Posted by Vincent at bg-tc-ppp950.monmouth.com on August 26, 2000 at 14:55:06:
In Reply to: I know I'm gonna get it for this, but I gotta ask: posted by Lucifer Lyndon Razoodock on August 26, 2000 at 10:37:43:
: What exactly were the "shite" moments in "Magnolia," per se?
In my opinion, every moment involving the unwatchably awful Jason Robbards (and by extension, Phillip Seymour Hoffman), most of the Tom Cruise infomercial stuff which I thought was WAY overdone (I did like his interview stuff though, and his final scene with Robbards who, thankfully, was not awake and rambling during it), the Phillip Baker Hall character made no sense (it felt like his semi-confession to having molested Melora Walters was a last-minute tack on to try and explain that subplot), the scene between Walters and Hall seemed like a bit of really bad, uncontrolled improvisation, and while I thought the opening was cool, it had nothing to do with the rest of the picture. If Anderson meant for the rain-of-frogs to somehow be equated with the weird-coincidences in the opening, it didn't work because a rain of frogs isn't a weird co-incidence at all, it's just plain weird. I could go on and on with the many parts of MAGNOLIA that I found to be unweildy, unfocused, or just plain annoying, but I don't particularily enjoy reliving bad memories.
As for what I liked in it- I did like the opening pre-credits bit, although it felt out of place (kind of like the drug-den bit towards the end of BOOGIE NIGHTS- a great scene in itself, but it felt out of place), I liked the stuff between Melora Walters and John C. Reilly, I liked most of Jullianne Moore's stuff, the Cruise interview material, and the kid on the gameshow. I'd say about half of MAGNOLIA I really liked, and the other half I absolutely hated. But that's just my take on it- I'm sure many people disagree with me, and that's fine. If you love the film through-and-through, hey, the more power to you.
Vincent