Magnolia

First and foremost, this film is not as complicated and difficult as it may seem at first glance. But it does have something to it and definitely does not lack originality, inventiveness, many unforgettable scenes and situations, and, last but not least, great performances by almost all of the main actors. (16/02/2005)

Anderson has confirmed his reputation as the most talented director of the young generation and, as with Boogie Nights, has made a three-hour spectacle that flows by like water. The seemingly disparate patchwork of different human destinies would have crumbled under the hands of another director, but under Anderson's baton it feels extremely cohesive and the viewer doesn't feel lost in the plot. Plus, Anderson managed to make Cruise look a proper actor, which is remarkable. Cruise's portrayal of the successful hyper-macho is magnificent and rightfully awarded an Oscar nomination. The cathartic ending is unforgettable. Long live the frogs. (13/04/2003)

As an objector of excessive duration, I’m frankly surprised with how much fun I had with this long film without a consistent plot. When I read in the synopsis that it was about “nine stories”, I thought that it’d be very complicated, that I would get lost, that I wouldn’t enjoy it, etc… But those nine stories are quite simple and straightforward and could be described in a couple of lines. The script switches among them without forcing it, consciously, clearly, and without ever confusing or cheating the viewer. It’s one of those films that, despite the not very straightforward plot, doesn’t demand you squeeze your brain for the whole three hours, it demands your empathy. If you manage to relate to the stories of those characters, you’ll love Magnolia. Otherwise, the film has four highlights: the very beginning, a long and incredibly well escalated scene right in the middle, the scene with the song and the final story about a frog. These four moments make it deserving of five stars. 90 % (10/09/2010)

If I were to review Magnolia objectively, I wouldn't be able to give it a rating lower than the highest one. Fortunately, I can evaluate it purely based on my own opinion, and despite Paul Thomas Anderson's flawless direction, I couldn't help but feel that three hours is too long and somewhat unnecessary. Of course, all the storylines are interconnected, and no individual characters could have been removed, but the whole game show, the host, and the genius young man all felt terribly boring to me, and I was looking forward to the story switching to someone else, which unfortunately applies to former contestant William H. Macy as well. On the other hand, Tom Cruise, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and John C. Reilly are amazing, and whenever any of them had the opportunity to showcase their acting skills, I was consistently moved. (17/09/2006)

It's a long film that stands on the performances, which are basically without exception excellent. Still, I couldn't get into the film and I don't see anything in it that was all that great. Maybe someday, upon a second watch, but I doubt it. Paul Thomas Anderson is not a director I would seek out. His talent can't be diminished, though. (03/04/2016)