I've seen this movie a few times, and though the frog scene is extremely entertaining, I don't get the artistic meaning behind it. Can anyone explain why it rained frogs?

 

I'm not familiar with the particular situation you're discussing, but I've heard of such phenomena before. Waterspouts often appear at sea or on large lakes and have been known to suck up fish and perhaps even frogs. Later, the fish or frogs "rain" back down on land. Does this help at all or did I miss your point completely?

 

Mingster,

We worked on this movie and it really was just a strange moment to cap off the flick with something that tied all the characters together in the end. No real artistic visual value persay than just being alot of CG frogs falling...

Very small show compared to say Pearl Harbor, Mummy II, AI or JP3 which are all currently being worked on.

 

according to the article at thehoya.com:

/begin snip

"Examine any work done down to bone and you find clich

 

I found the whole movie didn't make much sense. I think he was trying to do something that few people can pull off. Tarantino knows how to do it. Many others don't.

 

Well lets see.. The frogs were foreshadowed the whole movie. The Bible verse that appears in several places through the movie (forget which it was) refers to smiting with frogs. And having just watched "Inside the Actor's Studio" with Philip Seymour Hoffman (in magnolia, he was the porn-ordering nurse). And his take on it was that it was just another rediculous thing - like dying of cancer. He made sense, im not sure i have. I'd go back and watch it, but Ive since deleted the recording. It'll reair and get recorded again..

 

Man, I was sucked into that painful excuse for a movie last night. The initial narration suggested the characters would be tied together in some way. That association really needed some work. If it truly was the frogs, well that is just weak.

I kept waiting for the plot to materialize, but that never seemed to happen. The "plot" is so thin, it's fricken anorexic. I don't need guns and explosions, but the attributes of a good story would be nice.

The movie seemed to really be grasping for an artist's perspective. It's as if some guy who had no concept of the difference between art and Hollywood decided Hollywood could use a good art flick.

 

Actually I found the movie pretty good. It was interesting to see how seemingly random and unrelated events in very different people's lives, can come together and tie people together. These people were as different (on the surface) as night and day yet through cause and effect a common tie relates all of them. I found it fun to watch all of that develop.

The DVD also has a very interesting behind the scenes section to show how the movie was made (including the aforementioned frogs).

 

I thought the movie was very good. A well written script and great performances by the actors, especially Jason Robards and the guy who played the TV host. Tom Cruise was pretty good too.
It is not for everyone though. When my wife and I saw the movie, at least 20 older folks walked out of the theatre during the first 10 minutes, probably because of the very heavy use of profanities at the beginning.
Don.

 

Hey people-

All I'll say about this movie is that it's the wrong one to put in the DVD player at 2am on a drive through Mississippi from Dallas, trying to get to Orlando...

Talk about putting me to sleep! As the driver, I can't pay enough attention to the movie for it to really make sense, and as a passenger, it's more boring than the endless billboards proclaiming Biloxi's gambling industry...