You won't be disappointed!

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

This movie was fantastic, the performances were brilliant, the writing was effective and the directing was top-notch. I've been watching all of PTA's films and I have loved them all (though I need to re-watch The Master and Punch-Drunk Love), I honestly think that he is one of the greatest modern filmmakers (perhaps even reaching the heights of Kubrick and Lynch). The film is an epic story of interconnected characters, set in the backdrop of L.A. This kind of story telling is very similar to Anderson's previous film Boogie Nights and he has said himself that this style was inspired by Robert Altman's movies. Despite the film being so large in scale and ambitious the characters are very subtle and interesting, with every character's ambition being clearly defined. This is thanks to Anderson's script and the incredible ensemble cast of Hollywood big names (namely Tom Cruise) and underrated character actors (Philip Baker Hall, William H. Macy). The multiple interweaving plots are engaging and none of them feel heavily cliched or contrived.Despite the many praises I have for the movie (which greatly outweigh the criticisms), there are some things I'd like to address. I thought that some of the directing and script choices near the beginning (long takes, spinning camera, narrator breaking the fourth wall, etc.) felt fairly arrogant, as if Anderson was trying his hardest to show of all his tricks and talent, and while these techniques worked well with the tone of Boogie Nights they felt slightly unnecessary in this drama about death and humanity. Another complaint is the three hour run-time which, though the film is engaging the whole way through, feels a little excessive and could be cut down to maybe 2 and a half hours. The only other complaint I can think of now is that their was one shot where a CGI model of an animal was used and it looks fairly dated (not really the movie's fault). Overall I felt that most everything about this film was excellent, the pacing, the tone, the dialogue and a whole lot of other things that I don't have the time to mention.

I'll tell you about strange things happening all the time, because I've experienced them. The very prior two movies I've seen and reviewed here on IMDb both featured a baby carriage scene in which an infant is carried away by a stroller down a long flight of stairs within sight of it's mother who is unable to help or give chase. One was the 1925 silent film "Battleship Potemkin", the other was 1987's "The Untouchables". I call these moments of cosmic serendipity, occurring completely at random, yet having a connection of sorts that were neither planned or expected. And now, here's a third film, "Magnolia", gloriously pointing out that these kinds of events happen all the time. One might ask 'What are the odds' in a seemingly moot way because who can explain it? As for the three vignettes that opened the story, at least two of them made the internet rounds some time ago - the scuba diver plucked out of the ocean to land in the middle of a forest fire, and the suicide attempt that was interrupted by negligent homicide. If memory serves, I think they were both outed as urban legends, but I can't be sure about that. Nor can one be sure about the unexplained coincidence that permeates this story with it's cast of unsympathetic characters. Though it's easier to explain in a film because that's the way the script was written, whereas real life is as random as it gets. As for all those frogs falling out of the sky, well, that's really happened a number of times throughout history with no apparent explanation. As to the sheer massive quantity and size of those amphibians, I think there was a little overkill employed to make a point. What the point was, I don't know.The person in the story I felt the most 'bad' about was the young quiz kid Stanley Spector (Jeremy Blackman). His life was careening down the same path as his predecessor Donnie Smith (William H. Macy), though in Stanley's case, I felt he had the potential to turn into a mass murderer. Recall when his father raged through the studio as Stanley wouldn't answer a question; the old man demanded to know what Stanley was doing 'to him'. Just a perfectly narcissistic parent attempting to cash in on his son's knowledge and initiative. The film offers a fine array of character performances with Tom Cruise, Julianne Moore and John C. Reilly leading the way. If there was a single twist in the story, my money rests on the fact that the game show was a Big Earl Partridge Production, while all the time thinking that Frank Mackey's (Cruise) claim his father was a former television executive a load of hogwash. Turns out he wasn't blowing smoke for a change.

Maybe the best film I have ever see in my life. Actors, actresses, plot, directing, light, etc....all is perfect. The music is so important, it keeps you in a tension, you want to laugh, to cry, to scream, isn't it the goal of cinema? PT Anderson made a master piece, one of the greatest movie of history. Thank you.

Magnolia is a very long and complex movie. It contains many themes and issues but it doesn't explore them with much depth. Magnolia ended without giving any new perspectives on its themes. It did leave me bored and impatient. It's impossible not to think when watching Magnolia, why not tackle half these themes, explore them more thoughtfully, say something, ask some questions, and do it in two hours? There are at least three movies contained in Magnolia. Some of the stories are captivating while others are one-dimensional and weightless. Julianne Moore threatens to sink the whole ship with her soap opera-level portrayal of a drug addict with almost-zero characterization. In stark contrast, the characters played by John C. Riley and Tom Cruise could have been entire movies unto themselves. Multiple characters are set up as "bad people" but then the "twist" is that they were abused as children. But as a movie about child abuse, Magnolia has nothing to say at all. Two characters confess that they cheated on their spouses in long monologues. But is Magnolia about infidelity? I don't think so. Is Magnolia about regret? Yes, it's about that, and guilt, parenting, child abuse, substance abuse, law enforcement and crime, honesty, dating, death and dying, child prodigies, show business, unlikely coincidences, loneliness, it never ends!Magnolia is very intense and melodramatic. I don't think intensity and melodrama are substitutes for pathos and insight. The meta-narrative about coincidences and interconnected lives is self-indulgent and self-congratulatory. Magnolia is only bearably watchable from beginning to end because of a few strong performances and excellent cinematography and editing.Ingmar Bergman apparently like this film. Well, if you want a movie about imperfect fathers, check out Bergman's Wild Strawberries. It's way better, and it doesn't have three music videos in it, and it's not over three hours long.