• R, 2 hr. 18 min.
  • Drama
  • Directed By:
    Paul Thomas Anderson
    In Theaters:
    Sep 14, 2012 Limited
    On DVD:
    Feb 26, 2013
  • The Weinstein Company

Critic Review - TIME Magazine

The problem with The Master is that it doesn't extend or expand Anderson's artistic journey.

September 4, 2012 Full Review Source: TIME Magazine | Comments (58)
TIME Magazine
Top Critic IconTop Critic

Comments

Nicholas Wandel

Nicholas Wandel

Well this can't be right. Metacritic counted it as a 7. This is fresh! FRESH! The streak is not done yet!

Sep 4 - 04:48 PM

Zachary Thomas

Zachary Thomas

Dude, read the review., it's negative

Sep 4 - 05:57 PM

Jakub Gronowski

Jakub Gronowski

Okay, but is it any good? (I know I should just read the full review, but *yawn*)

Sep 4 - 05:16 PM

Nicholas Wandel

Nicholas Wandel

It's a fresh review, RT made a mistake. Metacritic lists it as a 7.

Sep 4 - 05:19 PM

Bushleaguer28

Brian Priestley

The critic says whether he wants it to be fresh or rotten

Sep 4 - 05:47 PM

Cody Gildea

Cody Gildea

And so begins the numerous hyper-critical, unfair reviews. Judge the movie as a movie, not the director's artistic journey.

Sep 4 - 05:16 PM

Bye bye

Steven Bailey

Thank you!

Sep 4 - 05:48 PM

Bushleaguer28

Brian Priestley

I'm looking forward to The Master more than anyone, but this isn't fair. I think it's personally reasonable that a critic could be let down if the film falls short of the bar PTA has set for himself. I could see there being negative reviews that don't sound all that negative, but that say it fails to meet expectations.

Sep 4 - 05:48 PM

DrJimbo32

Aaron Thomas

And I disagree. If someone has never heard of PTA and is looking at this review to judge whether they want to see the Master or not, how would they relate? If the reviewer is just saying "Oh, I liked his other movies more than this" that tells the reader nothing helpful. He expands on it more in his actual review, but it just seemed like he kept basing his opinion on PTA previous work, which makes zero sense. Was the acting good? Story line Coherent? Was it entertaining? Not that hard.

Sep 4 - 06:19 PM

Bushleaguer28

Brian Priestley

Does Corliss' review say that? I'm legitimately asking because I don't want to read any reviews. I see your point, but I don't think it's either my point or your point. I think there is room for understanding both approaches. I do think, however, that people on here have a tendency to read the blurb and not the rest of the review.

Sep 4 - 06:41 PM

Aaron Maher

Aaron Maher

First of all, try actually reading the review. He has several complaints with the film that go beyond it simply being a disappointment relative to Anderson's previous work. Second, I have never understood the line of reasoning that asserts that critics should work to accommodate their reviews to what they perceive as their readers' tastes.

The role of the critic is not to contort his reviews to nothing more than an educated guess at how he feels the lowest common denominator will respond to any given film. In fact, this has it precisely backwards. Instead of sapping all individuality out critics by asking them to adjust to their reviews to their readers - thus rendering their reviews utterly meaningless - it is instead the job of the reader to seek out individual critics with whom he shares similar taste.

Sep 5 - 01:56 PM

Aaron Maher

Aaron Maher

First of all, try actually reading the review. He has several complaints with the film that go beyond it simply being a disappointment relative to Anderson's previous work. Second, I have never understood the line of reasoning that asserts that critics should work to accommodate their reviews to what they perceive as their readers' tastes.

The role of the critic is not to contort his reviews to nothing more than an educated guess at how he feels the lowest common denominator will respond to any given film. In fact, this has it precisely backwards. Instead of sapping all individuality out of critics by asking them to adjust their reviews to some perceived collective opinion - thus rendering their reviews utterly meaningless - it is instead the job of the reader to seek out individual critics with whom he shares similar taste.

Sep 5 - 01:58 PM

Neal Harris

Neal Harris

The problem with this is that if the film isn't judged on its own merits, you're going to risk missing what PTA was trying to do because you're too busy looking for what you think it is he does best; which is exactly why Punch-Drunk Love is somewhat underrated. PTA didn't want to be pigeonholed by doing another epic, multi-storyline drama and instead made a unique art-house romcom/Adam Sandler film.

Sep 5 - 09:34 AM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

To reiterate a point made by the previous commenter, Corliss has complaints beyond that mentioned by the blurb posted here on RT:

"The director ... is just replaying his old father -son fixation, with indifferent results"

"It's ... overlong"

"after about an hour, the story flatlines into repetition without development."

"The Master expends all its considerable skill on a portrait of the wrong man ‚?? a creature not worth Dodd‚??s time, or ours."

Yes, there is a good amount of commentary about P.T. Anderson's progression movies. But, if Martin Scorsese created Goodfellas two or three times over, I'm sure we would all be disappointed by that too. The point of creativity is striking new ground, not rehashing old points as Corliss contends Anderson does with this movie.

Sep 8 - 09:02 AM

shadypotential

Chris Cox

so is the movie good or not?

Sep 4 - 05:20 PM

Alex Rager

Alex Rager

The problem with his review is that it doesn't expand on his pretentiously over-critical journey. Review the film jackass, not the director.

Sep 4 - 05:25 PM

zooman

Alex Reyes

The film is actually reviewed, the excerpt they took for the title is only one little point he makes, but the review foes with the movie itself and its limitations and flaws. You might not agree with those after you see the movie, but the review is fine as reviews go..

Sep 6 - 11:05 AM

Cole Jaeger

Cole Jaeger

Hang on, here. Metacritic did give it a 70. BUT I read the review and I think it is actually negative. I mean "There will be boredom" is not positive. And I think the reviewer decides on this website if its fresh or rotten and I'm not sure about metacritic how that works. But read it, it's pretty negative, though the critic seems afraid to sound unprofessional by stating his opinion directly like: I liked it or: I disliked it.

Sep 4 - 05:27 PM

Cole Jaeger

Cole Jaeger

I mean it's too bad it's not at 100 but really its not going to stay there forever.

Sep 4 - 05:28 PM

Zachary Thomas

Zachary Thomas

I agree; it was clearly negative

Sep 4 - 05:55 PM

Francesco F.

Jacob Smith

Well, I expect over the course of the next 24 hours this man is going to get ripped to shreds. Still can't wait for this movie as well as Dredd, Looper, and Sinister.

Sep 4 - 05:34 PM

cappa123

Chris W

I have no opinion since I haven't seen this film... but... "I'm thinking it, so I might as well say it: Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is no Fast Five."

Sep 4 - 05:38 PM

Simon Opitz

Simon Opitz

you sir are dumb

Sep 4 - 06:18 PM

Simon Opitz

Simon Opitz

What, are we judging a movie based on the directors other work now? In that case, The Sixth Sense must not be any good, either that or Lady In The Water is a masterpiece.

Sep 4 - 06:21 PM

Balls McHammer

kolya Fist

I'm a huge PT Anderson fan, and I haven't seen this film and this critic has, I can't say anything about it. Am I still looking forward to this film? Oh Hells Yes, do I hate this critic or think he's a moron? No way. Loads of people (some of whom I respect raved, I mean Fing raved over Prometheus, and I thought that it was the worst piece of shit I've seen in a long time, it was as bad as those dreadful transformers movies, at least they were "smart" enough to take themselves too seriously. Do I hate the people who loved the Stinker? No, do I hate the people who hated Lost Highway? No.

Sep 4 - 07:10 PM

Andy Petersen

Andy Petersen

This review contains nothing of which a solid review should be. As many of you said, he judged the entire review on his view of PTA's direction of the film and not the film in it's whole. Reviews like this are floaters in my opinion. Mr. Corliss can Kick Rocks on this one. THis will be a Mid 90's Fresh Film by the review deadline.

Sep 4 - 09:48 PM

Joshua Wilburn

Joshua Wilburn

You mother of all that is unholy on this green Earth. (Just so everyone knows, I have actually seen this movie) This movie may not be the best of Andersons work but it has everything and then some to be a successful and masterfully beautiful film. Just because it wasn't the director's best doesn't mean it deserves a rotten.

Sep 4 - 11:44 PM

Adam Freeman

Adam Freeman

Just because it didn't expand his journey doesn't mean it is a bad movie.

Sep 5 - 01:33 AM

Zane B

Chum Chum

Garbage review overlong and never detailed any of the elements which form a great film....no mention of the acting the writing the cinematography...and the title of the Reiview "There Will be Boring?" Pff that was cute...dipfuck

Sep 5 - 07:28 AM

K. Davis

Jon B

OK, so was that a review for the movie or a badly written criticism of Paul? And what was so bad about "There Will Be Blood" technically that PTA had to "extend or expand" on?

Sep 5 - 09:37 AM

Anonymous I.

Anonymous Incognito

Having seen this movie at an early screening and being booked to see it at another showing at TIFF this year, I think that I have the right to comment on it. It is a masterpiece.

That being said, it looks as if Mr. Corliss should go bowling with Daniel Plainview.

Sep 5 - 11:58 AM

Phil Zimmerman

Phil Zimmerman

And, the first death threat arrives; come on dude, this isn't The Dark Knight Rises

Sep 8 - 12:28 AM

Anonymous I.

Anonymous Incognito

I was making a joke. Death threats are unacceptable. Whenever I post a comment, I always make sure that it doesn't offend any contrarian critics, nor do I ever issue any death threats. It was simply a joke in reference to "There Will Be Blood", and I wanted to see if anyone would understand it.

Sep 9 - 04:45 PM

Anonymous I.

Anonymous Incognito

I've decided to delete the original comment just so that others will not misinterpret it as a threat.

Sep 9 - 04:48 PM

Brett Miller

Brett Miller

You're supposed to review the movie, not the career of the director.

Sep 5 - 12:32 PM

Blake Stevenson

Blake Stevenson

I have a heard time believing Savages is better than the Master.

Sep 5 - 01:11 PM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

hard*

And, your comment seems pretty random and pointless. Thanks for your contribution.

Sep 8 - 09:04 AM

RocketMan

samii y

I've seen this film, and I have no idea how any self-respecting film critic would call this boring.

Sep 5 - 02:41 PM

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile