Posted by Johnboy at dialup253.16.pixelgate.net on June 26, 2001 at 12:08:24:
In Reply to: Chill on Magnolia's frogs posted by Bokonon on June 26, 2001 at 11:35:02:
Man, where to START on your post?
: The mere fact that you don't immediately understand something isn't grounds to attack something like a troupe of rabid, feces-flinging baboons.
Gosh, you're right. The Catholic League should have seen the film first. Oh, you ARE talking about Dogma, right?
: Okay, raining frogs is referential to the bible.
Again, so was all of Dogma. Chasing Amy requires a few viewings to get all of it also. So far you're batting zero.
: So fucking what, the mere fact that a scene is referential or intitially uncomprehensible doesn't invalidate it as art...Admittedly, Magnolia was a fairly mediocre film
Hey, all I needed to know about Magnolia was that it had Tom Cruise acting all arty and self-important. I can't stand that guy and won't see any of his films. That was enough for me to give Magnolia a pass. That it also looked like a self-indulgent attempt to replicate the feel of a Faulkner novel was just icing on the don't-watch-this cake. Meanwhile Boogie Nights was a fairly interesting look at the life of John Holmes. I watched that and was reasonably entertained. Didn't make the connection to PTA and wasn't all that concerned.
: Besides which, the attack on PTA...
What attack on PTA? The "attack," if indeed there was on at all, was to the frothing fans. Of which you are one.
The "poster" in the trailer was called magnolia fan. Let me say it a few times. Fan. Fan. Fan. Fan. _NOT_ PTA.
Try looking at the situation with a sense of humor. See that guy overreacting? That's you.
Consider getting a sense of humor before posting again. Better yet, don't post at all.
John