GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Brainsbell The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Morten_5 PTA is a great writer and has an exceptional eye for cinema. Clearly, he knows how to choose his collaborators too, considering the great score (Greenwood), cinematography (Malaimare Jr.) and acting (brilliant Phoenix, Hoffman and Adams).

andrewroy-04316 Exactly as Mick LaSalle said in his review of the movie, what's so frustrating about The Master is the exceptional potential of the movie. Phoenix is exceptional as always and Hoffman is great, and the idea of the Cause is fascinating, but the stream of consciousness, nontraditional narrative just didn't work for me. At no point was I emotionally invested in any character, and there was no clear plot, just a series of interactions between the two main characters, with Adams in the background to reinforce the Cause. As the movie went on, it was a character study of two characters who were flat and led to an extremely dull third act. The visuals are nice and there are some good themes present, but not enough or any well developed enough to entertain throughout the film. If there had been more development and actual moving plot in both Freddie and the Cause, this could have been an excellent movie. Instead, it's a middling one.

satdoc Worst film ever. Don't see how it was ever made, much less receive rave reviews and Oscar nominations. Are they kidding us? Disjointed, makes no sense, a hodgepodge of scenes that don't fit. Has the film industry degenerated to the point where we give up all hope of being entertained? Are we expected instead to play mind games with the producers? No thanks, I prefer crosswords.

ericventura How does Paul Thomas Anderson come up with the idea to study the relationship between a cult leader based off the life of L. Ron Hubbard and a nymphomaniac Navy veteran turned photographer, who becomes absorbed into the cult? This complex relationship and story is utilized to study a simple character dynamic and age-old relationship between father and son, teacher and student, icon and public. Even if Anderson took the story of the Church of Scientology to give birth to his film, how does that story become his character study?It is simply brilliant. The visual feel from the production design to the cinematography itself is superb, all filmed in 70mm. Each of Anderson's films has exceptional cinematography and each scene in this film had the same, where each movement of the camera was calculated and purposeful. So the visual feel was fantastic.But Joaquin Phoenix as Freddie Quell. His performance was as riveting and chill-inducing as Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood (2007), but unfortunately, Phoenix was up against Day-Lewis himself in Lincoln (2012). Undoubtedly, Phoenix's best performance to date. Hoffman breaks his character actor mold and guides Phoenix through the treacherous steps of emotional exploration. Together their character dynamic is so complex and emotionally riveting they match the relationship between Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs (1991). If you have not seen this movie, look forward to watching the interview scenes, which may soon become iconic in cinema.The plot drives the development of Phoenix's character. The development of Phoenix's character puts our traditional morals at conflict. The conflict drives our interest in the plot. Anderson creates an endless loop and bottomless abyss in his film and his study of the human soul and human nature itself. Nevertheless, Anderson's study and corresponding conflict seems implied and sometimes forced. The realistic nature of the interview scenes is not conveyed to every scene of the film. Sometimes the presence of Anderson's hand in the dialogue is felt and found unwelcome. Instead of allowing his fully developed characters develop themselves, it feels as if Anderson crafted dialogue and scenes regardless of his characters' natures to achieve a certain effect. However, the film still remains a masterpiece of human discovery in cinema.