Plot
An epic mosaic of several interrelated characters in search of happiness, forgiveness, and meaning in the San Fernando Valley.
Release Year: 1999
Rating: 8.0/10 (151,530 voted)
Critic's Score: 77/100
Director:
Paul Thomas Anderson
Stars: Tom Cruise, Jason Robards, Julianne Moore
Storyline 24 hours in L.A.; it's raining cats and dogs. Two parallel and intercut stories dramatize men about to die: both are estranged from a grown child, both want to make contact, and neither child wants anything to do with dad. Earl Partridge's son is a charismatic misogynist; Jimmy Gator's daughter is a cokehead and waif. A mild and caring nurse intercedes for Earl, reaching the son; a prayerful and upright beat cop meets the daughter, is attracted to her, and leads her toward a new calm. Meanwhile, guilt consumes Earl's young wife, while two whiz kids, one grown and a loser and the other young and pressured, face their situations. The weather, too, is quirky.
Cast: Julianne Moore
-
Linda Partridge
William H. Macy
-
Donnie Smith
John C. Reilly
-
Officer Jim Kurring
Tom Cruise
-
Frank T.J. Mackey
Philip Baker Hall
-
Jimmy Gator
Philip Seymour Hoffman
-
Phil Parma
Jason Robards
-
Earl Partridge
Alfred Molina
-
Solomon Solomon
Melora Walters
-
Claudia Wilson Gator
Michael Bowen
-
Rick Spector
Ricky Jay
-
Burt Ramsey
/
Narrator
Jeremy Blackman
-
Stanley Spector
Melinda Dillon
-
Rose Gator
April Grace
-
Gwenovier
Luis Guzmán
-
Luis
(as Luis Guzman)
Taglines:
Things fall down. People look up. And when it rains, it pours.
Opening Weekend: $193,604
(USA)
(19 December 1999)
(7 Screens)
Gross: $48,451,803
(Worldwide)
(20 May 2000)
Technical Specs
Runtime:
Did You Know?
Trivia:
Filming lasted 90 days, though it was originally scheduled to be 77.
Goofs:
Factual errors:
When Linda Partridge is first placed in the ambulance, the EMT crew is not providing ventilations for her after stating that she has six respirations per minute (norm is 12-20). This would be priority and the crew should have been using an Ambu on scene. Such equipment is not seen until later.
Quotes:
[first lines]
Narrator:
In the New York Herald, November 26, year 1911, there is an account of the hanging of three men. They died for the murder of Sir Edmund William Godfrey; Husband, Father, Pharmacist and all around gentle-man resident of: Greenberry Hill, London. He was murdered by three vagrants whose motive was simple robbery...
User Review
often brilliant, occasionally forced film
Rating:
`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.
0