Cool News
Tyler Durden looks at Paul Thomas Anderson's MAGNOLIA
Hey folks, Harry here and this here is a review of MAGNOLIA, the follow up project from the director of BOOGIE NIGHTS. Paul Thomas Anderson is currently on a roll, two good films in a row and this one... well this one sounds like it's a blast... So we'll just have to wait and see how it fairs after all is said and done. This screening took place quite a whiles back down in Australia. I had some cursory "It's great" "This movie soooo fucking rocks" pieces of email, but nothing that really resembled a review... so here ya go.... Tyler Durden, will you please do the honors...
Hey Harry -
first time writer so I've got to do the usual first time stuff, tell you
your column's cool.
the reason I'm writing is that last week I got to see MAGNOLIA, the new one
by Paul Thomas Anderson. There was maybe three hundred of us, and PTA was
there with his editor Dillon/Dylan (?). He's frighteningly young, a kind
of geeky Tarantino-type, made a short speech about this being a rough cut,
and warning us that it's long (he wasn't kidding). It runs something over
three hours, but Harry I've got to say I could have watched it quite
happily for three more.
I should start off by saying I had a pretty good time at Hard Eight and
thought Boogie Nights rocked. But this is a serious leap forward. Most of
the cast of those films come back for more - William Macy, Philip Seymoor
Hoffman, John C Reilly, Julianne Moore, Philip Baker Hall (I think that's
his name). And the plot is a kind of Short Cutsy freewheel round LA,
dipping in on the lives of the many different characters. And Harry I got
to tell ya it's fucking fantastic. The different stories connect in deeply
weird but totally cool ways, I don't wanna spoil the big ending but it's a
kind of biblical plague type deal that they all go through. It's just an
amazing script.
And man o man, the acting. This is just the best group acting I've maybe
ever seen. Reilly is brilliant - Oscar time no doubt. There's a young
woman in it whose name I don't know (this cut didn't have credits on) plays
his junkie girlfriend, and she is gonna be a HUGE star. Jason Robards
who's been my hero for years has this ten minute (no shit) death bed speech
had me in tears. Philip baker Hall is also brilliant. Just everyone is
absolutely superb, even - and this is a serious shocker - Tom Cruise. He's
doing a small part and while I'm not his biggest fan I've got to say that
this is the best you've ever seen him by far, he just goes all the way. I
didn't know he was in it, and the first time you see him is just
hysterical.
Yeah, it's very very long, and that's gonna make it tough to sell, but
there's not many films nowadays take you into a world that's different and
recognisable at the same time, and this one does it. As soon as I could
talk I went over and shook Anderson's hand afterwards, told him I'd loved
it and asked him how much he was planning to cut. He seemed pleased by how
it went, said maybe ten minutes only. Which makes him brave but having
seen this he certainly ain't stupid.
So that's it harry. I loved this film, think when it's finished it's gonna
be a stone classic. Hope you agree.
Tyler Durden
-
+ Expand All
-
...and just what the hell is this movie about?
-
Hard Eight is a rookie movie of true power. Boogie Nights is the best of the 90's so far. Can't freakin' wait for Magnolia. P.T. IS GOD!!! Nuff said.
-
These are two different people. Paul Anderson being the crap director of "Mortal Kombat" and "Event Horizon" (well, some people liked them, but not me). I know a lot of you knew that, but on almost every PTA Talkback there's been some yahoo who says, "Well, if he directed Mortal Kombat he can't be that good." Anyway, I love PT Anderson. I have a sort of love-hate relationship with a lot of indies, even with, say, Tarantino I take a day or two to digest his movies. But with Boogie Nights and then Hard Eight, I loved 'em both right away. Boogie Nights is so energetic, and so fascinating...maybe it's not as "deep" as other indies, but dammit, why can't a low-budget character study be fun? And Hard Eight, while more laid back, is the work of a master storyteller (it actually seems more mature than BN) who can draw you in with the simplest of on-screen events. Barely anything happens, plot-wise, for the first half of this movie, but you just can't look away. Still, I hope PTA isn't giving in to the self-indulgent urges of some young, acclaimed filmmakers, and making a 3-hour movie just because he can. There's room for long movies--there are some you just never want to end--but movies should find their own length. (That goes for movies that are too short, too.)
-
I am definitely looking forward to seeing PTA's new movie, but this little comment is about Cruise. The writer of the article seemed to have a problem with him as an actor, which I think is a bit unfair. You don't have to like him as an actor, but one should be careful when implying that he cannot act and that this role is a revelation for him or something. I think it is great that he would want to do a small role in a film like this, but I've liked a lot of his other stuff, not all of it, but a lot. He's talented and a hard worker, and when I hear someone say something like "he can't act", I just shake my head. If he couldn't act, then are the greatest directors in the profession, such as Scorsese, Stone, Coppola, Levinson, PTA, and Kubrick (honorable mentions include Ron Howard, Rob Reiner, Cameron Crowe, Neil Jordon, and Brian DePalma), all suffering from some sort of mass delusion, or is it possible that he can indeed act? Anyone asserting that they are privy to some flaw in his ability that all of the great directors he's worked with have somehow missed comes off as extremely bereft of objectivity and/or intelligence. Again, you don't have to like him to appreciate his talent. I don't like opera, but I don't say things like "Oh, the 3 Tenors? They suck." Later.
-
Take a pill, man. Saying "the acting was great" DOES tell us shit. It tells us the acting was great (at least in the reviewers' opinion). I'd MUCH rather this kind of review than the usual critical review, which wastes half of its length on giving us the plot (and, all too often, giving too much away). Besides, a lot of the time, the plot tells us nothing. Would the plot of Pulp Fiction mean anything to you if you hadn't seen the movie? I suppose you could make the "how do we know this guy saw the movie"/"He's a studio shill" argument, but I'd much rather just take everything on this site with a grain of salt than insist that Harry become CNN and ruin his site.
-
I totally agree about the need for professional reviewers. I think way too many people here follow Harry's shitty lead. "I fucking love it" "Oscar this and that". I just can't take it seriously. I figure this film will be great anyway since Anderson is so good.
And anyone who doesn't give Tom Cruise credit for being a great actor has no clue about acting. If the Academy had any balls he would have one two awards already. Best Actor for Jerry Maguire and Best Supporting for Rainman. He only works with the best and there is a good reason for that. His only mistake so far was turning down Pulp Fiction but everyone makes a mistake now and again. Its about time he got his due. -
Nothing here to spoil -- frogs drop from the sky. It's on the fucking poster. -
OK, let's get something straight. When people (like me) say that Tom Cruise can't act, what we are saying is that Tom Cruise's acting style, which is as Hollywood as you can get, doesn't appeal to us. You see, Tom Cruise plays exactly the same character in every movie he makes- just like Harrison Ford, for instance, and just like Humphrey Bogart did for the most part, and Jimmy Stewart, and most Hollywood superstars. There is nothing wrong with this per se, but they certainly can't be said to possess the level of craft of, say, Ben Kingsley, who can disappear inside a role. Now CLEVER directors- like Scorsese, like Kubrick- will use Cruise's prefab image to good effect by casting him in a role suited to the Cruise screen persona, and end up with good movies. Other, not-so-clever directors, like Jordan and Howard, cast him because Cruise films usually make lots of money and they end up with shitty movies. (And how did DePalma make that list at all?) But don't try to tell me that Tom Cruise can act. And let's not even get into the worth of Best Acting Oscars these days, and how little they have to do with actual good acting.
-
People proclaim they're first because it's a tradition on this site. Everyone does it when they have the chance. If that really bothers you, then you are a sad, angry person indeed. As for things getting old, people who post only to bitch and complain and prove to everybody just how much of a hardass they are is a nice candidate. Don't fuck with the badass who uses lots of capital letters...
-
Tom Cruise, while not always brilliant, is a decent actor. The pained look on his face when Nicole revealed that secret in "Eyes Wide Shut" was one of this year's best acting moments. He should have an Oscar on his mantle for "Born on the Fourth of July", and "Mission Impossible" is a great movie largely due to him. I don't agree that he is the same role in every film, he's simply not a character actor. I hated "Cocktail", "Legend", "Top Gun", "All the Right Moves", and that fucking car movie, but I still think he knows his way around a movie screen. He has a long career ahead of him. If you need to rip on someone, kick Joe Pesci around for awhile.
-
I don't see why you'd have a problem with DePalma, the man has made some fine films and made some stinkers just like any director who has made a lot of films. I hate people (I'm not accusing you Anton but it sounds like you might be one) who get down on him for after a bad flick. I admit Snake Eyes licked donkey balls but how soon you all forget Carrie, The Untouchables, Scarface, and Carlito's Way. hell, Mission Impossibe wasn't that bad except for a totally incoherent plot. If anyone didn't belong in the list its Neil Jordan. I hope Mission To Mars kick ass. I really hope it does better than Red Planet. I mean, you can see a Mars movie with Tim Robbins, Gary Sinise, and Don Cheadle or one with Val Kilmer. An easy choice. Sorry about my DePalma rant. P.T. Anderson is cool too. The Magnolia trailer looks great.
-
Aug 22, 1999 9:38:54 PM CDT
Tom Cruise can SO act. Wasn't this Talk Back about Paul Thomas A
by alexandra dupont
Mr. Cruise is a leading man along the lines of Redford or Newman; he knows his limitations and plays well within them, and generally chooses his projects pretty carefully. And for those of you who are ripping on him for "Days of Thunder" et al: Have you SEEN "Jerry Maguire"? Or is that too much of a "chick flick" for this crowd? Dear heaven, the man ripped up the screen with his charm and levels! In interviews, Barry Levinson makes a point of singling Cruise out as the man who carried "Rain Man," not Hoffman. Hoffman's character is more or less static; Cruise's character evolves. Considerably.
-
Personally, I thought that Tom Cruise gave a much better performance in "Mission: Impossible" than in "Jerry Maguire." Also, what was so "incoherant" about the plot of "Mission"? Maybe De Palma should have thrown in a couple dozen pop-music montages, a la "Maguire," so that people could have followed the film easier.
-
Now I know why PT Anderson was on the set of Eyes Wide Shut, as revealed in an EW article a few weeks back (about EWS, not PT). Pretty funny how he describes how Kubrick made him feel like a Hollywood asshole. Anyhoo, I agree that plot descriptions are stupid, but I still gotta ask: what the hell is this movie about? A hint or vague description of some sort would be nice...If Boogie Nights was the rise and fall of a porn star, what is this? All I can assume is that Anderson will keep is surrogate family thing going. And about how Mission: Impossible is incoherent...because the double-crossings happen in large part off screen and have little to no effect on Cruise until the finale, when it all comes together in a very clunky way. Once you get it straight it's very simple, but in unfolds in the worst way. Take the scene where Phelps reveals himself to Hunt in London...talk about misleading. Granted, I'm no genius when it comes to dense plots, but more than a few people were scratching their heads at this one.
-
Lemmee see, now...This three hour movie, which, based on what I read in the "review" isn't about anything at all (you know, in a cool Altman-esque "Short Cuts" kind of way I hope) or 5 minutes...nay 5 seconds of another Police Academy movie. I HATE HOLLYWOOD FOR BEING AFRAID OF THIS KIND OF GREAT STORY TELLING AND SELLING THEIR HOLLOW, ROTTEN, PUTRESCENT SOULS TO THE BOTTOM LINE!! Oh and ps...Steve Guttenberg is Satan, thanks.
-
I am so psyched about this film. Boogie Nights was without a doubt the best picture of 1997, and Hard Eight was very cool as well. For the people who don't like the review style, I for the record would like to voice my support of the no plot format. If you want to know the plot, go to the official website of Magnolia. It will give you an idea. Besides, I get the feeling this is the kind of film you can't easily encapsulate - much like Pulp Fiction, which was mentioned above. Incidentally, what role in Pulp Fiction did Cruise turn down? Anyone? As for Tom Cruise, I agree the guy can act. Yes, he has become a bit of a persona onscreen like Ford, Nicholson, etc., but that's the price of superstardom, I suppose. I liked his performance in Rain Man best. As for Mission:Impossible, here is why I found the film confusing the first time that I saw it. When Voight and Cruise meet for the first time after Voight's apparent death, Cruise replays the events of the fateful night in his mind. Right after he realizes that Voight's character is the villain, he asks, "Why?" I thought he was asking Phelps (Voight) why he did it. In fact, he was asking Phelps why Kittridge (spelling?) did it, which was in the flow of their conversation while Cruise had the imagined flashback. Since I thought Phelps knew Hunt knew that Phelps was the bad guy, this made the rest of the film understandably confusing. Subsequent viewings cleared up my confusion, and the film actually improved for me after that. However, the totally nonsensical part where Phelps shoots his wife who is posing no threat instead of shooting Hunt is still downright silly.
-
I think Paul Thomas Anderson is the best of the new breed of writer/directors since Tarantino burst onto the scene in 1992 with RESERVOIR DOGS. HARD EIGHT was an impressive debut, BOOGIE NIGHTS was a fucking masterpiece, and, from the very few scraps of info I've gotten about it, MAGNOLIA looks like another winner. Damn. So many great movies coming out around Christmas.
-
For the people who complain that reviewers here don't tell the plot: Paul Thomas Anderson and Co. are keeping the project under wraps. NO ONE knows what the plot is, except that it is sort of like Altman's shortcuts. Okay? Are we clear now, kids? Why don't we play nice and stop badmouthing the reviewers.
-
I think P.T. Anderson has a true gift for art. Not only for his great shots and camera work, but also for his honest way of writing how people really act, instead of the one-dimensional method Hollywood uses, having actors memorize lines that seemed to be meant for androids.
-
Tyler,
Are we a little overanxious about fight club or do you just want to reserve "dibs" on the leads name?
I mean, I liked the book too, but... -
What the fuck was all that about?
I'd rather see Cruise being Cruise
than see Brad Pitt being a "serious" actor by taking quirky parts and doing spotty accents.
I get the idea that the plot of
this movie isn't easily summarized. Trailers are for summing up plots, Reviews are for assessing quality. -
I managed to get a copy of this script and all I can say is this is an amazing film waiting to happen. Since "Boogie Nights" is easily the best film of the 90s, I can't think of anyone better to make this beautiful script into a film than the PTA.
And on the subject of acting, those of you claiming that Tom Cruise and Will Smith can't act are sadly unaware of what film acting is really all about. This wig and accent crap is all surface. Looking and sounding different in each film is not a reflection of an actor's skill. Actors play situations, not surfaces. Say what you want about Tom Cruise---maybe you just don't like the guy---but he's one helluva an actor. You should also remember that, in addition to being cast by many great directors (as already mentioned), those directors are guiding those performances and if you don't like them, blame the manufacturers. Nobody ever blames directors for bad performances. What do you think they do? -
This is the one ------ movie I can't wait to see. PTA is definately in it for longevity. Bravo to such a visionary filmaker who follows his own rules.
-
Pretty Tacky Anderson -- A rip off of "Short Cuts" The many zoom ins and outs draw attention to themselves and are derived from Scorsese.
The movie was way too long and dull in many spots. The game show business had an older period feel. It was boring. The rest was current. It shows the theme of kids versus adults, but who cares. It was boring! The damien looking kid who knows opera should of been looking into the foxy girl's eyes sitting next to him - not out in space. Tom Cruise needs to work on his acting too. On the death bed scene he is so ashamed of his fake pathetic performance he tries to duck and hide his face from the camera. He should of asked Jullianne for help because she nailed her crying scene. Well done JAM! The Mackey story goes nowhere and wasn't payed off.
As for chance intersection. That guy wouldn't commit suicide seeing that net from the ledge. Like he didn't see it? Like the scubba diver would be on the surface and not hear the plane and the pilot not see him. Please!
Hey Newline, what happened to your 555 phone number policy? I hope Ted doesn't get sued. Can't spoil the realism, but you can go with the raining frogs?
Things I couldn't figure out:
Who shot at the cop? What does he see in the crack addict whore? What does the rapper admit too?
Finally, the troop came back, but where the hell is Burt?
He was the best part of BN. He should of played Mackey with a rewrite.
--Cinephile -
Hey Tom Cruise.
What's so masculine about that gay girly hair do?
It should of been 1 877 GRLY MAN.
Did you get 25 million for that crap?
Did you sign on before or after Eyes Wide Shut bombed?
Cinephile
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- G.I. JOE: RETALIATION Delayed Nine Months...Thanks To A Force More Sinister Than Cobra!! -- 193 total posts 192 posts
- Who Is The Voice Of Batman In WB's Animated Two Part THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS? -- 142 total posts 142 posts
- Cats Beware!! An ALF Movie May Soon Come Our Way... -- 137 total posts 136 posts
- THE DARK KNIGHT RISES TV Spot Has New Footage And Dialogue! UPDATED To Add Second Spot! -- 111 total posts 111 posts
- UPDATED!!! A Six-Pack Of New Character Posters For THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Forecast A Lot Of Gotham Rain And Snow!! -- 268 total posts 93 posts
- Baz's THE GREAT GATSBY explodes with one helluva dazzling trailer! -- 184 total posts 81 posts
- AICN COMICS REVIEWS: INCREDIBLE HULK! DANGER CLUB! CLiNT 2.1! JAMES BOND! BATMAN INC.! AND MORE!!! -- 64 total posts 64 posts
- Zach Galifianakis Is Ignatius J. Reilly? -- 84 total posts 63 posts
- Gary Oldman Joins The ROBOCOP Remake! -- 60 total posts 60 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day… the horror… the horror… -- 47 total posts 47 posts