Okay, I finally did it. I’ve been telling myself for a good 10-15 years that I was going to go back and do a proper write up on one of my least favorite movies ever made, Paul Thomas Anderson’s Magnolia. Over the years I have had people ask me what I hate about the movie so much and for 10-15 years I've said that I needed to rewatch the movie to give it a proper write up to explain my feelings. This is the movie that I get the most reaction from hating. I guess people can understand my hatred for Southland Tales or Pink Flamingos or Moulin Rouge, but they always express surprise that I hate Magnolia. “It’s a masterpiece!” they insist. Well it recently was made available for streaming on Netflix, so I told myself that now was the time. But I had to go into it while being in the headspace of giving it a fair shot, not going in looking for more things to hate about it. Last night was the night. Here are my thoughts on Magnolia, edited and occasionally expanded from the roughly 1500 words of notes I took while watching the movie, this is more of my watch-along comments than my more standard "review" format, so if you're unfamiliar with the movie, this is unlikely to make sense:
What’s with the opening freneticism? After the prologue about weird deaths (hey, it’s Patton Oswalt, yay!) the camera is zooming and panning and the editing is quick cutting like Michael Bay on a meth bender. PTA is doing a decent job of laying out that this is a big sprawling LA canvas, but unlike the way that (for example) the Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer cross cut and layout so many stories at the beginning of Cloud Atlas, which has a control to it that makes me feel like I’m in good hands, this feels like Robert Altman directing the final coked out sequence of Goodfellas on fast forward.
John C. Reilly is really good. It has been so many years of Reilly as Dewey Cox or Cal Naughton that I forgot about the fact that Reilly can also hold the screen with a great mixture of drama and comedy. This early scene of him checking out the crazy lady's apartment and finding the body in the closet isn’t tense like it would be in most movies, but almost comedic, and Reilly carries it well. The scene would be a nice setup for a story about his character, but this storyline is pretty much dropped outside of a very quick scene later on. It’s obviously something Anderson cut down from an earlier version, but it’s cut down to feeling out of place at this point.
What’s with the opening freneticism? After the prologue about weird deaths (hey, it’s Patton Oswalt, yay!) the camera is zooming and panning and the editing is quick cutting like Michael Bay on a meth bender. PTA is doing a decent job of laying out that this is a big sprawling LA canvas, but unlike the way that (for example) the Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer cross cut and layout so many stories at the beginning of Cloud Atlas, which has a control to it that makes me feel like I’m in good hands, this feels like Robert Altman directing the final coked out sequence of Goodfellas on fast forward.
John C. Reilly is really good. It has been so many years of Reilly as Dewey Cox or Cal Naughton that I forgot about the fact that Reilly can also hold the screen with a great mixture of drama and comedy. This early scene of him checking out the crazy lady's apartment and finding the body in the closet isn’t tense like it would be in most movies, but almost comedic, and Reilly carries it well. The scene would be a nice setup for a story about his character, but this storyline is pretty much dropped outside of a very quick scene later on. It’s obviously something Anderson cut down from an earlier version, but it’s cut down to feeling out of place at this point.
What’s with the rapping kid? That was worthless. And he later shows up to find Julianne Moore half dead in her car and raps again. This adds nothing. This is the kind of crap I’m sure PTA was referring to in an interview with Marc Maron when he said he’d “cut the shit” out of the movie if he made it today.
This storyline with Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jason Robards is terrific. Both are wonderful and even though the writing is just okay, they have great chemistry and sell the shit out of it. It’s nice to see Hoffman downplay something too. He’s among my top 5 or so favorite actors ever, but this kind of subtle empathy was not always something he looked to play in a character.
Everyone is playing to the back row. Everyone is over-the-top. Everyone is ACTING. Hoffman is the only one that isn’t, and his performance has been the most intriguing to me so far because of it.
Terrific single take shot through the TV studio as Stanley is arriving.
Tom Cruise is killing it here. Unlike many in the movie, he has an actual character. The way he preaches this misogynistic bullshit, but when the female interviewer takes control, he dutifully obeys her. It’s all show. He is jittery and anxious in his energy and her stillness easily overpowers him. I could watch a whole movie about this character and watch his interactions with people versus his stage persona.
William H. Macy’s character is bizarre. He’s given all of this backstory, all of the character creation points are hit, and Macy is (like Julianne Moore) acting very hard, making sure everyone in the theater sees every little emotion. It’s honestly not very good acting, but I still blame the filmmaker and not the actor here. Macy is really trying, but this character doesn’t elevate to the point of feeling real. I don’t get Henry Gibsons character either. He speaks in riddles and annoys Macy’s character but to what end?
About 80 minutes in and the storytelling feels like Anderson’s ambition is bigger than his talent. He is not balancing these stories very well, I don’t think. The movie feels very choppy.
When we come back to the Cruise interview, it’s obvious that this is the best thing in the movie. Cruise becomes jittery again when she brings up his parents. He tells what feels like obvious lies about his mother and averts his eyes and tries to change the subject around his dad. This is truly top level acting by Cruise. The cat and mouse thing with the interviewer, who’s catching him in so many lies, it’s fascinating. It should’ve been its own movie. Seriously every time we cut back to Cruise is just makes the rest of the movie worse in comparison. THIS is the movie. This is the character that is more than just a sketch, this is the character who is deeper than what we see and hear, this is the character that could sustain its own movie. The rest of these people are nothing. Paper thin ghosts of smoke. I’m halfway through the movie and of all the pieces of it, this is the only one I’m intrigued by. I like Hoffman and what he’s doing, and his piece is deepened by Cruise, but Cruise is the show here.
This storyline with Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jason Robards is terrific. Both are wonderful and even though the writing is just okay, they have great chemistry and sell the shit out of it. It’s nice to see Hoffman downplay something too. He’s among my top 5 or so favorite actors ever, but this kind of subtle empathy was not always something he looked to play in a character.
Everyone is playing to the back row. Everyone is over-the-top. Everyone is ACTING. Hoffman is the only one that isn’t, and his performance has been the most intriguing to me so far because of it.
Terrific single take shot through the TV studio as Stanley is arriving.
Tom Cruise is killing it here. Unlike many in the movie, he has an actual character. The way he preaches this misogynistic bullshit, but when the female interviewer takes control, he dutifully obeys her. It’s all show. He is jittery and anxious in his energy and her stillness easily overpowers him. I could watch a whole movie about this character and watch his interactions with people versus his stage persona.
William H. Macy’s character is bizarre. He’s given all of this backstory, all of the character creation points are hit, and Macy is (like Julianne Moore) acting very hard, making sure everyone in the theater sees every little emotion. It’s honestly not very good acting, but I still blame the filmmaker and not the actor here. Macy is really trying, but this character doesn’t elevate to the point of feeling real. I don’t get Henry Gibsons character either. He speaks in riddles and annoys Macy’s character but to what end?
About 80 minutes in and the storytelling feels like Anderson’s ambition is bigger than his talent. He is not balancing these stories very well, I don’t think. The movie feels very choppy.
When we come back to the Cruise interview, it’s obvious that this is the best thing in the movie. Cruise becomes jittery again when she brings up his parents. He tells what feels like obvious lies about his mother and averts his eyes and tries to change the subject around his dad. This is truly top level acting by Cruise. The cat and mouse thing with the interviewer, who’s catching him in so many lies, it’s fascinating. It should’ve been its own movie. Seriously every time we cut back to Cruise is just makes the rest of the movie worse in comparison. THIS is the movie. This is the character that is more than just a sketch, this is the character who is deeper than what we see and hear, this is the character that could sustain its own movie. The rest of these people are nothing. Paper thin ghosts of smoke. I’m halfway through the movie and of all the pieces of it, this is the only one I’m intrigued by. I like Hoffman and what he’s doing, and his piece is deepened by Cruise, but Cruise is the show here.
Julianne Moore is giving a satire of a “hysterical woman falling apart” performance. This doesn’t even seem grounded in any reality. It’s…surreal. Immediately the scene after, Phil Hoffman says what’s happening is like a scene in a movie but maybe those scenes happen because they’re real. This is starting to feel like a parody.
The fucking insistent music in the background, it’s obnoxious and becomes like white noise eventually. It’s not there to serve any purpose, it almost feels like it’s there to cover for the thinness of the characters, but it doesn’t.
The fucking insistent music in the background, it’s obnoxious and becomes like white noise eventually. It’s not there to serve any purpose, it almost feels like it’s there to cover for the thinness of the characters, but it doesn’t.
Julianne Moore’s performance is absolutely comical and she’s an actress I normally love. I recently rewatched Hot Rod, and much of Moore’s performance feels like the kind of thing Will Arnett is parodying in his “no babe, babe no, babe!” scene.
Reilly: what is the deal with his character? He seems to have things together when this all started, bit awkward and obviously lonely, but then all of the sudden he’s struck by a pretty girl and doesn’t notice that she’s sweating profusely? That she’s obviously on drugs? That the coffee she gave him is awful because it’s probably sat out for weeks? I don’t get it. It doesn’t ring true to me, even though Reilly is selling it. This is another instance where I give the actor a pass but not the writer.
What’s with Stanley wanting to stay in the game after he pees his pants but then refusing to play the game? Doesn’t make sense. And then giving some big speech about how oppressing being the smart kid is? The whole kid's thing doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t work at all.
And now Reilly is getting shot at? And loses his gun? The movie is 190 minutes, but we don’t even see him lose his gun? We can’t have a 2 second little insert shot of Reilly losing the gun, it’s just all of the sudden he doesn’t have it? What is this? This doesn’t fit. It doesn’t make sense. It’s sloppy as hell.
Phil Hoffman was brilliant. While Julianne Moore is overacting all over the place, he’s centered and grounded and real. It’s terrific work from him. If it wasn’t for Cruise, I would say he’s the one doing anything to save this movie.
So, we have two stories of dying old men and their estranged kids. Do these stories inform each other? Do they contrast each other? Why do we have "two old men dying with estranged kids" stories here? Is either one saying something that the other couldn’t? I think if you’re going to have two storylines where characters are going through the same thing, there should be a reason. Contrast or parallel storytelling makes sense, but I can’t help but feel like one of these is superfluous thematically.
Reilly: what is the deal with his character? He seems to have things together when this all started, bit awkward and obviously lonely, but then all of the sudden he’s struck by a pretty girl and doesn’t notice that she’s sweating profusely? That she’s obviously on drugs? That the coffee she gave him is awful because it’s probably sat out for weeks? I don’t get it. It doesn’t ring true to me, even though Reilly is selling it. This is another instance where I give the actor a pass but not the writer.
What’s with Stanley wanting to stay in the game after he pees his pants but then refusing to play the game? Doesn’t make sense. And then giving some big speech about how oppressing being the smart kid is? The whole kid's thing doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t work at all.
And now Reilly is getting shot at? And loses his gun? The movie is 190 minutes, but we don’t even see him lose his gun? We can’t have a 2 second little insert shot of Reilly losing the gun, it’s just all of the sudden he doesn’t have it? What is this? This doesn’t fit. It doesn’t make sense. It’s sloppy as hell.
Phil Hoffman was brilliant. While Julianne Moore is overacting all over the place, he’s centered and grounded and real. It’s terrific work from him. If it wasn’t for Cruise, I would say he’s the one doing anything to save this movie.
So, we have two stories of dying old men and their estranged kids. Do these stories inform each other? Do they contrast each other? Why do we have "two old men dying with estranged kids" stories here? Is either one saying something that the other couldn’t? I think if you’re going to have two storylines where characters are going through the same thing, there should be a reason. Contrast or parallel storytelling makes sense, but I can’t help but feel like one of these is superfluous thematically.
The “Wise Up” sequence can only be made by someone of immense talent and gigantic artistic balls. I admire the hell out of the gall to create this sequence. The earnestness of it, it’s a sight to behold. But it doesn’t work. It’s laughable and somehow feels sophomoric, despite knowing the risk it is to make it.
Reilly and Walters’s date, I find myself caring just from the inherent structure of it. It’s like how rom-coms just work without earning it. Even as I watch Walters hyperventilating and sweating and seemingly always on the verge of tears, I root for these two. Reilly and Walters are both terrific in the scene.
Every time it cuts away from Cruise, I hate the story it’s cutting to just a little bit more.
And now the fucking frogs. PTA has the nerve to zoom in to the words “but it did happen” as its fucking raining fucking frogs. Out loud, when that happened, I said “fuck you” to the movie.
“This is something that happens” uh no it’s fucking not. Yes, I know that technically similar things have happened, but I question anyone in this movie treating it as though it’s something that happens. None of the stories from the prologue would you look at while they’re happening and say “this is something that happens.” Fuck you with every fiber of my being. Only Hoffman’s character says incredulously “there’s frogs raining from the sky”. That’s close to a believable reaction.
Reilly and Walters’s date, I find myself caring just from the inherent structure of it. It’s like how rom-coms just work without earning it. Even as I watch Walters hyperventilating and sweating and seemingly always on the verge of tears, I root for these two. Reilly and Walters are both terrific in the scene.
Every time it cuts away from Cruise, I hate the story it’s cutting to just a little bit more.
And now the fucking frogs. PTA has the nerve to zoom in to the words “but it did happen” as its fucking raining fucking frogs. Out loud, when that happened, I said “fuck you” to the movie.
“This is something that happens” uh no it’s fucking not. Yes, I know that technically similar things have happened, but I question anyone in this movie treating it as though it’s something that happens. None of the stories from the prologue would you look at while they’re happening and say “this is something that happens.” Fuck you with every fiber of my being. Only Hoffman’s character says incredulously “there’s frogs raining from the sky”. That’s close to a believable reaction.
And this all happens during a scene of Cruise’s character's culmination where he lets his vulnerability out, his anger, his rage, his grief of losing his father and mother at the same time but only being able to say goodbye to his mother, everything. It’s tremendous. And Robards has a moment of clarity and he and Cruise look into each other’s eyes, Robards tries to speak but nothing comes out and he dies. It’s an absolutely extraordinary moment in the middle of the “fuck you” of an ending. What a movie this would’ve been had it just been Cruise’s movie and the story of Hoffman trying to contact the dying man’s estranged son. But sadly, that’s not the movie we got.
And then there’s Robards’s dead dog? Did it die from the pills Hoffman dropped earlier? Did it get hit in the head by a goddamn frog? We don’t get to see. Again, there’s all this time wasted on shit that doesn’t matter like the rapping kid or the lady who killed the guy in the closet, but we can’t get a connecting couple of seconds to let us know why there’s a dog being taken out by hospice workers? Pretty sure hospice would tell you to fuck off and take care of your own dead dog anyway.
Stanley saying “You have to be nicer to me dad.” Fuck off kid. This isn’t even motivated, you all of the sudden standing up for yourself. So much of the denouement for these characters is just totally unearned and feels false.
Everyone acting like the frogs were a fucking answer. Fuck you. Fuck this movie. Nobody is saying “did motherfucking frogs just rain from the goddamn sky?” Everyone is just like “ya know, it makes you think and reflect on your life.” No one even addresses like “holy shit what is happening? Is this the fucking rapture or some shit?” And then Reilly’s gun falls out of the sky 20 feet in front of him? Fuck off movie. Fuck you. Get fucked.
And then there’s Robards’s dead dog? Did it die from the pills Hoffman dropped earlier? Did it get hit in the head by a goddamn frog? We don’t get to see. Again, there’s all this time wasted on shit that doesn’t matter like the rapping kid or the lady who killed the guy in the closet, but we can’t get a connecting couple of seconds to let us know why there’s a dog being taken out by hospice workers? Pretty sure hospice would tell you to fuck off and take care of your own dead dog anyway.
Stanley saying “You have to be nicer to me dad.” Fuck off kid. This isn’t even motivated, you all of the sudden standing up for yourself. So much of the denouement for these characters is just totally unearned and feels false.
Everyone acting like the frogs were a fucking answer. Fuck you. Fuck this movie. Nobody is saying “did motherfucking frogs just rain from the goddamn sky?” Everyone is just like “ya know, it makes you think and reflect on your life.” No one even addresses like “holy shit what is happening? Is this the fucking rapture or some shit?” And then Reilly’s gun falls out of the sky 20 feet in front of him? Fuck off movie. Fuck you. Get fucked.
So even going into this thing with an open mind, even with how much I loved Cruise and Hoffman and wish that that was its own movie, I hate this movie. I have never felt offended by a movie the way I did this one. I may hate other movies but only the condescension of Michael Haneke’s Funny Games has offended me, and that pales in comparison to what this movie does. I was physically shaking I was so angry at this movie. I will be sticking with my 1/10 rating, angry that Cruise and Hoffman were wasted, angry that PTA expected me to accept raining frogs as an answer to anything, but I’m not angry that I wasted 3+ hours of my time on this garbage because at least I came out of it with this write up. I apologize for the messiness, length, and disjointed nature of the write up, but it feels fitting for this movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment