1999 / 194 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

If nothing else, this year proves wrong all those people who say that there are no new ideas in Hollywood. In fact, there could be nothing further from the truth.

The first film this year to disprove that was “The Matrix”. Yes, it owes quite a bit to everything from comic books, anime, and even the GAP ads, but the way it combines all these elements in a unique, thought-provoking plot, breathless action sequences and amazing, hyperkinetic action sequences which, quite simply, are more exciting than anything I have seen in a long time was so startling and original that it took many people (including me) by surprise. What could have been just another “Johnny Mnemonic” was turned into something breathtaking, bizarre, and thoroughly wonderful. Possibly the best action film of the decade.

At the very least, it’s in the running.

Then there is “Run, Lola, Run”. It’s a magnificent visual feast, the sort of movie that takes hold of your sense with reckless abandon and refuses to let go. The simplicity of the plot, the audacity of the sound, the vision, the acting, and the editing (not to mention the addition of such elements as animation and snapshots) all make it simply amazing. It’s the best foreign film I have seen since “El Mariachi” and one of the best films of the year.

Then: “Being John Malkovich”. The very premise illustrates the power of the imagination. Like it or not, you have to admit that it is simply unlike anything you have ever seen before. It’s witty, delicate and insanely clever, not to mention downright insane.

“Magnolia” belongs with these other films, although it is a much different beast. “Magnolia” is about human relationships, first and foremost. It is about the delicacy of such relationships. It is about the way people slip away from you, the way fate turns on a dime, the way that life is nothing so much as an unexpected bundle of chances. For these traits, “Magnolia” (Which is not quite a perfect film) deserves applause. It deserves kudos for being such a remarkable, unique, brazen vision. It does not adhere to the commonplace rules of modern filmmaking. In fact, it does not really present itself as a film but, rather, it presents itself as the unbroken document of a day. The movie shows us not a wonderful day, not for any of the characters, but rather a bad day. Each of these people is having, with a few small breaks, what I would categorize as the day from Hell. Yet maybe, just maybe the days from Hell are the things that define us. The great, noble virtue of this film is the way it suggests that maybe we learn more from the bad days than we do from a million good ones. I could make a laundry lists of the strengths of this film, but instead I will pinpoint several things that I thought were very, very good about it. The performances. Jason Robards gives a tender, realistic performance of a man who is dying and knows it. He is trying to cast away all the bitterness, all the greed, all the worst things about himself, but he is finding it as hard to give these up as a man trying to give up any other longtime addiction. His performance is one of those superb performances where you simply fail to see the actor pulling the strings behind this man and instead see him as this human being. You accept him as this character. He is this man. Raw, hot-tempered, striking out at the world and weeping for more of it at the same time. The same could be said of Philip Seymour Hoffman’s performance as a tender nurse trying to make this man’s last few days more special. There is not a false note in his portrayal of this man, and a sweet man he is. I have seen Philip Seymour Hoffman play a great many rude, arrogant men in the past few years, but he shines in this role as a truly decent man, not a saint, but a man striving to be one at the least. Tom Cruise is also a revelation. His performance here is soulless, blistering and real. He is alive here, in a way he wasn’t in “Eyes Wide Shut” and in a way he hasn’t been in any movie since “Jerry Maguire”. To see him here is to understand what a magnetic talent he is. Even as a man this vicious, he is intensely watchable. His charisma is well used here. There are other great performances, a handful of them, in fact. The cinematography is astounding in its length and its creativity without dominating the film in a “Look, Ma, I’m making a movie” manner. The script is very realistic (With a few major flourishes) and shows both extremes of the human psyche: both its tenderness and honor and its pettiness and harsh indecency. It puts a spotlight on our great points and our low ones and its ending illustrates the unexpectness and absurdity of humanity itself and the way that the characters react to this absurd twist illustrates just how realistic they are, and just how pliable and remarkable the human spirit can be.

Hell, I think I just sold myself on this film.

This entry was posted on Friday, January 7th, 2000 at 8:38 pm and is filed under Dale's Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.