Weinstein Company, The | Release Date: September 14, 2012
7.2
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 510 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
346
Mixed:
87
Negative:
77
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
10
SMSandozSep 17, 2012
This movie is not fast-paced, unthinking entertainment. Rather, it is an eery, haunting exploration into the minds of two madmen and the general cult insanity of America in its 50s. Through outstanding performances, Anderson takes us throughThis movie is not fast-paced, unthinking entertainment. Rather, it is an eery, haunting exploration into the minds of two madmen and the general cult insanity of America in its 50s. Through outstanding performances, Anderson takes us through the painful, moment-by-moment mix of reality and delusion, fantasy and belief which is the hallmark of cult life and followers. Often humorous, but always disturbing, this film is unlike no other. The themes have no easy answers, so there is no neat bow and tie here. This is a landmark movie which makes any viewer think twice - about loyalties to any group or individual based on need. Expand
5 of 11 users found this helpful56
All this user's reviews
10
Johann_CatMar 3, 2013
This film plays more like a fevered dream than like realist history, so people expecting some sort of conventional narrative may quickly lose patience with this movie. They may also be missing something special. In addition to being glowingThis film plays more like a fevered dream than like realist history, so people expecting some sort of conventional narrative may quickly lose patience with this movie. They may also be missing something special. In addition to being glowing symbols more than they are conventional characters, neither Freddie Quell (Jochain Phoenix) or Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffmann) is especially likable. But the performances suggest emotional and historical truth in ways that are often moving, without pretension or sentimentality. Freddie Quell is a figure of the American male id, post World War II: violent, sensuous, insatiable. He's driven to drink drafts of American industry to quench his burning: the fuel of torpedoes, the fluids of photography, institutional cleaners, all mixed with the fruits of the earth. Dodd, "The Master," is a new-model super ego who might tame and direct Quell. Dodd is smug as a baronial magnate, as full of literary pretensions as Tom Sawyer; his resolve is borrowed from his steely wife (Amy Adams). Hoffman's Dodd, contrary to rumors about the film, is not a charismatic, psychological autocrat, but is wounded, defensive, and dreamy. He lives out a fantasy of priestly insight and command, but few people really believe him; he gets the benefit of many doubts. As Quell is drawn to Dodd's fantasies of mind over history, Dodd is drawn to Quell's energy and chemical inventiveness. Together they suggest different means of achieving atomic-age versions of the old American goal of obliterating the past and standing alone in a new present. They also suggest the polar tensions of raw animal desire and magisterial fantasies of triumph present in many American men. Quell's desire to consume, dominate and love the earth (Quell is obsessed with a woman sculpted in sand) meets a rhetoric of platonic self-mastery in Dodd. The preposterous incongruity of the men and their desires does not result in a drama of control and exploitation, which audiences may expect, but in inchoate attempts at mutual understanding in several scenes that are more humanly intimate and dramatically resonant than most sexual episodes in movies. The 70mm "real film" photography in this movie is amazing; many of the film's strongest moments, including those with people, are wordless. An irony of the film is that lush and magnificent nature (the Pacific ocean, the Arizona desert, the San Francisco Bay) is often overlooked by Quell and Dodd in their self involutions. Nature in American writing often becomes a symbol of self; it automatically is for these two. But nature may have the last word, in an ending that is unexpectedly funny and tender. I rate this as one of the best American movies. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
10
EnriqueKikJul 9, 2013
Paul thomas Anderson has once again made a movie that almost reach perfection; not only because of the beautiful cinematography, the unique soundtrack, and the amazing actings. But because of the fact that it's strenght comes from the littlePaul thomas Anderson has once again made a movie that almost reach perfection; not only because of the beautiful cinematography, the unique soundtrack, and the amazing actings. But because of the fact that it's strenght comes from the little intense moments, and the deepness of the characters; not because of a story. The screenplay is great as it is. It is a proof that a film doesn't need a complex storyline to be great. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
10
MegWhiteleySep 21, 2012
The Master, the new Paul Thomas Anderson movie, with Amy Adams and Joaquin Phoenix, and what happen? The movie is AWESOME, have an interesting story, with an incredible development, the characters are awesome because the performances areThe Master, the new Paul Thomas Anderson movie, with Amy Adams and Joaquin Phoenix, and what happen? The movie is AWESOME, have an interesting story, with an incredible development, the characters are awesome because the performances are really great, and the screenplay wow, cool. I love The Master. Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
9
fernandohsSep 23, 2012
Both the intellectually amusing and the emotionally disturbing attributes of The Master make it a true and enjoyable P.T. Anderson movie. This is not a movie for everyone. Before watching this movie you should remember who it is coming from.Both the intellectually amusing and the emotionally disturbing attributes of The Master make it a true and enjoyable P.T. Anderson movie. This is not a movie for everyone. Before watching this movie you should remember who it is coming from. If you think you understand previous P.T. Anderson's movies, then go watch it because you will enjoy it. If you don't recall any P.T Anderson movie then go with an open mind. And if you remember There Will Be Blood and Magnolia, and you are not sure if you liked them, then watch it but don't come back and write a negative review. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
10
cameronmorewoodDec 20, 2012
Some will say the storyline of The Master seems basic, and told in an overly convuluted way; however, any true movie-hound knows Anderson doesn't care about what's happening on the surface. It's all about the symbolism, and The Master isSome will say the storyline of The Master seems basic, and told in an overly convuluted way; however, any true movie-hound knows Anderson doesn't care about what's happening on the surface. It's all about the symbolism, and The Master is filled with fascinating meanings and subtle truth, the when looked for, hit you like a bullet train. It is a magnificent accomplishment in acting, writing, directing, editing, cinematography, and score, and the best American film of the year. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
10
vdiaz9Jan 23, 2013
If you hated this but loved Tree of Life, you need your head examined. Both are prime examples of an auteur filmmaker getting the opportunity to make pictures that go against Hollywood norms for the sake of their own artistry. It's a miracleIf you hated this but loved Tree of Life, you need your head examined. Both are prime examples of an auteur filmmaker getting the opportunity to make pictures that go against Hollywood norms for the sake of their own artistry. It's a miracle a movie like The Master can even get made when the entire industry's sole purpose is profit. A movie like this doesn't get made to please the masses. Paul Thomas Anderson deserves credit for, once again, writing and directing a film that is reminiscent of Kubrick or Welles. Anderson's films appeal to an audience that enjoys great acting and character over repetitious conventions in plot development. Only a handful of movies like this get made a year that end up getting a nationwide major theater release and audiences should be welcoming it, rather than admonish it. Don't bother with The Master if you honestly believe Skyfall is worthy of a Best Picture nomination. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
8
LaGuertaApr 20, 2013
A rare breed of film which compels it's audience to think and come to their own conclusions about what they are witnessing. From the soundtrack to every poignant shot, 'The Master' demonstrates technical excellence and brandishes a superbA rare breed of film which compels it's audience to think and come to their own conclusions about what they are witnessing. From the soundtrack to every poignant shot, 'The Master' demonstrates technical excellence and brandishes a superb cast. How such a momentous piece of work can be so grossly overlooked is unfathomable. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
9
nutterjrNov 18, 2012
Truly remarkable performances from Phoenix and Hoffman, with the former (Freddie) portraying an navy veteran, a true outcast and degenerate, unable to conform, always following his instincts in contrast with the latter (the Master) who has itTruly remarkable performances from Phoenix and Hoffman, with the former (Freddie) portraying an navy veteran, a true outcast and degenerate, unable to conform, always following his instincts in contrast with the latter (the Master) who has it all worked out and will not reason with anyone who does not believe in 'The Cause', a philosophy of life he introduced and cultivates and promotes through his method. When the two men are brought together, they inevitably effect one another, with the Master inspired the animalistic behaviour of Freddie whilst Freddie goes on a journey to find himself. I would not be surprised if this film wins a number of awards especially for acting. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
ScraperMar 30, 2015
The cinematography wraps a quaint, pleasant world around two men navigating a hopeless search for order in the world and themselves. The audience won't immediately identify with the manic behavior or violent mood swings (Rex Reed hatesThe cinematography wraps a quaint, pleasant world around two men navigating a hopeless search for order in the world and themselves. The audience won't immediately identify with the manic behavior or violent mood swings (Rex Reed hates anything that isn't immediately likable like a dessert), but the audience will certainly identify the religious aspects and human behavior surrounding tightly-gripped philosophies and beliefs: certainty, skepticism, narcissism, insanity. It's serious, funny, subtle, just perfect to dissect and enjoy. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
NKOASNov 17, 2012
It's enigmatic trailer drove a lot of curious minds to the theatre in the hopes of gaining clarification on the mystery P.T. Anderson presented. What we left with instead were many more questions. The film is, undoubtedly, a puzzle. P.T.It's enigmatic trailer drove a lot of curious minds to the theatre in the hopes of gaining clarification on the mystery P.T. Anderson presented. What we left with instead were many more questions. The film is, undoubtedly, a puzzle. P.T. Anderson's usually straightforward, grounded style is eschewed in favor of a centrifuge of ideas and emotions all tossed around, reminiscent of Slaughterhouse Five's blend of moments to create tone while still throwing the audience andy time it thinks it has a grasp on the meaning of the work. The film's "message", if it has one, doesn't become clear until long after one has left its seat, and the internal debates the film instigates will last even longer. With cinematography as sharp as There Will Be Blood and performances as stellar as Magnolia, P.T. Anderson's puzzle is a glorious one, and one well worth solving. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
kensterNov 10, 2012
I would not recommend for mainstream movie-goers. It's a visually impressive display of equally impressive performances, but the lack of a traditional narrative will likely alienate most audiences. This is not a "normal" movie by any means.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
cabritaOct 5, 2012
It's not a perfect film but the effect it had on me warrants a perfect score. It has the best performances of the year with Joaquin Phoenix playing Freddy Quiad and Philip Seymour Hoffman playing Lancaster Dodd. It may be to long and someIt's not a perfect film but the effect it had on me warrants a perfect score. It has the best performances of the year with Joaquin Phoenix playing Freddy Quiad and Philip Seymour Hoffman playing Lancaster Dodd. It may be to long and some scenes may not work as well as they should but the overall effect of the film is undeniably powerful. At the end of the film a failed to get out of my seat it was that thought provoking and powerful. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
j30Oct 4, 2012
The Master is the movie to beat this year. If you want a movie to think for you go see something else. Without a doubt the movie will polarize it's audiences. But what did you expect from Paul Thomas Anderson? The same person who brought usThe Master is the movie to beat this year. If you want a movie to think for you go see something else. Without a doubt the movie will polarize it's audiences. But what did you expect from Paul Thomas Anderson? The same person who brought us "There Will Be Blood," "Boogie Nights," and "Magnolia." Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
drchocOct 6, 2012
I believe this is a fine film.Forget everything except the interplay between "the Master" and his acolyte-Fred, each of whom is unforgetably portrayed. There is an underlying and far from explicit suggestion of homosexuality between the twoI believe this is a fine film.Forget everything except the interplay between "the Master" and his acolyte-Fred, each of whom is unforgetably portrayed. There is an underlying and far from explicit suggestion of homosexuality between the two men, plus the explicit portrayal of master-slave relationship. Fred has a family background of psychosis and alcoholism, while master demonstrates strong evidence of domination.The movie moves slowly which is its main failing, but disregard allbut the two men, their strengths and weaknesses. A strong Oscar contender for picture and best actor(s). Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
LetzTalkMoveezOct 21, 2012
This has potential - as with Anderson's other spectacular films - to be one of the most important pieces of cinema in the past 50 years. It's a story of power, control, desire, moving on, and relapse. It's magnificently acted, terrificallyThis has potential - as with Anderson's other spectacular films - to be one of the most important pieces of cinema in the past 50 years. It's a story of power, control, desire, moving on, and relapse. It's magnificently acted, terrifically scripted, and gorgeously shot. This is the epitome of electrifying filmmaking. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
lasttimeisawFeb 12, 2013
Perceived as my most anticipating film of 2012, THE MASTER is Paul Thomas Anderson’s ambitious comeback after THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007, 9/10), 5 years interval may be too long for PTA fanboys, but again the wait is unmistakably deserved.Perceived as my most anticipating film of 2012, THE MASTER is Paul Thomas Anderson’s ambitious comeback after THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007, 9/10), 5 years interval may be too long for PTA fanboys, but again the wait is unmistakably deserved. Post-WWII, a USA naval veteran inadvertently hops on a yacht one night and is hooked on a cult named “The Cause”, lead by its eloquent yet irascible master, while being an avid follower of the master, his perennial booze-abusive, sex-driven, violent nature enables himself to be the soul needs salvation, a side-kick and a role model, it also encroaches his mental realm and life orientation, eventually challenges his loyalty with The Cause and the master. PTA’s trademark roving and tracking long-shots maintain as engaging as any directors could ever achieve, not obtrusive but impeccably tally with the storytelling; the retro-soaked palette authentically establishes a mystic aura of the inexplicable internal mechanism of how our emotion rises and falls, attended by a rhythmic score from Jonny Greenwood.

Joaquin Phoenix gives me a first impression of Michael Shannon (whose TAKE SHELTER 2011, 9/10 is among my top pick of 2011), in a far gaunter figure, he embodies his character so devotedly and destructively, it is a privilege to appreciate his hunchback stance, the unique way when he speaks (English words evade me now, help?), his exuberance, his furore, his confusion and his determination. The erosive bitterness conceals in his gawky body is compelling and he is a war victim, a damaged good seeking for a rejuvenation, the master and The Cause may or may not cure him, anyhow, he still possess his free will, if only the power of repetition works. Philip Seymour Hoffman, doesn’t need too much physique alternation though, is equally mesmerizing if not too overbearing, his mind-blowing delineation of the master’s polarized volatility is another textbook archetype of performance art. Amy Adams, whose fourth Oscar-nomination in 8 years has wrought some dissent here, accomplishes an amazing expressionless supporting performance, her role doesn’t require any ostentatious flare-up, but each time her composure and relentlessness exudes disparate feelings from inside (blithe, haughty, disdained, confident, commanding, suspicious, disgusted, etc.), and her “milking the cow”coalition with Hoffman is simply petrifying. Grabbing only 3 acting nominations (with faint possibility to win any of them), THE MASTER’s bumpy Oscar-road is far from triumphant compared with THERE WILL BE BLOOD, but time will testify whether it is an overlooked masterpiece or an elusive piece of self-indulgent, but no matter on which case, one cannot deny that it heralds that PTA is most probably on his way to be the Stanley Kubrick of our generation (not least suggested by the evocative nudity scenes which seemingly pay tribute to the masked orgy in EYES WIDE SHUT 1999, 8/10), and it is a tremendous blessing for all the cinephiles.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
beingryanjudeSep 1, 2014
Every so often we get a film that challenges us--this is that film for 2012. Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams and Philip Seymour Hoffman each give some of their finest work. With such boldness and poetry through the eyes of Paul Thomas Anderson,Every so often we get a film that challenges us--this is that film for 2012. Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams and Philip Seymour Hoffman each give some of their finest work. With such boldness and poetry through the eyes of Paul Thomas Anderson, The Master will not be easily forgotten. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
seancriswellOct 7, 2012
I think that if you had no idea who PT Anderson is you could pick out his movies by now. He has created another wonderfully atmospheric film full of broken multilayer-ed characters. This film falls short for me where many other AndersonI think that if you had no idea who PT Anderson is you could pick out his movies by now. He has created another wonderfully atmospheric film full of broken multilayer-ed characters. This film falls short for me where many other Anderson films have, I don't care what happens to these characters, I never become emotionally invested in them. For me that is what keeps most of his films from going from very good to great. However I don't know if I want Anderson to create those types of characters because his films always haunt me for weeks, and his characters are so ambiguous that I find myself in wonderment of who they are and where they came from. Phoenix and Hoffman, and Adams for that matter, are all excellent in this film. Phoenix and Hoffman's scenes together are mesmerizing. Their characters are so emotionally complex that we become immersed in their misery and desperation. I am immensely looking forward to revisiting this film again in the future. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Tbrown15Oct 7, 2012
The Master is set in the early years of 1950, where I was instantly introduced to Freddie Sutton, played by an amazing performance from (Joaquin Phoenix), which I believe will win his first Oscar. In the first couple of scenes, I realize thatThe Master is set in the early years of 1950, where I was instantly introduced to Freddie Sutton, played by an amazing performance from (Joaquin Phoenix), which I believe will win his first Oscar. In the first couple of scenes, I realize that Sutton is a very heavy alcoholic, who is also a war veteran, and does not have a stable mind. After getting to know Sutton Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
SpangleJul 30, 2014
I truly did like this one, though I do not find it to be as deep and sophisticated as many critics and others who have watched this one. At the end of the day, this one has themes like every other film, but for the most part, the question,I truly did like this one, though I do not find it to be as deep and sophisticated as many critics and others who have watched this one. At the end of the day, this one has themes like every other film, but for the most part, the question, "What is this one about?" can be answered by saying that it is a character study of a deeply troubled man and his father-son type relationship with a cult leader. Nothing profound or deep and, to me, many people are looking into this one too closely and looking for something that is simply not there. Now, onto the film itself. Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman are fantastic and are a great juxtaposition to one another, as Phoenix is over the top, unhinged, violent, and angry, while Hoffman is calm, cool, collected, and calculating. Amy Adams is also good here, though I do wish her role was larger, but at the end of the day, this one is about Phoenix and Hoffman's relationship. The script here is also very strong and does a fantastic job developing the characters. The cinematography is gorgeous, in particular the repeated shots of the water and then the shots of them in desert. Really well done and beautiful to look at without question. Paul Thomas Anderson's direction is also strong as well. After watching Punch-Drunk Love and not liking it after having loved There Will Be Blood and liking Hard Eight, I was still worried that maybe Anderson's films would be more hit and miss for me. However, this one convinced me that that may not be the case, as his direction and this film were really good. At the end of the day, The Master is not for everyone, but for me, it was right up my alley. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
oliver1hMar 15, 2013
One of the most interesting and highest quality movie I have seen for a long time. The acting was superb. Mr. Joaquin Phoenix and Mr. Philip Seymour Hoffman acting was more than brilliant. Amy Adams was also great in her role. What is thatOne of the most interesting and highest quality movie I have seen for a long time. The acting was superb. Mr. Joaquin Phoenix and Mr. Philip Seymour Hoffman acting was more than brilliant. Amy Adams was also great in her role. What is that movie about? I think it is a character study and a meditation on the human desire to find its place in life. This is shown through the life of a "lost" man who is looking for happiness, a purpose and a bond with others (a family of some sort). This way He (Phoenix) bumps into the Cause, and meets the Master (Philip Seymour Hoffman). The Master is a man who is also kind of "lost" in life, and tries to find his happiness and place trough the cult he is leading. In the movie we see a snippet from the life of a cult and the people behind it. These people (like many other people) try to find a meaning behind their life. I think this was the main theme of the movie, beside many more themes... in my opinion Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
alsukesOct 3, 2012
This film was just spectacular and Paul Thomas Anderson continues to impress over and over again. For my full review check out:

http://mostrecentlywatched.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/themaster
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
MWayneSep 23, 2012
While I admit to being a huge PT fan, I'm not averse to calling out his flaws and errors: for instance: While I enjoyed TWBB more than the Coens 'No Country for Old Men,' I thought NCFOM deserved best picture on account it was a tighterWhile I admit to being a huge PT fan, I'm not averse to calling out his flaws and errors: for instance: While I enjoyed TWBB more than the Coens 'No Country for Old Men,' I thought NCFOM deserved best picture on account it was a tighter script and a more cohesive picture overall. After reading some of the critics reviews about The Master I was genuinely worried that the errors of TWBB were expanded upon in PTs latest film. Two friends of mine, huge PT fans as well and very astute cinematic watchers seemed more baffled than intrigued after watching The Master and this worried me. I became anxious ratehr than excited as my turn came to watch the movie that I was gonna find PT had went over board with his ego and contented himself with obfuscation for the sake of perplexing his audience as an end. A dread came over me that there would be proof that my god - PTA - was a false one. I am far too honest, even when watching my gods fall, to fabricate or justify my their existence, regardless of the medium. My favorite author, Cormac McCarthy, who has written my favorite book in Blood Meridian proved perfectly capable of not only writing tripe, but publishing it in his play, 'Sunset Limited. ' So when I say that The Master is anything but tripe, please entertain the idea that Im no acolyte and I am concluding this honestly. I have no intention of convincing anyone that you will "like it" once watched, but I assure you this is one of the most intimate and honest investigations into a wounded soul and what happens when it is remedied by a master of illusions. If you do not grasp how completely damaged Freddie Quell is (And its not even an intellectual acquisition, its a simple one - PT puts it all on the screen) and what happens when he runs into this first rate charmer and con-man, the formula is astounding and a narrative honesty unfolds. Im not sure that my experience of meeting dozens of con-artists and charlatans and having watched debauched, rakish, atheists and agnostics go from partying every night to singing all things Jesus the very next morning, had anything to do with how I understand this film, but it may have helped. Once I fell in line with Freddie, and became the reactionary simpleton that he is, the story holds true form there till the end. From this angle it is an extraordinarily tight narrative and the advent of the semi-quack in Dodd only solidifies the psychological trajectory of both men right until the very last scene. I disagree with all those who believe this movie is "trying to be complex." There are several critics that suggested this despite giving the movie very high ratings. Sure, i think the more you dig, the more you get, but you dont have to take seminars on film making, or to be familiar with quantum physics or to have read Derrida or any other high-brow philosophies on consciousness or culture in order to compute this film. I suggest just discover Freddie's wounds, assimilate to the simian-like simpleton mind he has (with accompanying traumas) in the beginning and everything will follow from there. Again, even if you do this, Im not promising youll like the film as much as I did, but I think youll see that PT wrote a particularly rich and tight script. Hes not trying to get away with any pseudo-complexities to pass of for high-art. Its mostly a simple story, with some questions I still have not answered - but they're in the periphery, not wholly detrimental to the story - but it is high art, in the simplest of forms. A tall order and few could have pulled it off. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
jordantmcgillSep 28, 2012
"Genius Madhouse Escaped Lunatic"

0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Spike69Sep 30, 2012
Was curious as to why the reviews are either "OH NO" or "MUST GO", and upon viewing, now know why. This film is aimed at a very small segment of the population, dealing with heavy philosophical issues, existential angst, man's need forWas curious as to why the reviews are either "OH NO" or "MUST GO", and upon viewing, now know why. This film is aimed at a very small segment of the population, dealing with heavy philosophical issues, existential angst, man's need for ultimate truth, manifest destiny and the weaknesses of the human spirit. If the names Sartre, Kafka, Tolstoy, Wilber, Dyer and Hubbard mean nothing to you; and the terms Existentialism, Integral Theory, Dianetics and New Age as well, chances are you will hate this film. And you won't be alone, in that probably 2% of the population has even heard of these concepts.

Even with that philosophical base, this is a gritty, tedious, disturbing film that deftly immerses you in the pain such ideological pursuits inevitably produce. It is a rich pain, but painful nonetheless.

In a world where "Frankenweenie" is about to come out, and American Idol is the top show, little wonder many will despise this film. But for a select few, this is a must see.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
zbobOct 2, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Submerged below the apparent, surface theme of animalism vs perfectionism are several levels of human emotional and pragmatic intentions with the deepest level hidden by the murky waters of societal taboos. Framed by succulent cinematography and an appropriately disturbing musical score, the tormented souls interact in dances of self protection and manipulations of others. In the shallow depths of this art piece we are explicitly allowed to view the baseness of Quell and the calmness of Dodd. But intertwining with the surface are the contradictions within both character's personas. Dodd wants Quell as protege but also as guinea pig. Quell desires some freedom from his desires and is constantly thwarted in his efforts. However, it is the intertwining next level below where the central, deepest theme flows. Submerged (suppressed?) below in the psyche of both men is a desire unspoken during the mid twentieth century. A desire revealed during their last meeting. A desire seen suppressed in previous scenes by the standards of the day which embed themselves within the characters. FULL SPOILER ALERT: the opening scene is full of partially clad men of the navy with a woman made of sand to defile. We are not privy to the initial meeting of Quell and Dodd but Dodd makes reference to Quell being a scoundrel. During "processing" Dodd asks about hanging out in bus stations and sex with family members. What is he getting at? When Dodd dances and sings in Philadelphia, the women from Quell Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
catcarloJan 22, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Alla fine, uno si chiede: ma Freddie, in fondo, ha sempre e solo considerato importante il sesso? Forse non la più profonda tra le tante domande che possono nascere dalla visione di 'The master' ma, come tutte le altre, è impossibile fornire una risposta certa. Nel film che, per molti, è stato il vincitore morale dell'ultimo festival di Venezia, Anderson (suoi anche soggetto e sceneggiatura) si limita a raccontare, senza l'esigenza di dare spiegazioni o esprimere giudizi: se Lancaster Dodd può ricordare vagamente Ron Hubbard, La Causa si rifà a Scientology come potrebbe ispirarsi a qualsiasi altra setta basata sul condizionamento mentale. L'interesse del regista è incentrato sulle dinamiche interpersonali: la più importante è quella tra i due protagonisti principali, ma le altre sono comunque necessarie per delineare il microcosmo in cui si svolge l'azione, a partire dal rapporto (di forza) tra Dodd e la moglie Peggy. Da tutto ciò si possono dedurre con facilità due considerazioni: si tratta di un film complesso, tutt'altro che immediato anche perché la storia è quasi solo un esile pretesto (motivo per cui l'opera ha la sua schiera di detrattori fra coloro che pensano che due ore così siano eccessive o inutili); perché ogni cosa funzioni, è necessaria una maiuscola prova d'attori. Il che puntualmente accade, con un cast ben assortito e funzionale su cui giganteggiano Phoenix e Hoffman (con relativa pioggia di premi e nomination che coinvolge anche Amy Adams che è Peggy). Il primo interpreta Freddie, un marinaio reduce della Seconda Guerra Mondiale con più di un problema annidato in una psicologia incline alla violenza, dandogli una camminata e un modo di parlare da Braccio di Ferro vestito come Humphrey Bogart (ah, i pantaloni a vita alta..), ma mantenendo in miracoloso equilibrio un ruolo a forte rischio caricaturale. Il secondo è invece Dodd, pifferaio magico capace di parlare molto senza dire nulla e riuscendo comunque a condizionare le menti di chi ne subisce il fascino fino alla commozione, come la Helen Sullivan nei cui panni ho ritrovato, dopo una vita, Laura Dern. Freddie entra nella sua orbita, complici anche i fortissimi liquori che egli stesso fabbrica, ma, pur restando coinvolto nel rapporto maestro-allievo (anche se 'maestro' non rende appieno l'originale 'master'), riesce a mantenere sempre una sottile linea di resistenza alla completa sudditanza :è vero, qualcosa ci perde Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Austin101Oct 6, 2012
An unusual, atmospheric film. The story seems to start in the middle and end a little later in the middle. It is a series of questions that ends in a question. Joaquin Phoenix really inhabits the role of Freddie. Just sitting in a theatreAn unusual, atmospheric film. The story seems to start in the middle and end a little later in the middle. It is a series of questions that ends in a question. Joaquin Phoenix really inhabits the role of Freddie. Just sitting in a theatre I was uneasy from the violent rage he projected. In the final analysis, it pleases because it leaves one thinking about the film, the characters and the meaning of it all. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
dante_finnNov 19, 2012
Dustin Hoffamn and Joaquin Phoenix are remarkable
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews