The Master Reviews

The Master is an intriguing film that looks at the inner workings of an eccentric cult while boasting impressive performances from Hoffman and Phoenix. The Master is a well-made film, but it may be too strange and jarring for some.

"The Master" is a captivating, but slow-building film that will intrigue patient audiences. Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman give fantastic performances, and Paul Thomas Anderson directs one hell of a film. Some viewers will be turned off by the ending, but it's well worth a watch. Grade: B

Lancaster Dodd: If you figure a way to live without serving a master, any master, then let the rest of us know, will you? For you'd be the first person in the history of the world. 

Paul Thomas Anderson's newest film, The Master, is quite a piece of filmmaking. All of Anderson's genius trademarks are there in this film. When talking about The Master, there is something that needs to be understood. That you can't quite grasp what is going on at all the various levels of this story. The Master is a film that cries to be watched more than once. This is often something I take away from a first look at one of Anderson's films. The first time around sucks you in, but you know you need to see it again. I know I need to watch The Master again, and I guarantee when I do, my praise for it will be even greater.

The Master follows a Naval veteran, Freddie, after he arrives back in the states after World War II. He's a weird guy. The first sense we get of this is in the opening scene when some of his fellow shipmates make a woman out of sand on a beach. Freddie climbs onto the sand woman and acts like he is having sex with it and actually goes into greater detail then just thrusting his hips. He's also an alcoholic who makes his own alcohol. When he comes across a ship and wakes up on it after a drunken night, he meets Lancaster Dodd. Dodd is a charming leader of a new movement(cult) called The Cause. He begins to take Freddie under his wing and mentor him.

There's a lot of great stuff to talk about in The Master. First of all, Paul Thomas Anderson's writing and direction. Anderson is obviously one of the more original and creative directors in the business right now. Everything he touches seems to be more than it should be, because of where he takes his stories. Whether it be Magnolia, Punch Drunk Love, There Will Be Blood, or now The Master; his script always holds a magnificent amount of power. Secondly, the acting. Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman are incredible, and the supporting cast around them are solid as well. Third, the cinematography. This is something that you don't really need to worry about in an Anderson film because his movies always look great. The music is great, the film looks perfect as it pertains to the 1950 setting, and the sets are beautiful. Everything added together and you've got quite a special film.

The movie definitely has a weird ambiance about it. There's something haunting in the starkness of this film and fully to understand how the movie made me feel, I need to watch it again down the line. All I really need to say at this point is that Anderson didn't disappoint with his first film since There Will Be Blood. I can't wait to see what he's got up his sleeves the next time he makes a new film.

Compelling, original and mystifying, (not always in a good way), The Master is well worth seeing, for the splendid cast and evocative post WWII S. California atmosphere. It's a cat and mouse thriller and 'male control' drama filtered through the thinly veiled story of R. Ron Hubbard and the early years of his Scientology religion/cult/philosophy.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman is Lancaster Dodd , charismatic founder of 'The Cause', Amy Adams plays Mary Sue, his devoted, ruthless, cold eyed wife. For reasons unexplained, Dodd takes some sort of shine to Joachim Phoenix as disturbed, lost WWII vet Freddie Quell, an alcoholic with a tendency to violent uncontrolled behavior. Perhaps Dodd feels that winning Freddy, a very troubled and visceral man over to the 'Cause' is a challenge: if he can win over this guy, he can win over anyone. Most of the films' 2 hours are taken up with an on again, off again seduction of the volatile Quell by control freak and egomaniac Dodd,

At first, Quell becomes putty in Dodd's hands, even serving as a group leader, but finally his unbridled urges and self loathing violence get the better of him, leading Dodd and Mary Sue to repudiate him writing him off as a lost cause. The film is filled with gripping scenes, including a formal interrogation of Quell by Dodd which is a mesmerizing psycho drama -- a scene where Freddy, who is a department store photographer beats up his boss for no apparent reason on a locked-off single shot, a wonderful scene where Freddy goes to see what happened to his old girlfriend and encounters her sympathetic mother, and Freddy's final rejection by Dodd and Mary Sue.

Iconoclastic director P.T. Anderson has no interest in explaining anything to the audience, and the film is filled with large gaps of information as to the characters' motivation as it jumps ahead randomly in time. My problem with this film is that I don't know what to take away from it. P.T. Anderson is not interested in helping. What is the point of it, philosophically, morally, emotionally? I have no idea. In some way that's a strength, what is shown is unfailingly interesting and unpredictable. But none of the characters change, they are at the end as the are at the beginning. They go head to head with their diverging personalities, the train wreck happens, then the characters walk away, unchanged and so does the filmmaker. All of P. T. Anderson's film have that quality, but this is the most challenging one, including the equally accomplished but bewildering 'There Will Be Blood'.

It's not even a real condemnation of cult religions like Scientology, since that doesn't seem to be Anderson's main focus. For example, despite Freddy's discovery that Dodd is making it up as he goes along, he still asks to be taken back into the fold. Anderson gets away with that by jumping ahead in time, never explaining what happened to Freddy in the time gap before the two men meet up again in England. I'm not sure what this movie meant, but it certainly held my attention for it's over 2 hour running time. And Phoenix and Hoffman, (and Amy Adams) are a few of the most interesting actors working in films today. So rent it, but don't expect to return it to the store uplifted like you did at 'Lincoln'.

Ugh!! Just awful.

Paul Thomas Anderson has only done a handful of films since his 1997 directorial debut "Hard Eight" but has he really got anything more to prove after such strong and consistent deliveries? Maybe only one thing... that he can keep up the very high standard he has set himself. If "The Master" is anything to go by, then it looks like his reputation is more than secure.
World War II has now ended and the troops are sent back home to adjust to civilised society. Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) is one of these men. He's also one that finds it hard to readjust and relies heavily on alcohol, eventually drifting from place to place and unable to hold down gainful employment. He is given another chance at life, though, when he happens to stumble upon Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman) the charismatic leader of a cult.
Anderson's film's certainly seem to have matured over the years. To go from his colourful and riotously entertaining second film "Boogie Nights" to the epic and Oscar winning "There Will Be Blood" is quite a leap in style and substance. His films always seem to have the recurring theme of a tortured protagonist and this is no different. It shares more in common with the aforementioned latter film, though, in terms of it's depth and cerebral approach and it's depiction of a struggling, disreputable man, challenging the religious beliefs of another. What else this has in common is Anderson's ability to bring out the best in his actors. There are three searing, Oscar nominated, central performances from Hoffman as the confident and charismatic Lancaster Dodd and an emaciated, animal-like, Phoenix who looks unbearably uncomfortable as his frustrated protégé Freddie Quell. Phoenix undergoes a complete transformation here and his performance is nothing short of miraculous - if he wasn't up against Daniel Day-Lewis for the Oscar, he might just have snapped one up for this. On the side lines and lurking in the background, we also have Amy Adams who gives a muted but very powerful performance as Dodd's committed, Machiavellian,
wife Peggy. In many ways, she is the driving force behind her husband and far more influential and conniving than is recognised. It's not just the actors that grab your attention, though, I found every single scene of this film a work of art. The production design is flawless and the recreation of 1950's america is captured in it's entirety. Shot in 65mm by cinematographer Mihai Malaimare Jr, this film captures the minutest details of the time. Anderson is also in no rush, emulating masterful directors before him like Scorsese, Kubrick and David Lean. The patience and respect he shows his actors and the confidence he has in his scenes to work themselves out is a skill beyond his relatively young years. Like the domineering character Lancaster Dodd himself, Anderson also has you completely within his grasp. The film is as hypnotic and confident as it is domineering, never giving you a moment to relax and instilling a genuine feeling of unease throughout. There's a raw, realistic, fly-on-the-wall vibe that permeates every second. It felt like I was involved in every scene and that's, simply, down to the flawless direction and performances. They are stuff that movie gold is made from.
In terms of the story; obvious comparisons with the belief in Scientology will be made. However, it's never called by name, referred only as "The Cause" but there's no doubt that this is the very sect or cultish behaviour that Anderson is driving at and Lancaster Dodd is certainly an embodiment of it's founder L. Ron Hubbard.
This understanding of such a confidence-trickster persona was witnessed before in Anderson's "Magnolia" where Tom Cruise's Frank T.J. Mackey is a misogynist, egotistical, self-help guru who does seminars and talks on how men can "tame" women and turn them into their "sperm receptacle". He's a detestable person that operates on the weaknesses of others. Ironically, Cruise is a well known believer in Scientology, in his personal life, and the mirroring of that character and his domineering behaviour is reflected in both the main characters from this film: Dodd has the ability to convince and Quell has a deviant sexual side. This would be a debate for another time but I couldn't help but notice and wonder about it's significance.
Despite the abundance of quality throughout, though, the film does have it's faults; as it progresses it's ambiguity increases and it never answers the overriding question as to why Dodd is so fascinated in Quell. It leaves us only with the suspicion that they are very similar people in search of something in their lives and it would seem that this should suffice. As a result, when The Master should really be ending with aplomb, it stumbles in it's climax and also delivers a bizarre and obscure musical passage of "A Slow Boat to China". Let's just say that I think that Anderson was going for another grandstanding, memorable ending like the 'revelation' of Dirk Diggler in "Boogie Nights"; the raining frogs from "Magnolia" or, most of all, the "I drink your milkshake" ferocity of "There Will Be Blood". Simply, it doesn't quite match those but it doesn't matter as it recovers from this particular mishap. Then it dawned on me just how effective this was; it stuck in my mind enough for my concentration to be broken. It was the first time it had been throughout the entire film and it was at this point that I realised that I had been completely captivated. I didn't fully understand the character of Freddie Quell but I did understand his struggle and the sheer magnetism he was up against.
Original and unrestrained filmmaking of this sort has to be applauded. I'm absolutely astounded that this film and the director were omitted from the Academy Award nominations. Another major omission was from Anderson himself; he seems to have forgotten the continuation of his movie's title. It should have read: "The (Near) Master(piece)".

Very well-crafted with a magnifying lead from Joaquin Phoenix.

P.T. Anderson movies are a real mixed bag for me. I usually love the performances, but the movies don't work for me overall. "There Will Be Blood"(his last movie) wasn't that great, even though it had it's moments, but Daniel Day-Lewis was amazing. The same can be said for "The Master". The film is slow, and in a lot of ways it doesn't really go anywhere. Joaquin Phoenix stars as a war vet who is a wreck. His life has no direction, he is mentally unhinged, and he meets a charismatic cult like leader played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman. The film centers on their relationship, Hoffman's group called "The Cause", and Phoenix looking for purpose in his life. It's an odd movie that is slow, fascinating, and just doesn't mesh like I hoped it would. However, Phoenix and Hoffman are bother absolutely amazing. Phoenix is one of my favorite actors and gives one of his top 2 or 3 performances ever. He is mesmerizing and you will genuinely be worried about him as a person when watching because he is so believable. If I had a vote for the Oscars on Sunday, I would probably vote for him for Best Actor, because he is the sole reason to watch this movie. Give it a shot if you want a different type of drama. I'm sure a lot of people will like it, and get more out of it than I did. Maybe on another viewing I will like it more.

The best film of 2012. Like in There Will Be Blood, Paul Thomas Anderson creates a deeply unsettling atmosphere with pacing that feels both leisurely and horribly tense (assisted no end by Johnny Greenwood's score). The performances he wrings out are just brilliant, Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams and Philip Seymour Hoffman are an intriguing, multi-faceted love triangle. This is another truly character-driven piece, assembled from beautifully saturated, claustrophobic close-ups. A few goose-bump inducing moments really stand out, and they work so well because of the build up that has preceded them. There are two good endings in there, and I was surprised when it didn't stop at the (fantastic) first one. However, the second ending as it were (the real one) is a masterstroke, perfect in itself and in reaction/ relation to the earlier resolution. A brilliant, pioneering film, both visceral and strangely intangible.

Complex film of life, pain, and daily emotions which are challenged with thought and belief.

A very profound film! The Master is not an easy movie to sit through, and at times you don't even know what the movie wants. But then you realize that the movie doesn't want anything. All it asks is for you to observe. More so than his earlier films, "The Master" and "There Will Be Blood" really venture into the realm of the film as being a purely cinematic presentation of a life. Anderson doesn't pass judgment or any point of view, he merely stretches the canvas which allows his characters to speak for themselves. It's beautifully shot on 65/70mm film which is the way I saw it and the way I recommend for you to see it if you get a chance to. Feels almost as if Anderson is giving the finger to the digital revolution by shooting his film on a resolution so high that digital can only dream of getting there in about ten years or so. The acting and the dialog is superb as you'd expect. Phoenix and Hoffman are on a different level here, especially Phoenix in a role of a life time. It's hard to really explain what makes The Master work even though it lacks many traditional narrative elements that provide most other films with powerful drama, closure and immediate gratification. It's a very subjective experience, and I'm sure many viewers will have difficulty immersing themselves in the film without the typical sense of narrative progression and character goals. For this reason, The Master is probably Anderson's least accessible film. That said, I think it is a testament to Anderson's enormous intellect and directorial abilities that he managed to capture the attentions and fascination of so many viewers and critics. He certainly won me over; although I had more visceral and immediately satisfying reactions to Anderson's previous films, I find that The Master lingers on long after the lights went up in the theater. The film's intellectual ambitions, along with its very unique, eerie tone, will keep me mulling over the experience for days to come.

Returning from Navy service in World War II, Freddie Quell drifts through a series of PTSD-driven breakdowns. Finally he stumbles upon a cult which engages in exercises to clear emotions and he becomes deeply involved with them.

"Free winds and no tyranny for you Anderson, sailor of the seas."

It is not a secret Paul Thomas Anderson has achieved that Kubrick status where everyone is excited for his next release, always expecting something out of the world of ordinary. Some may even argue that he is Stanley's contemporary clone in cinema. I for one disagree, but the case still remains. The Master felt like another winner for Anderson from the beginning. A film with a stellar cast that tackles the roots of scientology. Once released, the film has imaginably stirred controversy while gaining praise from both critics and regular moviegoers. Some were even determined to rank it as the best picture of the year without even caring for other future releases. That could have been a bit of a rush, though that simply shows where people have started to place PTA -as they love to call him- in the world of cinema. However, unlike in the case of There Will be Blood, the controversy behind The Master made the Academy turn a blind eye to the film and avoid rewarding it with any nomination besides the ones for leading and secondary performances. In the end, this did not harm the film at all. It was exactly the contrary. Many critics and moviegoers were infuriated with Academy's choice of kicking PTA's film directly in the but. Where The Master will head from this day on... only future could tell us. But the question is; is Anderson's mastery worthy of such legacy?

Well first, we have to try to understand what this film is about. Is it about Scientology alone? More or less. The story is there, it's built on that architecture but it's not a main focus. Then what is it about? Well, what was There Will Be Blood about? The Master goes into spaces and juggles with themes that allows it to be a poetic and cerebral experience any film fan will enjoy. It becomes personal on so many levels yet it's not pushy, it doesn't suffocate with over-the-top emotional or scientific acoustics. It's hypnotic in it's craft and challenging in it's nudity. I would dare to say that besides the obvious concept behind the Master which leads to many trails, the film is pretty much a story about love. Such love PTA never made a film about. It's about that innocence and intimacy shown in films like Kubrick's Lolita.

You have this rusty and nervous character in Freddie Quell that once he comes from the war, he has a hard time finding himself or finding a proper place for himself. He's not just a lost soul, he's a scoundrel that ends up magically in God's boat. He's asphyxiated by the idea of not being near his Doris which he left before the war with a promise that he'll come back. However, something made him to not go after her as soon as he landed on American soil. Was it shame? Was it frustration? Was it fear? Was it his own foolishness? Or was it his condition? Whatever it was, it was painful and he had to live with it. This is where his character makes a turn to Forrest Gump. He is that vulnerable and insecure, his social impotence is devastating. However, he's clearly brave enough to face his own failures, to accept them, and to be honest about them. We're shown that he might develop a sense of who he actually is while talking to this Lancaster Dodd character which everyone is calling "The Master" in the film. Lancaster Dodd is the commander of the God's boat I was talking about. He wears the same clothes as L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology. Him being a perfect representation of Hubbard doesn't matter that much. He sees in Freddie inspiration so he lures him into his den. Getting back on track, I believe Freddie always knew who he was. Dodd only uses Freddie's insecurities against him. However, during this process, the relationship between them becomes a replica of a father-son relationship. Dodd is not only a God-like figure but a father-like figure for Freddie now. And this is another story of love; parental love and a child's love for his father. A slice of love that's expressed in a demonic kind of way. Dodd is nothing more but a dictator. He illustrates the existence of free will but there is none existent in reality. This love is conditioned even though it comes out in a natural form and there are feelings involved. The book of love is completed by the pompous wife/husband relationship between Lancaster and Peggy Dodd. Anderson tackles the love theme in a smart way, placing the innocent and childish love against the fragile and forced love. It's a nomenclature of feelings that result in moments of joy and torture. The Master might also indicate simply to the character of Dodd. Portraying a sterile system of beliefs and lecturing on solitary brainwashing. It goes into showing how vulnerable a fragile mind and heart is in front of a Master's lies. He's a hypocrite as he's dedicated to one convenient idea, he's not following his own rules yet he commends others to follow them. He's ruthless and doesn't accept challenges. Just as in the case of Freddie he is obviously mentally unstable, only his insanity is not expressed physically. He's not violent, he avoids wild behavior, he likes to sit above that crowd. Freddie's madness is out in the open. And the hilarious part of it is that he acknowledges it. Is this making Freddie look less insane than Dodd? There's surely an argument there. I believe he is.

"Good science by definition allows for more than one opinion. Otherwise, you merely have the will of one man, which is the basis of cult." What is the will of Freddie Quell and the science behind him? Who is Freddie Quell? I believe this is where The Master talks about Freddie's bravery and will to not just survive but also live and experience pleasure. Freddie is the Master of his own dreams and reality. He may not always know what he wants but he always knows how he wants to feel, so he knows how to prepare that special drink that will send him to familiar or unknown places. He is the master of melancholia and nostalgia. Quell and Dodd are the pillars of this master concept and Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman are insanely good. Phoenix's spontaneity and cruel way of handling tears is heart-wrenching. Hoffman's patience and expression of the delusional is both comical and therapeutic. Amy Adams puts the cherry on top with her nuanced 'witchy' behavior. With it's infinite talent, perfect design, and crisp details, the film goes into more intriguing and questionable places. While it is not as complex as There Will Be Blood, it is as infectious and it is probably as hard to describe. For this Anderson did not brought out just his inner-Kubrick. He took a direction he never took before. He emulated the new-wave french cinema. There's a lot of Godard's Contempt in The Master. The solely expression of one person's ambiguity and mystery, the sense of duality, and even the unconditional love. Anderson's films are so effective because they make you think about stuff and they resonate on so many levels with you that you can't simply ignore them. They are powerful tools of character analysis. They could be disease-curing for all that I know.

There's this scene that screams Eyes Wide Shut. What is the meaning of that scene besides the obvious? I have yet to find another. The beauty here is that there could be no other meaning. The way Anderson builds his films is irresistible. The cinematography here handled by Mihai Malaimare Jr. is simply astonishing. It brings out the nostalgic element and it communicates much more even than the dialogue itself at times. The 70mm use gives the film it's unique identity, expanding it's scale even though the action takes place in a seemingly small world. The returning of Jonny Greenwood is also with huge effect. His music has dreamlike qualities and mimics the jumpy sounds of Miles Davis and Gypsy Kings. Thing that dresses well the idea of a wanderer through life and the concept of time travelling. However, there's a downside to all of this. I feel the film might become too cerebral and cynical at times. I feel the film has a sickness of it's own, and maybe that was intended, but it can become a bit too overwhelming. The emotional core is also there, it's strong, you're sometimes completely invested in it, but the end result is that you're still somehow seeing all of this through a window. It also craves for specific narrative complexity yet it's too straightforward that it becomes confusing at points. I'm sure this all has a meaning because I know PTA won't indulge his audience with cheap aesthetics and fabrics. It just didn't work for me at all times.

Was it all just a dream? Was it a time travel? Or was it just us, there, as servants for a master? Whatever the answer may be, Anderson is responsible for one of the most sentimental yet opaque character journeys in years. Free winds and no tyranny for you Anderson, sailor of the seas.

Story: 9.5
Acting: 10
Technical Execution: 9.2
Replay Value: 9.0
====================
OVERALL: 9.4

Paul Thomas Anderson is one of the best filmmakers working today. Throughout his impressive career he has made some stellar pictures that are some of the medium's most outstanding works. The Master is Anderson's first effort since There Will Be Blood which was released in 2007. Anderson's films tend to rely on an atmosphere of helplessness that adds a feeling of dread in the viewer. Therefore you simply can't tear yourself away from the film. With a great cast of talented actors headed by Joaquin Phoenix who delivers one of his finest performances since Walk the Line. This is a well crafted picture that tells a different type of story, one that is bold and eccentric. This is a well crafted picture that relies on a great plot and an effective cast that really make this a stellar film. Paul Thomas Anderson has returned in full force from a five year absence from cinema and has made one of the finest films of 2012. The story steadily unfolds at a slow pace, very much like There will Be Blood. The film surrounds a disillusioned war veteran who gets wrapped up in an organization called "The Cause". Freddie Quell who is brilliantly played by Phoenix, is the main character seduced by the teachings of the cause, and what follows is an emotional journey for Freddie Quell. The film's high points is the stellar performances and great directing, and Paul Thomas Anderson has directed yet another stellar picture that is a must see for fans of his work. The Master has few flaws, and is a near flawless film and I think it would have benefited from a shorter run time. Other than that, this is a well structured drama that has a compelling story that is engaging from start to finish. The Master is definitely a welcomed return for director Paul Thomas Anderson.

Director/writer Paul Thomas Anderson once said that his Magnolia might be a film which brilliance he might not never again match and i myself share this opinion very strongly with him. Since his indeed spectacular Magnolia Anderson has made three films in past thirteen years; Punch-drunk love, There Will be Blood and The Master. Two of those films are failures and one of them is fascinating if flawed piece of work. The Master is certainly a failure along with Anderson's Punch-drunk love. While There Will be Blood managed to dive quite deep into the mind of a sociopath and painted a interesting portrait of evil inside of us, The Master tries desperately to do that same trick but fails quite miserably.
Stylistically these both film are very similiar and they have a much in common but somehow The Master feels awfully hollow and flat. It does have loads of potential but it never uses it. Instead of settling with some certain theme or plot this film just wanders from plot to plot and from idea to another. It could be that this is exactly the point of Anderson but i find it distracting.
Emotionally there is no one to root for. These characters feels too much of a work of stiff literature instead of authentic humans. I am not sure that there is actually a story worth to tell here. Anderson's screenplay does have some interesting ideas and especially when we are shown how the methods of cause works the film does show some tiny spark inside of it. But in the end it all sums up to nothing and the film just refuses to be a story about anyone or actually anything. You could say that it is a film about ideas at best but that's all.
It is interesting how radically Anderson's style as a director has changed since his Magnolia or Punch-drunk love. With his two latest features he has shown much more calmer tone as a director but on the other hand his approach feels a bit pretentious and fake, like someone imitating a Stanley Kubrick. There is no doubt about it that at times Anderson seems to be very influenced by Kubrick's unhurried and majestic visual look. Mihai Malaimare Jr's cinematography is quite outstanding but at the same time it all feels very forced and artificial. The Master is like a stageplay and quite frankly i don't go cinemas to see play that is filmed, i kinda expect to see some magic in there too and that is what The Master lacks, good old movie magic.
When it comes to acting there is not that much to say about them here. Philip Seymour Hoffman is solid but has been much better in many other films and the same goes for Amy Adams who has thankless role as a sloppily written housewife. Joaquin Phoenix is supposed to be the film's core but his performance is even more annoying than Daniel Day Lewis' in There Will Be Blood. Phoenix is constantly twisting his face and is trying clearly to turn his insanity into something that we can see in him from the outside. He is turning it into physical with quite horrible results. It is the so called method acting at it's very worst. It seems that Phoenix has finally joined the Christian Bale and Daniel Day-Lewis club with this performance.
Paul Thomas Anderson is very capable director and he can make great films. The Master is one of his weakest films to date and is clearly a disappointment after more accomplished There Will be Blood. I am still very interested to see where he is going next as a storyteller and as a director.

Writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson met with great resistance when he was shopping his script around for The Master. It was dubbed the "Scientology movie" and reportedly based upon the controversial religion and its leader, L. Ron Hubbard. It looked like Hollywood was spooked by the prospect of a movie that appeared to take on Scientology. Eventually Anderson got his financing and made the movie he wanted to make. Calling it the "Scientology movie" is misleading. I wish this was a Scientology expose because that would be far more interesting than the exasperating film I got, which is one nutty guy who dabbled in a Scientology-like cult. Maybe the resistance Anderson experienced wasn't an indication of the subject matter. Perhaps it was only an indication that The Master just wasn't a compelling story, a charge I can agree with wholeheartedly after viewing this disappointing film.

Freddie Quells (Joaquin Phoenix) is struggling to adjust to life after World War II. Fresh out of the Navy, he works as a department store photographer, until his rage and social awkwardness lead to him being fired. He's drifting about and hops onto a ferry leaving town. Onboard is Lancaster Dodd (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) who describes himself as "a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist, a theoretical philosopher, but above all, a man." Dodd has gathered a revered following. He believes that people can regress to past lives trillions, yes you read that right, of years into the past. Dodd's own children admit that dear old dad is "making it up as he goes along." His movement, known as The Cause, has been called a cult by detractors, the will of one man, and the followers don't take kindly to challenges from the outside. Dodd adopts Freddie as a project. He's on the verge of completing his second major treatise and Freddie seems to be an inspiration for him. Freddie finds some measure of acceptance within Dodd's community of followers, but his erratic behavior keeps people on constant edge.

I found The Master to be boring; uncompromisingly boring, hopelessly boring, but worse than all that, pointlessly boring. Was this really a story that needed to be told? I cannot fathom why Anderson chose to tell this story or, in particular, why he chose to tell it through the character of Freddie Quell. A story about a huckster exploiting people with a religion he made up is a fascinating story with or without the Scientology/L. Ron Hubbard connections. That's a story worthy of being made. Now, instead of this, we have two hours of a guy acting nuts. I would better be able to stomach the Freddie character if I felt like anything of significance was happening to him. He's a broken man, clearly mentally ill in some capacity, and prone to outbursts that turn violent. Does he change? Does he grow? Does he do anything? Does his life have anything of significance happen to him over the course of 137 minutes? Not really. He's pretty much the same guy from start to finish; his arc is essentially that he's crazy at the start, meets Dodd, and then is crazy at the end. We get it, the guy is messed up. He makes a drink out of paint thinner for crying out loud. I didn't care about him at all. I don't need to see static scene after static scene of this guy acting out. I wasn't a There Will Be Blood fan but at least Daniel Plainview was a strong central character with enough dimensions to carry a film. Freddie Quell just isn't that interesting or entertaining. He's actually a tiresome character because you get a perfect sense of who he is in just 10 minutes. The rest of the movie just seems to remind you what you already know.

It is a disappointing realization but I feel like the Paul Thomas Anderson I enjoyed is slipping away, as his flashy, propulsive, plot-heavy early work has given way to opaque, reserved, and plotless movies. It's like I just watched someone with the verve of Martin Scorsese transform into a poetic film somnambulist like Terrence Malick; not a good move. I don't know what Anderson's message is or what he was trying to say, and I'm unsure why he decided to use a limited character like Freddy Quells as his prism. It almost feels like Anderson is compensating for his plot-driven films of his early career, like he has to balance the scales in his mind. I shudder where this recompense might take Anderson for his next film. I like to think of myself as an intelligent moviegoer who enjoys being challenged by movies. But that doesn't mean I'll accept anything challenging as quality. Case in point: Jean-Luc Godard's Film Socialism, which was contemptuous of its audience. I don't mind doing work but you have to give me a reason. There has to be a reward, either with the narrative or with the characters. I found no rewards with The Master and it's not because I didn't "get it," film snobs, it's because the movie was too opaque to say anything of substance beyond simplistic observations about the abuse of power and influence.

When I say plotless I don't mean that we're simply watching paint dry, though there are stretches of The Master where I would feel that could be a suitable test from Dodd. There are events. There are scenes. There are changing relationships. It's just that none of this seems to matter, or at least it never feels like it does. There's no build, no increase in urgency, and The Master just sort of drifts along to the detached rhythms of Freddie. The movie can feel interminable after some time, and you may ask yourself, on a loop, "Is this going anywhere?" There are two scenes that stand out but that's because there are so few that seem to matter. One is shortly after Dodd and Freddie have been arrested. The two men are locked in opposing cells and they explode in venomous anger. It feels like Anderson can finally allow his characters to vent out what they've truly been feeling. Another memorable scene, just for weirdness, is when we jump inside Freddie's head. All the women, young and old, at a social gathering suddenly lose their clothing (think: Choke). It's one of the best scenes at exploring Freddie's sexual compulsions, plus it's just peculiar. I wanted more scenes like this where we try and get inside the man's mind. The rest of the characters are underwritten, especially Amy Adams (Trouble with the Curve) as Dodd's wife and fierce protector. This is a movie about two strong-willed men and everybody else gets relegated to minimal supporting positions. I miss the sprawling humanism of Boogie Night and Magnolia.

From a technical standpoint, the movie is very accomplished. The 50s era setting is lushly recreated, aided by cinematography that seems to present this bygone age in a colorless manner. By this I mean that the world feels muted, repressed, the colors are there but they don't pop, and I think this look fits the movie marvelously. Anderson shot the film in 70mm, which would offer startling detail to his images. I did not see the film projected this way (as will most) but you could sense the time and effort put into getting the details of his world right. The musical score by Johnny Greenwood is minimalist but effective, with a few key strokes of a guitar to note rising tension.

The true draw of the film is the performances, which are excellent and at least provide a reason for staying awake. This is Phoenix's first role since his two-year performance stunt documented in I'm Still Here. It feels like his off-putting, confrontational, bizarre antics for that faux documentary was all just years in the planning training for playing the character of Freddie. The man has sad, droopy eyes, a fixed sneer that denotes his permanent displeasure and cocksure attitude. He speaks in mumbled sentences, he walks with his arms pinned out, donning the posture and behavior of a chicken. It's at once an odd and striking performance, and Phoenix does his best to make the character worthy of your attention. He give sit his all, but sadly Freddie just doesn't merit prominence. Hoffman (Moneyball) is equally alluring as the charming huckster who seems to come alive under a spotlight; the man exudes an oily presence, and yet there are a handful of moments where he lashes out, venting the roiling anger that seems to be barely contained at times. Hoffman's performance is one of willful self-delusion rather than rampant self-destruction, which makes him far more compelling in my opinion. I would have preferred a Lancaster Dodd movie rather than a Freddie Quells movie.

The Master is a confounding, airless, opaque character study that is far from masterful. The faults of the film and its stilted ambitions lay squarely at the feet of its flawed central character, Freddie Quell. The movie adopts Freddie's demeanor, managing a distant, standoffish, defiant attitude that thumbs its nose at audience demands. Don't you know entertainment has no place in art, silly filmgoers?

Anderson is still a vastly talented filmmaker but I lament the path his career has taken. I adored the first four movies of Anderson's career, but now I wonder if I'll ever get something along the likes of Boogie Nights or even Punch-Drunk Love again. At this point Anderson has earned enough artistic latitude to tell whatever stories he so chooses. This is why my frustration has mounted because I am at a loss to why he feels compelled to tell this story and in this manner. The Master is an artistically stillborn affair. You want to believe there's more under the surface but I doubt it. The main ideas and themes are hammered with little variation, the slight plot there is drifts aimlessly finding no sense of momentum, and the characters are kept at such distance that the film feels clinical, like we're observing creatures under glass for study. It just so happens that none of these characters are worth the unwarranted attention. The Master will be praised by a plethora of critics. Peter Travers said it renews your faith in American cinema. I had the opposite reaction. The Master made me lose faith, mainly that I'll ever enjoy a Paul Thomas Anderson film from this point on.

Nate's Grade: C

The Master is a classic in American cinema.

A very strange yet extremely fascinating character study with a deeply unsettling atmosphere surrounding its characters - and most of its power comes from the strong cast, especially Joaquin Phoenix, who delivers one of the most intense performances of his career.

Aside from extremely powerful performances and a perfectly represented atmosphere, "The Master" is more abstract art than it is a story, and for most of the film that works, but there are a few moments where it left me scratching my head. After the war, a veteran return home (with a messed up mind) looking for a job. As he stumbles across a family who is willing to help him, he slowly undergoes a personal therapy change. This film is well-written, well-directed, well-acted, and impeccably filmed, but there is not quite enough substance around the thought of the film for me, which left me unsatisfied. Still, it's incredibly well-made and it deserves the nominations. "The Master" is a very very unique film!

'The Master'. Paul Thomas Anderson's stunningly cinematic camera guides us through a mesmerising tale, with magic from Hoffman and Phoenix.

The intensity and energy between Phoenix and Hoffman, especially in that first processing session, is a whole other level of acting. Hoffman plays this larger than life figure powerfully, and I jumped in fright on every occasion he began losing his patience. Phoenix... Phoenix IS Freddie. Calling what he does as acting is a huge understatement. Every part of his body is Freddie. The gangly, sulking manner in which he walks. The mumbling, doubting speech through his teeth. The off-putting, weird angled way his hands are placed on his hips. The uneasy, nervous smile. The violent physicality in how he admonishes himself. Freddie is a deeply troubled man. Phoenix nails this performance.

PTA's direction combined with Mihai's cinematography weaves a sense of poetry throughout 'The Master'. The framing, the tracking shots. Phoenix running in that field, that bright, open expanse after a crowded scramble through the dimly lit building. The slowly forming motorcycle in the desert. The sea bringing in each new act. The gorgeous use of focus when Freddie is first walking towards the borrowed boat.

A unique exploration of faith.

A rich, powerful and challenging drama from a director able to provoke power and challenges. An all-round brilliant film.