User reviews

This is one of those films which the critics were nearly-unanimous in offering universal praise and yet audiences seemed to be relatively dismissive. (The film didn't quite make back its money at the box office.) The performances of Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Hoffman, and the rest of the cast were outstanding, along with the dialog which seems perfectly suited to its characters. Even the sets of the late 1940's and early 1950's were superb. And there are a number of surprising moments in which you don't know where the story is headed. However, by the film's end, I felt like there was something missing, as if the filmmakers were reluctant to take a risk with the material and say something about their subject through the story. About the last half of the film, the story meanders and never finds again its pace or goal.

The film is about the obsession of cult groups which try to answer life's riddles for troubled people. In this case, the group and its leader appear very loosely inspired by Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard, called "the Cause" whose leader is Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman). Although Hoffman plays the title role, the story is really about an ex-naval officer Freddie Quell (Phoenix) who is suffering from PTSD as a result of his involvement in World War II. After the war, he is a lost soul roaming through life with a series of misadventures, such as attacking a customer when he works for a department store as a photographer, or accidentally offering a poisonous drink to a migrant worker.

At his lowest point, he wakes up on board some kind of small yacht and meets a strange man, Lancaster Dodd, who informs him he's aboard his ship at Quell's request, although our protagonist can't remember having boarded. Quell learns about Dodd at their first meeting who states "I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher, but above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you." He also says people attack him for his "dangerous" ideas. Slowly, Quell learns that Dodd is head of some kind of an underground movement combining philosophy and pseudo-science and publishes books on some far-fetched ideas which probably have no scientific basis. Dodd is often referred to as simply "Master" by members of this group. Dodd and his group believe the way to "heal" troubled people is by cleansing their souls through a hypnotic process which attempts to heal injuries inflicted during past lives.

Probably the most compelling part of the film is the first half, where we as the audience learn about Dodd and the Cause through the eyes of Quell. The most captivating moment is when Dodd is accused of not only illegally accepting a large donation from a philanthropist through a foundation, but practicing medicine without a license. I thought the film would focus on these accusations, but then the film leaves these indictments far behind. Afterwards, the film meanders, a bit like Quell at the beginning. The film becomes an episodic montage of interesting moments which are rather disconnected. By film's end, I didn't feel much more was revealed about Dodd and his Cause than when Quell first joined during the first third of the film.

Although all the acting is right on the money including outstanding performances by Hoffman and Phoenix, and the script dialog was absolutely true the characters, the entire film was kind of dissatisfying. We as the audience are given hints of the politics of Dodd and his inner circle but often these ideas are never fully developed. Also, much screen time was devoted to many of the "past life" sessions conducted by Dodd, but I think at some point it became wasted screen time. After 3 or 4 sessions, I pretty much understood the idea but instead countless others are offered without giving much insight into Dodd and who he is. By film's end, "The Master" was more like a character study than a story. A noble effort that wasn't quite there for me.

I will never understand how Phoenix and Hoffman didn't win the Oscars. Specially Joaquin, I truly think it is the best actor performance I ever watched in my life. The movie is great, although is not for everyone, you must watch it with the right mindset and pay attention to every detail. Most new actors should watch this movie to take notes on how to be a better actor. Cheers.

My Rating : 8/10

Inspired by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard and the development of a cult, 'The Master' is a drama-piece through and through.

The movie doesn't have a message or goal as such and sort of does it's own thing.

The things worth watching are the terrific performances, weird content and some very fine cinematography.

I came into The Master knowing almost nothing about it and, knowing (and caring) almost nothing about Scientology, it transpires that I may not have been able to take as much from it as someone going in fully informed and ready to be led by the director. I say this upfront because I have noticed that generally, criticism of this film tends to be met with a snobby dismissal of the individual who didn't "get it" because they weren't smart enough etc. This said, the film started well and it engaged me for well over the first half, building characters and exploring them in a patience rhythmic manner that mirrors the hypnotic delivery of Dodd himself. Sadly this build doesn't have a delivery to speak of and in the second half of the film it really did lose me.

What else it lost was any direction and sense of momentum that it may have had up till that point. The story doesn't go anywhere and it takes its time doing it, meandering through similar ground and offering nothing to really justify the long running time. Some may chose to see this as people complaining about a lack of action etc (again, that snobby of assuming such comments must mean "I need a car chase") but this isn't it at all; the story-telling seems to fall way down a priority list and it is a real shame because so much else about the film is excellent.

The first thing that grabs you is visually how stunning the film is – and it is a factor that remains consistent across the whole film. The colors, the framing and the size of the images are alluring and engaging. I had not heard of Malaimare before seeing his name in the credits, but his work here is terrific. On top of these images we get great use of music that is like a bedding rather than being stuck on top. It is hard to describe but it works very well, spilling under scene after scene and giving the delivery an oddly engaging feel and tone. As everyone has already said, the film is carried with some very strong performances. Phoenix is really great, with ragged edges and internals on display. Hoffman is more patient but also prone to rage when questioned and he balances this well. Adams surprised me the most as I think I didn't expect her to be as good as she was. The three of them (but mostly the lead two) make the film much better by virtue of what they do – and it is just a shame that the story-telling isn't better for them.

Indeed this is true for me of everything, because the film is so well made, looks so beautiful and is a great piece of crafting that it really is such a shame to be left cold by it and to feel it meandering without any momentum or reason. It is a great film and it deserves to be seen for what it does so very well, but in no way is it a good story – and it is this aspect that really lets it down.

Yes, herein contains some of the most ravishing filmmaking of the new millennium. The period details are abstract yet precise. The score has a stark, primordial allure. It's post-WWII America: Psychologically scarred veterans attempt to cramp themselves back into society. One is loner Freddie Quell, adrift in emotional confusion. He's secured a gig as a portrait photographer at a lavish department store imagined like a temple of indulgent commercialism. But Freddie doesn't last long there. In the darkroom, he screws models and chugs rotgut he makes with photo chemicals. Ultimately, he loses it on a customer, not just hitting him but harassing and lambasting him, working out some indecipherable, irrepressible rage.

Phoenix's performance as Freddie reduces all he's done before to a preparation exercise. He longs for something, but even he can't tell you what, and that sorrow has clotted into self- destructive ritual. We see his snarly face from angles we haven't seen before. We're not sure if his leery eyes are hateful or if he's dead inside. He's a captivating animal.

Then he meets stout, articulate Lancaster Dodd, always circled by people who treat him like a prodigy, hanging on his every word, laughing at all his mugging. Lancaster fancies himself a renaissance man. He's married to Peggy, who's much more vigilant than we first think. His son trails the proceedings with a dormant pose of derision. His daughter marries a man who, like everyone else in their clique, views him as a wizard.

The film belongs to Phoenix, but Hoffman more than does his thing, his affectations ringing with conceit and fraudulence. Freddie---father dead, mother institutionalized---is naturally drawn to Dodd, who promises answers, mental freedom, happiness, even claims to cure leukemia. He's written a book his bootlickers treat as a sort of bible. He loves to charm and perform.

It's well-known that Lancaster's cult is inspired by L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology. It's not direct, but the manner in which Lancaster draws Freddie into the fold, among other things, is unmistakably influenced by the contentious institution and Hubbard's life. Paul Thomas Anderson doesn't bind to that inspiration for his movie...but he doesn't bind to anything, really. You walk out muddled, wearied, wondering where to start in connecting the dots in this elegant, arresting movie. The story is as confounding as its technique is magnificent.

Anderson, the true wunderkind of the Tarantino generation, sets everything up so beautifully, you wait for the turning point to prevail so the intrigue can come to boil. Instead, nothing progresses. The dramatic developments seem to dwindle and become less consistent as the movie drifts along, and Anderson throws in pauses, like a lingering desert scene or an outstretched montage in which Freddie is made to pace in a room, that slow the movie to a drudge. Freddie's sex preoccupation, which was stressed in the film's early stretch, grows dissonant. It's less about narrative arc and more the emotional condition of two men, a twist of trust and mistrust, id and superego. PTA's vision is grand in scope, but his result is not so much ambiguous as opaque and detached.

For the first time in his immaculate career, the greatest filmmaker of his generation seems to languish. His newfound frigidness makes the film easy to admire but difficult to love. Anderson is so stunningly impressive, in fact, that it's taken me two viewings of The Master to admit all this to myself. Understandably, some critics have patronized it as deliberately evasive and occult, but isn't that just double-talk? A glorification of an artist's failure to proportionately bear his ideas? Something particularly intriguing is how the movie poses questions not so much about the importance of faith, but how far the human limit for change can extend and to confront emotional devastation so heavy it can never recover. But the film is too ambivalent or cautious to probe them in depth. By the end, it's become an opaque challenge between two phenomenal actors whose commitment to their roles is awe-inspiring, but it's manacled to a work so in awe of itself, the audience gets blockaded.

Paul Thomas Anderson's "The Master" is a puzzling, often bewildering film. Very few films have left me shaken and stirred and still leave me wondering, "What was that all about?" I can't say that I hated the ride. It is, quite simply, a remarkable film from one of America's best filmmakers today. This film is not for everyone, however.

The film's center plot; the one about self-described nuclear physicist, philosopher and professor Lancaster Dodd and his "organization" "The Cause" - as seen from the point of view from a shell-shocked psychotic drunk Freddie Quell. During the course of the film Lancaster and Freddie bond somewhat with Lancaster progressing his latest works.

The main performances by Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman are superb, and should warrant both of them Academy Award Nominations for Best Actor. Both of them. Phoenix is literally on fire here, his quirky mannerisms, twitching lips, unforgiving, unsettling eyes and ferocious anger and voice had me on the edge every time I see him on screen. Hoffman also is more subtle, though we see growing anger and rage whenever he feels that his work is being threatened. He can be classy, charismatic, and when threatened, loses all of that and becomes about as desperate as Freddie. Brilliant work by both actors. Watch the scene where Lancaster gets through to Freddie, or the harrowing scene where both of them are in jail cells. Special mention to Amy Adams who, while not really standing out, gives off a peculiar and somewhat sinister aura whenever she's on the screen.

Anderson's solid screenplay and his concentrated direction bring the goods. There seems to be a pattern about Anderson's last three films including this one. Both "Punch-Drunk Love" and "There Will Be Blood" featured lead characters who are extremely lonely and prone to snap to anger. "The Master" is somewhat a bit of both, where the lonely man can be both psychotic without reason and yet there are scenes which show he is, after all, a man. Some very well written lines ("If you can find peace without looking up to a master, any master...") meshed with some really great cinematography by Mihai Malaimare Jr. that brings nice color tones to the 1950 production design. Complementing all of this is Jonny Greenwood's eerie, dissonant score which makes the movie all the more odd, unsettling, and yet compelling to watch.

Eventually, both men in the movie are the masters of their own fate, and Anderson his own. It may move some and it may turn away others, but this is a fascinating watch nonetheless. "The Master" is one of 2012's very best films.

Overall: 91%

I had no clue what I was heading into when I pressed play. I think it's really hard to make a bad movie when you have Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jaoquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, and Jesse Plemons leading the charge. Hoffman and Phoenix are fully absorbed into their characters and the film forces its audience to try and follow these conversations that somehow feel super grounded (due to Hoffman's amazing delivery) and unsettling at the same time. This movie really could not have worked without the talent of these actors.

Amy Adams does so much with so little screen time; I do wish we got more time with her but I think her lack of presence contributes to the messaging of the film. She gives an extremely pulled back/subtle performance of a woman that is truly in the middle of the storm.

This feels fresh and distinct from any other movie I've watched, so I'd definitely recommend it.

I was fortunate enough to see this film much earlier than most. To me it seems like Anderson is really hitting his stride with this one. It was odd to me that upon exiting the theater the thing that I wondered about most of all is what the hell is he going to do next!

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.

Yes, there is a beginning, middle and an end, but is there? Do we really have a sense of catharsis at the end of "There Will Be Blood"? or do we simply understand "man" a little better?

Anderson insisted, as I'm sure he would say the same for this film, that "There Will Be Blood" wasn't a metaphor for anything. It was what it was. No hidden meaning, no sophisticated and often formulaic subtext. It's simply man. As Hoffman's character says in the trailer for "The Master" - "But above all, I am a man".

The movie deals with an interesting idea of the leader vs. the soldier, master vs. slave. It breaks down the anatomy of a relationship so you may interpret it in any way you'd like.

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. There are definitely times in this film that he completely disappears into that role. There is also some great supporting work from Laura Dern and others.

It would be difficult to place this film in his body of work. More than anything it feels like the natural continuation of what he started with "There Will Be Blood". Not to say that he will continue on this path but just that this is definitely a more narrowly focused film than some of his earlier ensemble work.

I found it to be less engaging than some of his other work and yet there was never a dull moment. You're always on your toes, trying to understand what's going on and where the movie is leading you.

It really is simply, just like man, a fascinating piece of work.

If you like good performances, then you should watch this movie. The performances of all the lead actors, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Joaquin Phoenix, and Amy Adams, are superb. Just really very very good. And, as others have mentioned, the cinematography is excellent. Every shot looks wonderful, and the close-ups are great. But if you want a coherent plot that tells a story that makes sense, then this movie is not for you. I never figured out why any of the characters did what they did, and I never believed that some of the things that happened would actually happen. While it does some things Wonderfully, structurally, it's a mess.

What is the nature of man? Is he so depraved and aberrated that he must grovel in his own misery all the days of his life? Or is he merely asleep, bound by the negative emotions of his previous existences, hoping that his perfect nature will be resurrected one fine day? Director Paul Thomas Anderson has long been heralded as a philosopher of the human condition. In his 2012 film, The Master, Anderson employs powerful performances by Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman to readdress themes he discussed in There Will Be Blood (2007).

Freddie Quell (Phoenix) is a Navy WWII veteran with an insatiable lust for sex and alcohol. After accidently producing a batch of liquor that kills a man in Salinas, he flees and hides away aboard a boat captained by Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman). Dodd is the leader of a budding cult which appears all too similar to L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology. Over several months and multiple "processing" sessions Dodd hopes to cure Quell of his "animal" tendencies. The film spirals as it begs to resolve who will be the master and who will be the slave.

Anderson offers a honest vignette of humanity, painting fleshly desire and moral rationalism plainfully for all to see. The Master's audience walks away in fear, identifying their lowest self with Dodd's actions. The film's emotional response is greatly in part due to Phoenix and Hoffman's explosive chemistry. The duo delivers possibly the greatest scene of dialogue in the last 50 years. Anderson, who also wrote the screenplay, perfectly crafts the film's hypnotic and symbolic interchanges. Every frame is visually striking thanks to Mihai Malaimare Jr.'s cinematography. Often, more than not, more can be gleaned from scenes' blocking than actual words or action. Characters appear larger when they are in control and symmetrical shots are largely abandoned to display who is the scene' subject.

The Master is a film for thinking. No viewer is allowed to be numb during its showcasing. This principle likely played to a drop in its commercial success, but it reminds us that there is still room in the world for gorgeous shots, heavy subtext, and low concept plots. The Master, along with There Will Be Blood and Inherent Vice, has printed Anderson's name in the annals of brilliant filmmakers.

Paul Thomas Anderson has grown as perhaps the greatest American auteur of his generation. At 42, this is his 6th film (following 1996's "Hard Eight", 1997's "Boogie Nights", 1999's "Magnolia" - my all-time favorite -, 2002's "Punch-Drunk Love", and 2007's "There Will Be Blood"). Like the late master Kubrick and the aging master Terrence Malick (who, coincidentally, just debuted his 6th film, "To the Wonder", at the latest Venice Film Festival where PTA won the Silver Lion for Best Director), he isn't the most prolific of filmmakers; but his perfectionist creations, cerebral yet strikingly cinematic and emotional, always leave an indelible mark (polarizing audiences but usually earning critical acclaim). "The Master" is no exception. Shot on 70mm film, it is not so much of an "outside" epic as you'd imagine - although every single image is stunning and perfectly composed (courtesy of cinematographer Mihai Malaimare Jr., who replaced Robert Elswit, Anderson's usual collaborator). It closely resembles "There Will Be Blood" in tone and content, but it stands on its own (Jonny Greenwood is once again responsible for the score).

Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) is a troubled and troubling drifter who becomes the right-hand man of Lancaster Dodd (actor extraordinaire Philip Seymour Hoffman), "the master" of a cult named The Cause in post-WWII America. Their strange, ambiguous relationship is the center of the film. "The Master" is a thought-provoking indictment of cult fanaticism and lies sold as religion, which has caused controversy and concern among Scientologists even before its release. By not mentioning real names, Anderson is capable of broadening the scope of his story and making it richer - and subtler - than a straightforward "Scientology flick" would have been. Like his previous films, there's more than meets the eye at a single viewing, and his attention to detail pays off (there's also a visual homage to Jonathan Demme's "Melvin and Howard", another favorite of Anderson's, in a motorcycle racing scene). Hoffman is as good as ever, and Amy Adams is highly effective (slowly depriving herself of cutesy mannerisms) as his wife. David Lynch's golden girl Laura Dern has a small role as well. But this is Joaquin Phoenix's hour, all the way. River Phoenix's younger brother has become a fascinating actor himself since Gus Van Sant's dark comedy "To Die For" (1995), and, after his much publicized "retirement from acting" and music career hoax in 2009, he managed to come back with a performance for the ages, which shall culminate in Oscar gold. As for Anderson, it is unsure whether the Academy will finally recognize him as he deserves. His films may still be too outlandish for the Academy's taste (he's announced his next project will be an adaptation of Thomas Pynchon's crime novel "Inherent Vice", a seemingly less ambitious project he hopes to make in less than five years). Regardless of Oscar numbers, we can rest assured that in a world where PTA gets to make such personal and original work and find his audience, there is still hope, and room, for intelligent filmmaking.

the face of Joaquin Phoenix..the face of this man in this movie is art... it's like a painting... some scenes of the movie are fascinating and the actings are really good...i mean Joaquin Phoenix definitely deserves an Oscar for this role..and i always loved Philip Hoffman as an actor..

this movie seeks no point and simply just like to share a mans life.. and i don't know why..but i liked it as a moving painting..it was a form of art that you are free to create and make a point out of it or just simply enjoy it... in my opinion it was a good movie and worth a watch..

What to say about this film....?

To say the least, it was a letdown. It was a character study with no plot. Exactly 1/2 of a movie.

After 30 seconds of just about every scene, I could not wait for the next scene to begin, in the hopes that it would be better (more entertaining, more thought provoking, anything!) than the current scene I was being forced to sit through.

70% of the movie is close-up face shots with the camera. I understand the need to convey 'brainwashing' when Phoenix is listening to 'the Master' but as a viewer i'd like to have some idea of the setting when I'm watching. It tends to be an important part of telling a story.

At every moment of 'oh I wonder where this is going to end up,' PTA let me to a dead end. Killing the exciting parts of the story and leaving me with the drawl that was 'The Master.'

I'd say the people who will enjoy this film the most would be religious cult leaders (there may be a few hundred) and the mentally insane (they won't go to the theater).

If it wasn't for brilliant performances from Phoenix and PSH, I'd rate this film much lower.

The Master (2012) A story by Freddie Quell (Joaquim Phoenix) is a lost man, deeply lonely, unable to connect with the rest of society. It comes from the legacy that survived Travis Bickle (Robert DeNiro), Taxi Driver (1976). Anderson is a filmmaker who travels between antonyms: tradition versus modernity, passion and coldness, madness from logic, without getting to contradict The sectoreligious history is original and interesting because it reflects the most inept and gullible America. They must have the courage to make a film so different for the times that are running, a film that takes care of every element that makes it up.

It's a psychological drama set primarily in various spots in the United States -- New York, Philadelphia, and Arizona -- from 1945 to the early 1950s. It follows a World War II Navy veteran with severe psychological issues who becomes closely engaged with the leader of a pseudo-scientific cult known as "The Cause."

Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) is a severely-damaged alcoholic sailor. His erratic and sometimes violent behavior is an issue from the film's beginning. He briefly falls in love with 16-year-old Doris Solstad (Madisen Beaty) but soon departs for a sea job and doesn't return for seven years. After several crises, he stows away on a boat operated by Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the leader of "The Cause," though Dodd's wife, Peggy (Amy Adams), seems more stable than Lancaster. The Dodd children, Elizabeth (Ambyr Childers) and Val (Jesse Plemons), have mixed views of their parents' mission.

The film's focus is the relationship between Quell and Lancaster Dodd. Dodd seems obsessed with Quell and tries to cure Quell's demons several times. However, it seems to be a case of one damaged personality unable to help another damaged personality. The ending is realistic but unfulfilling.

Hoffman is an outstanding character actor, and I think he is superb as a highly educated cult leader (he claims both a Ph. D. and M. D.) who, in the words of his son, is "making it up as he goes along." Phoenix seems so borderline psychotic during much of the film that it's not clear how the relationship between Quell and Dodd lasted as long as it did. Amy Adams is great as the backbone of the operation. Laura Dern has a nice turn as a true believer who finally becomes disenchanted.

The quality of the acting warrants a good rating, but the story is occasionally tedious with overly-long sequences. It could have been 20 minutes shorter with better editing.

Well, I really wanted to like this one. On paper it's perfect. Director/writer Paul Thomas Anderson, cast headed by Joaquin Phoenix, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and Amy Adams. What could go wrong? The script. If a movie doesn't start with a good script, it can't turn out well. There is no crest to this story. And there is no denouement. It lays flat for over two hours. The actors give great performances and the scenes are constructed well. Joaquin Phoenix has moments that are tragic. And then the movie just plods on. I am fine with a film that develops slowly. I'm not fine with a film that never develops. Is it about an alcoholic? No. Is it about a cult leader? No. It's random moments, between an alcoholic and a cult leader, strung together, with no direction, and no narrative. You could extract any scene from this film, and on it's own it would stand up well. Pieced together, however, they don't add up to a story.

A story has to be about something. It has to start somewhere and it has to go somewhere. This story starts, and then goes nowhere. It is fine if the resolution of a story is simply it's endlessness. This film, however, never establishes where it's going. And, therefore, can't simply, go on forever. It never went anywhere to begin with. The actors are left to spluge all over the audience for no discernible reason. I'm over Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and have been for a while. In this role, as a sort of L. Ron Hubbard figure, he overacts to the point of caricature. For my money, the best Seymour Hoffman is "Boogie Nights", "Happiness", or "The Talented Mr. Ripley". Joaquin Phoenix is probably the most talented American actor working today, but his physically contorted, repetitive, mentally tortured, alcoholic, Freddie Quell, was never given the opportunity to become real or sympathetic, or even vile. He just, like the rest of the movie, went on, and on, and on. This actor, Joaquin Phoenix, has the chops to do anything. Check him out in "Reservation Road", "Gladiator", "Walk The Line", and his BEST, "Two Lovers". In "Two Lovers" Phoenix draws the portrait of an emotionally crippled man whose life crumbles beyond all hope (in his eyes), but through an accident of fate finds a path through which to go on living. He is riveting. There isn't anything he can't do given the opportunity. But he doesn't get the opportunity here.

Clearly this film was trying to comment on cultism. We know too much, however (Jonestown, Waco, Warren Jeffs), about cults to accept this fraction of a story. Clearly the main character was an alcoholic. Yet the film never explored his turmoil, or addiction, the way even a dumb show like "Celebrity Rehab" would. We were almost brought close enough to his story to care during his first session with Phillip Seymour Hoffman, but that was not developed and ultimately went nowhere. Just like the rest of the film.

There are some shocking scenes in this film. But there is no story that justifies them. It is like watching a big screen version of "Americas Most Shocking Videos", - for over two hours. They are independently compelling, but ultimately disconnected. And they never amount to a story about anything I could wrap my arms around. For me the ultimate failure of this film is that there was no point to it. It is not an art film. It is a pointless film. And it's not that I don't get "it". There's nothing to get. Better to spend your time watching car crashes, on TV, shot from dash cams. At least you won't expect much going in.

The Master is absolutely magnetic, orchestrated brilliantly by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson and helmed by the commanding turns of Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Anderson has never been a director that makes a film for everyone to enjoy. In the vein of auteur directors like Terrence Malick, David Lynch, and Michael Haneke, Anderson's films aren't necessarily the most accessible despite the seeming mainstream status. Films like Boogie Nights (1997), Magnolia (1999), and There Will Be Blood (2007) are reflective, tensional, studies of human behavior, all things that the average film-goer most of the time will not embrace. In The Master, Anderson constructs, absolutely magnificently I might add, two dynamic, real, and tangible men that the audience can both imagine knowing, loving, and loathe. It's the writing masterpiece of the year.

Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman) gets the best character blueprints of any player to interpret. Hands down, the sharpest and best written character of the film is purely Lancaster. Anderson concentrates on his motivation and responses, giving him an arc that the audience can both easily and willingly travel with him. Hoffman's natural talents as an actor and finding himself in a character are showcased here with intensity and composure. His often seemingly blood-filled hot-headed dialogue encompasses some of the best moments of the film. It's evident Hoffman is not only enjoying himself but enjoying Lancaster. He's both repulsive but completely enamoring in structure, word, and persona. Anderson may have created the great oxymoron of cinema this century. Hoffman is damn-near perfect.

The performance of the year... On the flip side, Joaquin Phoenix not only inhabits a character never seen by him or any actor before but assembles a man from scratch, beat by beat, trait by trait. It's not just the finest acting performance of the year, not only the finest acting performance this millennium, it could be the finest work of the past twenty years or so. I can only recollect a handful of actors that have the gumption to stand toe-to-toe with Phoenix's work here. His Freddie Quell is utterly unpredictable; strutting, glaring, and holding an explosive mentality that could detonate at any moment. Phoenix controls it, even though there are many instances where you feel like he's losing it. Quell is frightening, admitting his evil, unbalance, and instability. Phoenix externalizes this in his zealous and disturbing actions but more importantly internalizes it in body language and character beats that not many actors dedicated to the craft can achieve. Joaquin Phoenix is not just Oscar-worthy, he's Oscar-bound. It's the performance you can't deny, the performance of the year. Let's hope they don't.

Where Phoenix and Hoffman are strident and vociferous, Amy Adams is internal and subtle, but always at the brim. Peggy Dodd is multifaceted and extremely complex. Adams understands her amazingly well, making intricate features that are surprising for "good-girl" Adams. She gets dirty and dominating in not only a prolific manner but in a sultry method. Adams is a revelation. Laura Dern is brief but memorable; a missed actress who should be doing more accessible work.

Jonny Greenwood's score once again, it's absolutely brilliant, well- placed, astonishing and among the best composers this year. Mihai Malaimare, Jr., cinematographer extraordinaire, is just that, extraordinary. Malaimare is painting scenes on a film canvas and we are witnessing the artist work. It's as if we're watching Bob Ross teach us the art of capture. Expect Cinematography to be named among Oscar's lineup in 2013 along with Film Editing (Leslie Jones, Peter McNulty) and Production Design (David Crank and Jack Fisk). It goes without saying, Picture, Director, and Screenplay should be there alongside them.

The Scientology subject is there and there are connections that can be made but are they obvious or intended? Not necessarily. It's not evident or offensive. I only hope that Paul Thomas Anderson and the film doesn't suffer from anyone assuming that its a slight at the group or any particular one for that matter.

Though the film takes time to warm up to, once the film soars, it's soars high. While The Master is not for everyone and there could be many detractors, there are three scenes in particular that are masterpieces in filmmaking. Anderson levels and executes a difficult subject with no fear or hesitation. He also knows his characters, what they are, who they are, and marrying the actors to them in a way not many directors can do. Anderson unites film with art again and The Master is their bond. It's good to see them together again.

After World War II, a U.S. soldier (played by Joaquin Phoenix) has serious trouble integrating into post-war society. He joins a group dedicated to a philosophical cause and develops a kinship with its leader played by Philip Seymour Hoffman. This group believes in past-life therapy as a cure to current problems.

The film is written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. "The Master" like some other Anderson films ("Boogie Nights", "Magnolia") could be criticized for being too long. Also, while the story is interesting, it occasionally seems aimless.

But this is still a fine film mainly because of Anderson's great skills as a director where his greatness was best shown in "There Will Be Blood", his best film so far. Some scenes seem repetitive and long but they are directed in a way that can still keep the viewer interested. Anderson also does a fine job in evoking the post-war period and he is strongly assisted by the very talented actors Phoenix and Hoffman.

While this seems like a bizarre trip, it is one well worth taking. - dbamateurcritic