Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Bergorks If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Brendon Jones 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.

Trupiaar None of the acting is bad, but man, what a pointless story. One of those things where it is in fact so pointless that you figure it out before the end, but sit there like a dummy waiting for it 'just in case' there is some kind of closure.Pointless.

Michael Ledo Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) is a WWII vet with anger management issues. He is obsessed with sex (more than the rest of us) and loves his drink. After numerous altercations, Freddie ends up as a stowaway on the yacht of The Master, Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Dodd is also a hot head who likes his drink and previously had an altercation with Freddie, one that he can't remember, while he can recall past lives. He believes Freddie's familiar face must be from one of them.Dodd is a cult leader of a movement called "The Cause" which gets it name from the fact that if they used "Scientology" they would get sued. The fact that Hollywood would make what is unmistakably an anti-Scientology film is remarkable in itself.Freddie is a wild cannon who threatens to derail the movement with his violent tendencies and lust. The Master sees him as a work in progress, one that he must conquer in order to justify his ideas to himself. His family doesn't see it that way. Good acting but the film seemed to be either poorly edited, or written, as the plot lacked proper direction and flow in relationship to the theme...which I am sure it had one if not a dozen of them.Parental Guide: F-bomb, sex, masturbation, full frontal nudity.

Paul Nevai I am sure that the experts are right and this is one of the best movies ever. I am also sure that it is my own fault that I found this movie one of the most boring ones of the 21st century.Great actors and great performances but boring.N.B. I saw the movie both at the theater after its release and on DVD in 2017.SUMMARY. Boring.EXPLANATION. (10* + 0*)/2 = 5*

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.