Man, I could go on and on. I'll do my best to keep it short. Just proffering my own opinion here; certainly not telling anyone that they are wrong about their's.
A very, very mentally ill narrator (Edward Norton), so closeted emotionally that his rage, sexuality, and most of his intellect is channelled into an alter ego, starts a cult wherein members find out that endorphins (natural doping chemicals released when you get hurt and when you fight) make them feel good. The cult members are the most alienated members of society, and identify themselves as such. Narrator, through his alter ego, proceeds to destroy buildings. His cure to his mental problems involves, not lithium, but shooting himself in the face.
I'm didn't leave that movie feeling that it endorsed the members of Fight Club or the narrator himself -- and certainly not the alter ego. These are truly limited people, who don't know how to properly rebel, and end up worshiping a figment of a delusional's imagination. I don't believe that Chuck Palahniuk created Norton's character to provide someone to identify with, beyond the fact that Norton is alienated and dissatisfied, and the reader/viewer might be alienated and dissatisfied. I believe that Palahniuk wrote Fight Club to shock and provoke, and the changes made in the movie certainly allowed it to accomplish that goal. Norton plays an anti-hero. While I don't believe authorial intent is everything, I do believe it is relevant. And yes, I am privy to the fact that enormous changes were made to the plot and characters of the book. Irregardless, the movie's "message" to me, was to be provocative, and beyond that, to mock the gullibility of the dumb and disenfranchised.
But to blame the movie for the idiots who inevitably walked out of it wanting to join a Fight Club? It never occurred to me. And interpreting to say something true about mens' violent sides? That would have involved identifying with the cult members which, again, never occurred to me.
End monologue.
On topic: I really disliked Magnolia. I thought it failed intellectually and artistically. I found Tom Cruise's performance to be neon polyester, and to this day can't figure out why it was critically acclaimed.
EDIT: Spelling.