscars. The mainstream crowd didn't want to sit still that long and the indie crowd responded with "How good could a film be if it's got Tom Cruise in it?" Pity. Written by PTA, the film revolves, or uses the metaphor, or has as a gimmick (who cares, it works!) a children's tv gameshow to which most of the characters are connected to in some way or another. The purpose of the show is to have the kids be 'cute' and get a laugh or a round of applause even if they're incidentally humiliated in the process. Everyone in this film suffers beyond what he or she desereves. Everyone is more or less insane. Everyone is victimized, and most of all, everyone is desperate. As is the universe itself, which is run by some kind of deity or mechanism with a weird sense justice--something out of the Old Testament's ten plagues of Egypt---and and a penchant for warped humor expressed in synchronistic jokes. PTA's style is brilliant yet manages not to call attention to itself, at least not until the inevitable pay-off.
Magnolia sticks to 'show don't tell'. Few introspective speeches here. The film is focused. One may or may not like what the writer/director is doing but he sure knows what he wants and where he's going. Comparisons to Altman ar a bit weak. Bizarre, like O'Neill.
Rating:
Summary: "What can we forgive?"
Review: As Officer Kurring rhetorically asks at the end of the film, "what can we forgive?" Tales of chance, coincidence, and someone met someone's so and so lead a group through tales of forgiveness. There are those seeking to be forgiven and those that don't know they need it. It is a story about some that receive forgiveness and some that must have it forced upon them to realize the effect of not having it. Magnolia is filled with characters that are too real, too just-like-someone-I-know. The characters are all exactly the kind you don't want to be a part of your life. It is therein the beauty of the story lies. A little forgiveness goes along way, and the characters from the beginning are mere shadows of the people they are at the end. Two dying men, both with children that hate them
Two young ladies, both seeking a way to change their lives
Two game show contestants linked through time
One cop seeking to change the world
One man hiding his past, to show others a new way of life All bound wholly by matters of chance, to get through one eventful day together.
Rating:
Summary: one of the best movies of the 90's.
Review: In Magnolia, writer/director, Paul Thomas Anderson has created a modern cinematic masterpiece. Entertaining, grand, operative, introspective are all adjectives that describe this film. At first glance, Magnolia appears to be singularly about the way that family members interact with each other in the face of coincidence, but like all great works of art, Magnolia encompasses many different subjects within its intricate weave: television, the relationships of men and women, and most emotionally, love. Writer/Director, Paul Thomas Anderson juggles all of these tonal and subject shifts with supreme artistry- granting each one its own unique emotional tone, subtle color scheme and style of directing, unlike Soderbergh's obvious ensemble directing in Traffic. The Altman comparisons aren't unjustified, yet Magnolia is a wholly new and fresh filmic event and Anderson has created a style that is really all of his own. Moments of grand operatic emotions fill the familial stories of Earl Partridge (Jason Robards) a dying TV mogul with an estranged son, sex guru, Frank Mackey (Tom Cruise) and a young trophy wife (Julianne Moore) who decides that, maybe she does in fact love Earl for his character and not his money. An entirely new set of characters are introduced to their conncetion with Jimmy Gator, the 2nd patriarch of the movie- the quiz show host of "What Do Kids Know." Like Earl, he's estranged from his child and dying of cancer, yet ends up less sympathetic than Earl. Connected to Jimmy is his loving and loyal wife (Melinda Dillon) his various mistresses and his daughter, Claudia.
When the film shifts to the unsentimental love aspect of the film, the tone shifts but stays within the same artistic framework as the rest of the movie. Jimmy's daughter Claudia (Melora Walters) a self-loathing coke addict meets Officer Jim Kurring (John C. Reilly) after playing her Aimee Mann CD too loud. Jim sees something in her that she (and neither do we) notice for most of the movie, till the satisfyingly offbeat conclusion, when her character has evolved from shrewish to sympathetic. Each character is richly devised- seemingly real people with motivations and desires that are both sad and pathetic, but understandable. Also in the mix of characters is Stanley Specter, a boy genius who feels the climactic pressure of earning money on the Jimmy Gator-hosted quiz show, "What Do Kids Know" for an ungrateful and mean-spirited father. In a related storyline a former "WDKK" contestant, Donnie Smith, a man so lonely and desperate for love, spends the film trying to figure out of a way to get braces superfluous to him just to attract the attention of a vapid bartender. His infinitely melancholic state of mind clings to any signs of idealism and innocence, which he lost after his parents stole his earnings and left him for broke. His life was ruined and his dreams are petty, but don't expect Paul Thomas Anderson to laugh at him or make him out to be a lesser character, which Todd Solondz might do. In Magnolia, there's a quiet and unsentimental redemption for all. In addition to the rich and moving set of characters, screenplay, Paul Thomas Anderson's directing is brilliantly idiosyncratic. He moves from flashy tracking shots which capture the tacky thrills of backstage television life to long still shots that let us focus on the characters and their conversation and not their faces or makeup. At any rate, his directing is skillful, attentive, and appropriate for each scene. If Paul Thomas Anderson set the seeds of genius in Boogie Nights, he sows them here. The cinematography and production values are also top-notch and the DVD only enhances the beauty and crispness with which Magnolia was shot and edited. The music works excellently too. Aimee Mann's haunting songs appear during the hugely operatic parts (such as one scene where the entire cast joins together to sing "Wise Up,") while Jon Brion's poignant score builds a quiet tension that dramatically erupts during the "storm," which is too good and surprising to give away. Despite that Paul Thomas Anderson has created a film this passionate, intelligent, and entertaining, still, Magnolia has left some viewers hating it, calling it "boring" or excessive because of its 3 emotionally and intellectually charged hours. True there aren't car chases or one liners or constant exploitation of sexuality (like in "American Beauty"- a cardboard film which goes down the exact opposite path that Magnolia does). There are no easy answers, and it doesn't dumb down its message as to condescend to the viewer, unlike 'Beauty'. One cannot really make a judgement about this film without seeing it at least a second time. To rush to a judgement after only one viewing is akin to looking at the Mona Lisa once and describing it as "ugly." If there is an age long debate about whether cinema is art or entertainment, Magnolia would affirm that it is both. For it is studied, intricate, and creative, yet over time (if not instantly) entertaining and moving. Magnolia is one of those few films that are released nowadays, in which it doesn't feel like the viewer is watching a product. That alone sets it apart. And Magnolia and Paul Thomas Anderson go beyond the average expectations and create a cinematic masterpiece, worthy of debate and repeated viewings.
Rating:
Summary: Leaves you stunned... with confusion.
Review: After seeing a preview for this movie in theatres many years ago, I finally rented this movie on DVD to find out if it was as interesting as I expected. From the start I was impressed with the photography and acting. The idea of taking on so many different inter-weaving character plots was very intriguing to me. The movie was never boring, and the movie gained more and more momentum as it neared the finale. So why am I only giving it 2 stars? The movie builds up so much steam as it nears the finish that you expect to be blown away by the time the credits come up. This never happens. Not even close. As the end of the film builds up to its height, it suddenly breaks apart, with more loose-ends and unresolved plots than any movie I have ever seen in my life. There is nothing worse than watching a movie for 3 hours just to be disapointed at the end, especially when it is a movie with as much potential as Magnolia. Shame on you, John Reilly for opting for such a poor excuse for an ending to what could have been a great movie.
| 
