I'm well aware that this is one of the most polarizing films to be released in the last few years and that it's very much a marmite (Love it or hate it) type of film. However, it deserves more than a 7.1 rating. Even those who didn't like the plot can't ignore two of the film's greatest strengths. The 70mm format makes the film look gorgeous and the acting from the three main cast members (Phoenix, Hoffman and Adams) is undeniably phenomenal.
shareMost people are brainless sheep. One of the truly great films of the new millennium. PTA's best? Probably. A film that gets richer with each viewing. A true masterpiece in the vein of the great American novel. For everyone involved this is a career highlight. The fact that this movie came and went without much attention or recognition (even from befuddled movie critics) is an absolute travesty. The Master belongs in the heavenly pantheon next to cinema's other top-tier works of art.
shareI agree with both of you.
Yes...It warrants multiple viewings.
"a malcontent who knows how to spell"
No irishaspaddyspig...it does not warrant multiple viewings for all ppl...i did only need one view to know what this movie is about and how great of a movie it is, with Phoenix best performance of his career. I still think Hoffmans best performance is in Before the devil knows youre dead, but this movie is a close second.
~If the realistic details fails, the movie fails~
It rewards the viewer with it's rich detail.
The first time I watched it, the story took precedence. The additional viewings allow for "looking around". There is a lot to see and a leisurely stroll through the setting is fun and rewarding.
It's not a matter of "getting it". It's a straightforward drama. It's also beautiful to look at.
a malcontent who knows how to spell
You're exactly correct. The Master is like 2001: A Space Odyssey. The visual poetry alone makes it a divine piece of art, and that is better enjoyed the second time watching the movie. What's your favorite scene in the movie? Jw. I can't pick just one, but I love the motorcycle scene as well as the scene when he remembers Doris.
shareUnfortunately, visual poetry goes over the head of mainstream audiences. They're minds and hearts are asleep.
Everyone gains from a second viewing of this film.
I just watched the 20 mins worth of deleted scenes on youtube. Quite frankly, one of the very few ways in which they could of made this amazing film better is by keeping those scenes in the final cut. Like the scenes that were kept in the final cut, these scenes were stunning.
shareYou don't really know what those scenes would do to the narrative. Because you liked them as images or quick snapshots does not mean they would have made the greater picture better.
shareI think this movie was maybe hurt a bit in the editing room. While I enjoyed the film, it's certainly PTA's most troubled film (IMO)... And when most people walk away from a film mainly talking about the photography and not the story there's a problem there.
shareI loved, but I have to agree...the editing was the weakness of the film.
"a malcontent who knows how to spell"
I love this film on all levels, but am interested, in what ways was it hurt by the editing?
I actually am interested in what you mean exactly, I don't disagree I just don't understand.
From what I heard however, is that PTA wanted to have a more calm cinematographic approach, less movement like There Will Be Blood. It is rather similar to Kubrick's shooting style.
PTA's best?
I thought this was PTAs best film. There will be blood second. He's getting better and better with every flick, and each film relating more to me, then say..... Punch drunk love
"One of the truly great films of the new millennium." = the pretentious idiots's version of "i liked the film".
"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh
good one
shareI don't think it's pretentious since it is one of the truly great films of the new millennium.
shareEven those who didn't like the plot can't ignore two of the film's greatest strengths. The 70mm format makes the film look gorgeous and the acting from the three main cast members (Phoenix, Hoffman and Adams) is undeniably phenomenal.
There is a plot which unfolds and fascinates those who have the ears to hear, eyes to see, and an educated mind to understand.
On the first viewing I rejected - even despised - this movie. But a visceral reaction to a movie means the viewer is at least engaged. Thus when The Master was repeated I found myself clicking for a second viewing. I began a cursory investigation of the source material for the movie.
I'll grant critics a major point. Those who know little or nothing about cult mentalities (religious, philosophical, whatever) may be confused by The Master. This film won't speak to those who lack curiosity. That's why I rated it as an "8".
http://vincentandmorticiasspeakeasy14846.yuku.com/directory
I guess I lack curiousity, although I'm not sure what in this film I was supposed to be curious about.
Although it did make me wonder why this movie was made.
I'd give it a 3.5, and Hoffman and Adams are amongst my favorite actors.
If you dint want him dead, why yall leave him with me?-Mouse
It is stunning that this movie is collectively rated a 7.1. Sorry this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and would have walked out but for the company I was with. And I think it is telling all the fawning over PTA. I read one blog comment in the NYT when it came out from someone who went on and on about the movie, only to confess he had not yet seen it--but KNEW it was going to be fantastic (and don't get me started about AO Scott's hagiographic review). Who CARES that it was shot in 70mm or that the vistas were beautiful. That is NOT what this movie was about, and at best that is damning the film with faint praise. Some movies lack a denouement--though that presumes there was plot fiber to begin with. This movie had none. Instead it went searching for plot lines, character development, empathy, relevancy, etc. and on each journey came up maddeningly empty-handed. It had great cinematography you say? Means nothing without the substance of the characters. Watching Joaquin Phoenix mumble and stumble his way through his scenes was close to painful, calling that acting is misguided. Hoping that PSH would somehow rescue scene after scene was futile. Thinking that there may at some point be some sort of cinematic miracle that might suddenly make this celluloid mess tolerable kept me hopeful through the first half, but not surprisingly no such miracle was forthcoming. Let's stop genuflecting to the director and accept that at times they produce bombs. And this was a stinker for PTA.
shareMarcel Proust once said that the perfect novel would have no plot. Milan Kundera's novels are an exploration and an observation. Two of the greatest writers of the twentieth century would disagree. The movie didn't search for anything because it was only following characters, and because these characters were searching for something they never found, you're left feeling as though the film is aimless. In reality, this aimlessness was PTA's intent.
shareMarcel Proust once said that the perfect novel would have no plot. Milan Kundera's novels are an exploration and an observation. Two of the greatest writers of the twentieth century would disagree. The movie didn't search for anything because it was only following characters, and because these characters were searching for something they never found, you're left feeling as though the film is aimless. In reality, this aimlessness was PTA's intent.
I read one blog comment in the NYT when it came out from someone who went on and on about the movie, only to confess he had not yet seen it--but KNEW it was going to be fantastic
It's best to let time take the film in, it simply can't disappear because it's much to powerful to fade into obscurity. I believe that in the years to come, many great artists will take inspiration from the film and credit it for such, Matthew Mcconaughey already claimed it's one of his favorite films and look how well he revived his career.
"We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us!"
So one of your greatest strenghts is using an outdated filming method? interesting how nostalgia works.
I agree that the main actors did a great job, but thats kinda all there was to the movie - good acting. everything else fell apart half an hour in and never recovered.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
70mm isn't outdated, you dolt. The image looks better than any other format.
Honestly this movie is too subtle and too deep for you if you got bored half an hour in.
Using film instead of digital recording is outdated, wasteful method of filming stuff.
I did not say i got bored, i said it fell apart.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
"It seems like we’re always being reminded that film is, after all, a business. But film is also an art form, and young people who are driven to make films should have access to the tools and materials that were the building blocks of that art form.
Would anyone dream of telling young artists to throw away their paints and canvases because iPads are so much easier to carry? Of course not.
In the history of motion pictures, only a minuscule percentage of the works comprising our art form was not shot on film. Everything we do in HD is an effort to recreate the look of film. Film, even now, offers a richer visual palette than HD.
And, we have to remember that film is still the best and only time-proven way to preserve movies. We have no assurance that digital informaton will last, but we know that film will, if properly stored and cared for."
Martin Scorcese
"a malcontent who knows how to spell"
A film is a film is a film. Art is business too. altrough sometimes it was not intended as so i agree. Having acess to technology that was used in films for long time is fine. claiming that such technology is "best you can do" is not, as that is factually incorrect.
Actually, majority of young painters use electronics brushes nowadays.
It is true that there are many people that try to recreate film with digital cameras, which is why we are still stuck at extremely outdated and nausea inducing 24 frames per second in movies. The limit got there because it was cheaper since it needed less film and stuck so long its still being considered a standard.
HD can, and whne used properly do, offer far more than what is limited in film. the film exposure and motion blur being settable to milisecond precision alone is a huge advantange.
Film will last ONLY if stored in proper containment. Hard drives will last in such containment too. as a well as backup tapes (and i dont mean casettes, i mean the tapes used for backups, the ones that can store terabytes of data).
What digital storage also offers is both the ability to recover the data even after things like fire exposure (which wont work for film) and ability to easily copy data making cheap reliable backups possible.
Also just because Martin Scorcesse said something does not mean its not bollocks.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
Pardon me if I trust his opinion over yours.
Electronic brushes.....Majority? Coming from a family of artists, I am curious if you can prove your statement.
"a malcontent who knows how to spell"
[deleted]
It's because it's probably the directors worst film. He has set ridiculous standards.
The master is a beautiful film, it's perfect in every way apart from story. I still think the screenplay is decent but masterpiece in film making with a above average script makes for weird viewing.
This is one of the most beautiful films ever made, from script to screen. It's very hard to find a fault, and deserves no less than a 9/10.
But what can you tell these people? Most of the users who have seen this and rated it extremely low don't deserve to be debated with. It's a shame, but this is IMDB after all.
[deleted]