Magnolia - Crap / Not Crap?
- Thread starter akirajoel
- Start date
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Great movie that wants to be a film IMHO, much like Crash. Adaptation is a film wrapped up in the guise of a movie, as Memento and Eternal Sunshine are.
Blinding performance from The Cruiser tho - if he could do that for a whole film he'd really blow people away.
Blinding performance from The Cruiser tho - if he could do that for a whole film he'd really blow people away.
It's one of those films that I've always wanted to see but never got round to 
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
At the end of the day...
...it is functional, & less harsh on the eye than white. Also gives a warm glow if the room half-lit. I'm a convert.
...it is functional, & less harsh on the eye than white. Also gives a warm glow if the room half-lit. I'm a convert.
i was reacting to your rather sneering post before mine there - what i meant was you were reading too much into the reasons i liked it...akirajoel said:Jesus Christ. Is that all it takes?
I mean seriously. I know I can take things too seriously sometimes. I mean I can get very emotional about films and music and that probably pisses a lot of people off... But still. The whole "you shouldnt read too much into it defence." At its root it just because we have two completely different ways of approaching stuff - but do you never put emotional investment into things? Never think that stuff should mean something more than just looking pretty or sounding nice???
The acting was pretty nice and their were a few nice shots. But the stories lead nowhere and said nothing interesting outside of themselves. I mean I know that not every film needs to be a philosophical treatie - but Magnolia set itself as being a deep film with something to say. If you dont think to give the film a closer examnation then i'd say that you're missing the point of it. Then again - maybe not - perhaps you're right and i'm wrong. Maybe PTA meant for the film to be a stinking turd. Maybe all he wanted was to tell stories and have some lovely acting from good-looking people and then play a little melodic song at the end. Because that would be nice. But lets not read too deeply into it. Lets just like it.
Whatever.
i liked the fact that it didn't really go anywhere. i liked the way all these little stories intertwined & touched on each other. i especially liked the way i felt sympathy for all the characters - he gave you something to like about everyone in the film. but i don't see why a film has to say something deep and meaningful to be good...
it doesn't mean i don't take films seriously, or watch 'serious' films - i just look for different things in 'em.
A quote from someone else (whose opinions match my own):
"P.T. Anderson's "style" is a direct lift of Martin Scorsese's style, only P.T. doesn't know how to use it. Sure, MAGNOLIA was chuck full of LONG steadicam shots, "dramatic" push-ins, and various other little tricks, but to what end? NONE of these devices were well used in the film- they ALL called attention to themselves. If Kevin wanted to be self-conscious, he could wildly throw around the camera too because it's "cool", but you know what? He doesn't need to dress his films up with a bunch of window-dressing to make them interesting. Take away all the overbearing "style" and what have you got with MAGNOLIA? Three still boring, but less annoyingly self-consciously "cool" hours of tripe. Every camera move in MAGNOLIA seems to serve but one purpose- P.T. Anderson looking at us and jumping up and down exclaiming- "LOOK! I did a steadicam shot like the one in GOODFELLAS! I'm cool, right? RIGHT?? Actually, he's probably saying he hasn't seen any of those movies- there's a boatload of movies that I'm sure were really bad that I didn't see this year, because I had no interest in seeing them. MAGNOLIA is the worst kind of failure, because it's such a self-conscious, insincere attempt to be "meaningful" and "important", and it fails so badly because P.T. doesn't have his heart in any of it, and it shows."
"P.T. Anderson's "style" is a direct lift of Martin Scorsese's style, only P.T. doesn't know how to use it. Sure, MAGNOLIA was chuck full of LONG steadicam shots, "dramatic" push-ins, and various other little tricks, but to what end? NONE of these devices were well used in the film- they ALL called attention to themselves. If Kevin wanted to be self-conscious, he could wildly throw around the camera too because it's "cool", but you know what? He doesn't need to dress his films up with a bunch of window-dressing to make them interesting. Take away all the overbearing "style" and what have you got with MAGNOLIA? Three still boring, but less annoyingly self-consciously "cool" hours of tripe. Every camera move in MAGNOLIA seems to serve but one purpose- P.T. Anderson looking at us and jumping up and down exclaiming- "LOOK! I did a steadicam shot like the one in GOODFELLAS! I'm cool, right? RIGHT?? Actually, he's probably saying he hasn't seen any of those movies- there's a boatload of movies that I'm sure were really bad that I didn't see this year, because I had no interest in seeing them. MAGNOLIA is the worst kind of failure, because it's such a self-conscious, insincere attempt to be "meaningful" and "important", and it fails so badly because P.T. doesn't have his heart in any of it, and it shows."
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
akirajoel said:
Lazy criticism - you could just as easily change Anderson's name to 'Brian de Palma' and 'Magnolia' for..umm...I dunno, 'The Untouchables' and take it from there...
poului said:
Because I've already said what I thought and no one responded apart from... "well. i liked it. i thought it was good." and other boring stuff like that.
I don't know - maybe you people are all mentally deficient or something - none of you really seem up for talking about movies.
Maybe this would explain why so many of you rate Magnolia perhaps???
shoddysolutions
back by dope demand
Same goes for saying 'Magnolia' is like 'Short Cuts'. Sure enough, they both feature overlapping storylines etc, but Anderson's plot is much more contrived. Altman strives for a documetary-style realism (I think), whereas Anderson seems to be attempting to potray a reality that is somehow greater than the sum of its parts. Altman's characters happen upon each other by chance (if i remember right, it was a long time ago) whereas Anderson's characters seem somehow destined to meet. Both use a similar style, but only Magnolia has a 'message'.
I liked Magnolia - second time around, when i didn't have to worry about trying to decipher it and could just sit back and enjoy the ride.
I liked Magnolia - second time around, when i didn't have to worry about trying to decipher it and could just sit back and enjoy the ride.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
akirajoel said:
Haven't seen it recently enough to engage in a real critical debate with you AJ - I'd need a fresh viewing (preferably a couple) to really get my teeth into what you're talking about in terms of breaking down the film shot by shot. To answer your wider criticisms of Anderson as a Director I'd need to devote an evening to watching his films.
I think accusuing people of being thick cos they aren't geeking out on film-criticism-101 is a bit harsh. Besides which, I've noticed that you tend to base much of your criticism on whether you liked the film or not, rather than if you think it's a decent piece of filmmaking, which are very different things.
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
because he has already put across his opinionpoului said:
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
akirajoel said:
No, it's lazy criticism because it's completely non-specific. All it's saying is 'I think he's a rip-off director who's up his arse' containing references to 2 directors (I'm not sure which 'Kevin' who is referred to - Smith? Sounds unlikey to me) whose stye he has borrowed (use of steadicam...hmmm, so Scorsese owes a debt to Kubrick as well does he? And Untouchables was made before Goodfellas, so was Scorsese apeing de Palma, apeing Eisenstein/Kubrick?
In fact, your rant on P1 has more film specific crits in it than your chosen qoute...
kyser_soze said:
Thats fair enough. And i should point out that - in all fairness - I''ve only seen Magnolia once (about a year ago) and that I really really liked PTAs Boogie Nights (like i said at the start of a thread).
generally thou as a rule of thumb - i like films that i think are good examples of film-making - and vice versa.
shoddysolutions
back by dope demand
killer b said:
opinionated young buck maybe, troll definitely not IMO.
edit: I've just seen this thread
On dear.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
akirajoel said:
It happens
I'm with you - I've said it before, but I have a basic critical split between 'films' and 'movies' - 'Film' is cinema that attempts to say something through the use of all the languages cinema has to offer - visual, sound, scripting, physical movement - or at least comes with an artistic purpose behind it that raises it above simply being a moneymaker. Movies are the opposite - 90 minutes of bubblegum and popcorn and pretty people, loud noises etc.
Quite often, 'films' slide down into movie, and (much rarer) 'movies' become films. I'd put Resevoir Dogs into that category for example (not Pulp - Pulp is a film through and through)
IYSWIM. I just find it useful to switch certain critical faculties off. For example, Independence Day and Van Helsing are both movies, but IMO ID is a far better piece of movie-making than VH. It's funnier, it's got a better story, it's narrative progression makes some kind of sense etc.
PS - don't agree with everything you say in the other thread, but the basic premise I do...altho I'd amend it to 'People are stupid because they are lazy'...
Similar threads
