There is enough "physical humor" in it to show its aspiration to comedy: people fall a lot on the ground, he gives back the cut phone to the employee next to him after his argument with Hoffman... To me it's as much of a comedy as After Hours. But even less funny.


Breaking Bad rocks. Best crime tv show ever.
In a very different genre, I'm watching Community, which is the funniest show ever. Better than South Park.

I'll agree with you on Punch Drunk Love (which is still pretty funny) but After Hours is hilarious.

I've been marathoning Breaking Bad the past few weeks, never seen it before. Catching up before the finale episodes.

To an extent, yeah. I thought it was funny enough, but could have used a little more humor (I think Boogie Nights and The Master are probably funnier)

[Punch Drunk Love]

Punch Drunk Love 7/10

First viewing. Not really funny (a shame for a comedy) but strangely moving. I believe in this character. I don't think their is much rewatch value in this, except for the extended shots at his sister's house.

PTA Cocksucker RRPOWER says you are 1 to 1.5 points too low. Watch it again!

Agreed it's not that funny though.

Breaking Bad Seasons 1-3: 9/10

The seventh movie from Paul Thomas Anderson, based on Thomas Pynchon's most recent novel.

In Los Angeles at the turn of the 1970s, drug-fueled detective Larry "Doc" Sportello investigates the disappearance of an ex-girlfriend.

Joaquin Phoenix as Doc Sportello (was originally going to go to Robert Downey Jr, who PTA decided was too old for the part). Also cast so far:

Benicio Del Toro
Reese Witherspoon   
Owen Wilson
Martin Short
Kevin J. O'Connor (Plainview's brother in TWBB; part of The Cause in The Master)
Jena Malone

Sean Penn is also in negotiation but not confirmed yet.

It starts to shoot this month.

This will be the first adaptation of a Pynchon novel, which I've heard is his most 'accessible'. Judging from The Crying of Lot 49 and what I've read of V, I would assume that Pynchon is unfilmable. PTA has stated of the reclusive author that [paraphrasing] "even by mentioning his name in interviews, I'm breaching our agreement of his secrecy". If you've read the book, please be aware of spoilers.

Assuming PTA follows his pattern of copying Altman, this seems clearly comparable to The Long Goodbye.



Here's a book trailer narrated by Pynchon himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjWKPdDk0_U

Most early Cannes reviews seem to be saying that it's basically perfect.

It has  December US release date.

Groggy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C2N1f0z5zwA

I quite liked the '74 Gastsby despite generally negative opinion of it. I'm terrified of the new one, looks and sounds awful. But I'm still interested.

Groggy...i still love the pilot but the rest of the season really, really sucked. There was maybe one good episode toward the end. I'll see what the S2 opener has to offer but more than likely I'm not gonna continue The Newsroom.

That's what I see in the movie too. It just doesn't justify a movie to me. I don't believe in God or fate, so I don't find very interesting when someone asserts "BUT IT HAPPENS". Anyway, once again, the scenes work, and I've seen it 3 times and will watch it again, so I'm very glad it exists.

I don't believe in God/fate either. But I find the way Magnolia presents these ideas to be interesting. even if it does so a bit too blatantly -- especially when the kid just starts mumbling "it just happens...it just happens"...and when it zooms into that picture that says the same thing. It's absolutely flawed in some aspects, but still an endlessly re-watchable masterpiece for me.

I have no problem with the opening sequence itself (it didn't age well, that's all) but with the voice over. Who's doing the voice over? Is it a professional actor? I even wondered if PTA did it himself. I have the feeling I could do better (I just doesn't have much of a voice, but the guy doing the voice over usn't that impressive either).

Once again, I love most of the individual scenes but what is this movie about? If the topic is just "we're lonely, and sometimes we really meet, but above all, strange things happen", it's a bit light for me. Especially the "and it did happen" part.

Yeah, terrible singing sequence. Same reaction here.

I also thought the narrator was PTA at first. It's actually Ricky Jay. He's in the film, he works on the set of the game show (I forget his exact role - look him up).

Obviously there's a whole bunch of 'short stories' involved in Magnolia. But I'd say the main point of the film is to answer the question if whether or not these 'strange occurrences/meetings' happen by chance or if there's some Godly, fate-like reason behind them. That's sort of what the narrator sets up at the end of the opening sequence, where he seems to imply that there arefate-like reasons for these things (which, following my theory of everything, sort of sums up the whole point of the movie right away).

We're then brought through the movie, where everything which happens between the characters seems valid as being mere coincidences. And then the frog rain comes, the one thing which happens to unite all the characters. This, also, in the 'Magnolia universe', is the only thing at this point which can not be a coincidence. There have been reports of frog rain in real life in the past, but nothing even close to this extent. Therefore there must be some sort of Godly reason why it happened. And with that, there's the  hint at a possibility of all these meetings and occurrences we've witnessed thus far to be much more than just mere coincidences. Everyone who actually meets has a certain emptiness which another person fulfills. They meet for a fate-like reason.

That's why I hate when people complain about how 'not all the characters come together perfectly like they expect'. If this were to happen, it would ruin the entire chance vs. reason theme, and the whole point of the film for me.

If that doesn't make sense/I'm analyzing it way too much....sorry, i've seen magnolia too many fucking times.

[Magnolia]

Magnolia ?/10

3rd viewing? Still feeling the same about it. Individual scenes range from good to great (apart from the aged opening with its terrible voice-over... am I missing something on this voice over or is it really terrible?), but the film doesn't go anywhere. And not going anywhere for 3 hours is a long ride. I'll watch it again and again in the future, just not every year. Oh and it's Tom Cruise's best role by very, very, very far.

I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but the extended shots are brilliant. For those interested, here is a great video and it's transcript analyzing one extended shot per PTA's movie: http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/features/video-steadicam-progress-career-paul-thomas-anderson-five
Makes me go out and make movies.

I like the opening narration - and I love that whole sequence. From the opening frames to the end of the character introductions is one of PTA's best sequence as a filmmaker thus far, up there with the Boogie Nights drug deal and the first processing session in The Master.

I think this is PTA's best movie. Maybe. Or Boogie Nights. Or The Maste. One of those. Either way, this is the fastest 3-hour movie film ever made. Flies by. I swear it's actually only two hours long, at most.

It does include his worst scene ever as a writer/director though. Actually, I fucking loathe it. I forget it's in the movie every damn time I watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ_phQnNE80

This is a nice way to troll rrpower.

the most genius thing Malick does with this film is making us wait so long to see Olga naked. It's an hour of pure cockteasing.

Another trailer. Still looks excellent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HEFCN4qaYt4

To the Wonder - 7/10
It's no Badlands, Days of Heaven, Thin Red Line, or Tree of Life. But still good. Malick haters/skeptics, STAY AWAY. FAR, FAR AWAY.

Fox and the Hound - 7

Bambi - 6

his last written review will (thankfully) be for Malick's To the Wonder. fitting that the last we'll hear from Ebert is from one of his most admired directors, who rarely ever makes a film to begin with.

Rumor has it that he liked it quite a bit too.

looks excellent

I would be absolutely shocked if this movie wasn't horrendous. Shocked. It couldn't look any more pretentious, self-important and looks to have more phony/poser artiness than ten Sam Mendes movies.

You nailed it on the head. awful movie