The Master (2012) User Reviews (595)

Critically-Acclaimed Film with Outstanding Performances Left Me Surprisingly Cold

[classicalsteve · 6/10 · 11 February 2014]

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.

Joaquin Phoenix deserved the Oscar

[Hazu29 · 8/10 · 15 July 2019]

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.

HARD-HITTING. Great performances but seems inconsequential.

[Amyth47 · 8/10 · 25 January 2019]

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.

Looks stunning, wonderfully acted but the story-telling is weak and gradually loses any momentum it may have had

[bob the moo · 10 March 2013]

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.

This is extremely difficult for me. Let me just start.

[jzappa · 9/10 · 7 October 2012]

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.

The Master of his fate

[dvc5159 · 7/10 · 27 September 2012]

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%

The Master in action.

[stingil · 9/10 · 8 August 2012]

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.

MAN IS NOT AN ANIMAL

[nogodnomasters · 6/10 · 27 April 2018]

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.

My Simple Analysis

[tonyleonardo · 9/10 · 14 October 2012]

I didn't know much of L. Ron Hubbard or Scientology coming into this movie but I knew a few things.

As the film progressed and the strangeness and lack of plot/hook continued apace I started to piece together in my mind what was going on, and what I came up with is this:

Freddie Quell, the Joaquin Phoenix drifter in this film, is the Id-driven alter ego component of Lancaster Dodd/Hubbard (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Quell's life is, in fact, the same as Dodd's as they inhabit the same persona.

Dodd is wrestling with his demons and his ambitions and Quell represents the Id persona Dodd/Hubbard had to leave behind in order to fulfill his self-fulfilling prophecy of purity apart from animal instincts.

This explains the closeness of the two characters, the frequent twin-ism on screen (one example: the two of them wrestling when Quell returns) and the strangeness of the plot: the plot IS Hubbard/Dodd's quest to purify himself. Quell pacing back and forth between wall and window is part of that process.

Going back and looking at the movie and researching L. Ron Hubbard it also makes sense for Anderson to split the Master character's duality into two separate characters as Hubbard seems very clearly to have been a split personality character himself.

When Hubbard/Dodd goes off to sea the metaphor is that he has to leave the Id and animal instincts on shore. This explains the (spoiler alert) ending: Quell on the shore, no longer hung up on sex, but stuck in his animal instincts nonetheless, repeating lines from Hubbard/Dodd and finally left behind on the sand with a female nipple sand sculpture: the Id is abandoned and Dodd's Ego and Superego (Amy Adams, his wife) are on the sea.

Quell's name is chosen carefully, just as carefully as this film is constructed.

I really wanted to like this movie, but 'The Master' is not quite a masterpiece. It does have some jarring flaws.

[ironhorse_iv · 7/10 · 7 June 2017]

Inspired by the famous John Huston 1946's documentary, 'Let There Be Light', as well as early drafts of 2007's 'There Will Be Blood', drunk Navy stories that actor, Jason Robards had told to the director prior, and the life story of author, John Steinbeck. 'The Master' still falls a little short on explaining its title. Yes, I know, it's virtually impossible to tell the life story of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard without getting into the issue of being intimidation by them, but I wish this Paul Thomas Anderson's film could had done more, than tell a fictional story about Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix), a drunk & violent sex addict, whom finds himself, falling under the sway of charismatic cult leader Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and his wife Peggy (Amy Adams) in an attempt to reform him. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the story, they gave us, but I really hope, the movie would have focus more on 'the master' personality than the 'server'. After all, that's what I pay for, to see. I wanted to see how Lancaster Dodd became 'the master'. I wish, the producers, had more balls, in explaining, how a cult is indeed founded. Regardless, the movie is still interesting in the character study concept of a lost soul, trying to find answers, yet, it falls a little flat. Don't get me wrong, Joaquin Phoenix is a fine actor, and he was great as the man of unbridled thirst for alcohol, and sexual appetite. However, I wish the movie shown more character development with him, when he join the cult and after. Without spoiling the movie, too much, it seem like nothing, really changes for Freddie by the end of the film; making, watching the whole film, kinda pointless. I have to disagree, with viewers whom states that Freddie learn to become a master of his own life, because he seem happier, and more able to connect with others. I just don't see it that way. He's just as animalistic, depressed & unlikeable repulsive as he was, in the beginning of the film. After all, the movie ends with the same opening shot at the beach. Seeing it, again, kinda shows that he hasn't gotten over his lost-love one. Thus, making me, kinda upset that I wasted my time. I really wanted the film to end with a straight and strong message, rather than a weak & confusing one. I just don't like movies climax like that. Honestly, if the movie was a little more, clear that, the film is about, denying/betraying the need for a non-biological family, can lead to one's downfall can led you, directionless. Then, I wouldn't be so nitpicky. However, since it wasn't. I'm going to be, very truthful about how much of a time-waster, this film is. It takes forever to get, anywhere. Why!? It's because the movie has really bad pacing. While, there is plenty of lengthy substantial scenes that serve the film like the 'processing' sequence, there is also a lot of filler scenes that don't. Some examples are the many jobs that Freddie has, during the beginning. It wasn't needed. We know already, that he's an alcoholic and a sex addict, in the navy scenes. So, why does Anderson, feel to repetitive forced the same message, down, our throats with him, getting kick out of multiply jobs!? In my opinion, the movie would had work better, if they cut, those scenes, and just establishing himself, as a directionless sailor. It would had free, a lot of time and make more sense. Instead, it took, nearly 15 minutes for Freddie to meet Dodd! Then, there is the many wordy dialogue that follows this, that might sounds different and unique at first, but as you think, deep about it; you find out, later, how repetitive in meaning, they really were. That's really not good! Another, is the monotonous clichés action. Honestly, did we need, three similar sequences in which, Freddie attacks people who question, Dodd's practices and two, in which, Freddie question Dodd. Watching those, felt like 'processing'. It's kinda annoying. Despite that, I do like, how the film tries to explore man's struggle to cope with his animalistic nature. We see it, between the ways, Dodd & Freddie act, upon it. Dodd seems more castration and collected, due to the presence of his overbearing, wife. While, Freddie seem more likely to act upon, his urges. While, it's semi true, that Lancaster is trying to control Freddie's ungodly thoughts. In truth, he is secretly loving Freddie's freedom in Hedonism, because it allow him to act out, many of his fantasies through Freddie. Hints why, he keep him, like a wild pet, even although, he is the one, caged up. In a way, Lancaster is just like a human ego, feeding both the ID (Freddie) and the Superego (Peggy) in order to seek balance and be the voice of reason. I love that part of the film. I just wish, the movie focus more on those, rather than Freddie and Dodd fight against outsiders. Another thing, that I love, about this movie is, indeed the acting. All three main actors, did a good job. Any awards, they were nominated or win, was truly, worth it. Another thing that made this movie, not so bad, is the cinematography from Mihai Mălaimare Jr. There were plenty of beautiful scenes. Some, great examples are the motorcycles in the desert sequence and the shot of Freddie, pass out on his Navy ship. Even, normal shots like the bench scene was amazing to see. However, the music that Johnny Greenwood, compose was not memorable. Yet, it wasn't horrible to listen to, either. Overall: For a film that came from acclaim director Paul Thomas Anderson. 'The Master' is a bit too disappointing. It's a one-time watch from me.

A Masterful story not told well

[Prismark10 · 5/10 · 7 September 2013]

Joaquin Phoenix plays Quell, a World War II veteran trying and failing to adjust to a postwar life with a series of jobs that lead him nowhere.

Quell seems to be obsessed with sex, rule breaking, drink and violence. He has a penchant for making his own moonshine and one night he enters a boat where a party is taking place and meets Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman.)

He is a leader of a cult called 'The Cause.' Dodd accepts him into the movement after processing Quell and Dodd also likes his moonshine.

However, Quell is regarded as being mentally erratic, violent and an alcoholic. Dodd's wife and family are sceptical of him which leads him to being processed more vigorously.

At the same time Dodd's methods arouse the suspicions of the police and others who are sceptical of his movement.

The Master is an infuriating film, it gets interesting. You think this is a take on the beginnings of Scientology (who have regular auditing of its members) and similar cult like movements that emerged in the post war period. It is also an examination of damaged men.

Yet the final act is a let down, Writer-director Anderson literally has lost the plot.

You sense Quell is disappointed that Dodd's revelations of Book 2 is such a dud and he even beats up the publisher who admits the book is not very good.

We have a scene where Quell simply rides out of the desert, leaving the cult more in keeping with the character.

Instead the film goes on with some closure relating to his girlfriend Quell walked out on and then the scenes set in England with Dodd serenading him out of the movement.

It was unsatisfactory, we know that Quell remains a drunk and has no intent in changing his erratic behaviour. It adds to the impression that the cult's processing is a failure as it has not worked on Quell who went through intensive processing.

The acting is uniformly good. Phoenix channels both Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty (circa Bonnie & Clyde) in his performance.

However I felt Phoenix looked too old to play Quell who seemed to be a troubled young man and Phoenix is in his late 30s and looks it.

Amy Adams comes out best as the Master's latest wife and is very suspicious of Quell.

Hoffman, a person who I always regard the 'whoop whoop' guy from previous films such as Twister and Scent of a Woman shows he has a fine singing voice and worked hard in his characterisation.

It is weird to think he is only in his mid 40s as he looks and plays guys who are much older.

Anderson directed Tom Cruise to an Oscar nominated performance in Magnolia and Hoffman has appeared with Cruise both in Magnolia and Mission Impossible 3.

Phoenix appeared with John Travolta in Ladder 49. So all three might have more insights with cults similar to the Cause that might have helped with their performances and the script.

However the disappointing, meandering and plainly boring final act means that this is a film without substance.

" If you blink we go back to the start."

[smithpaulusmc · 8/10 · 18 February 2019]

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.

Weird

[DanR-Sousa · 6/10 · 9 May 2022]

Hard to say why I thought this movie was so good, it made me so curious all the time, I couldn't stop watching it; It's all so interesting, it will leave you completely immersed in the narrative; And surely the most important point, how many excellent performances put together, the cast made this movie great, and that's very good to see.

It's not a movie that everyone will like, but if you're willing to give it a go, you might be surprised.

I feel as though I am one of the cause

[jalec0 · 1/10 · 6 October 2012]

I love Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and appreciate most of the other recognizable actor s in this film. This film is too long, too boring, and meanders like a mid-western river. I kept waiting and waiting for the story line to pick up, but it was at it's peak on the floor. Amy Adams played a great antagonist, but her role was stunted. Joaquin Pheonix did well to play an alcoholic with a few cards shy of a deck, but hasn't everyone played that role well? Hoffman was not so disappointing as his material was just not that good. This was not a story line worth making into a movie. I wrote a better ending walking out of the movie theater. After the master proclaims we all have our masters, Freddie bashes in his head with a white statuette. The antagonist returns to the room to find the new master in the chair and she smiles. To heap any platitudes on this movie is to become one with the cause. Stay home, save your money, clean your toilets.

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist, a theoretical philosopher, but above all, I am a man, just like you"

[Benedict_Cumberbatch · 15 September 2012]

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 this man is art...

[tiptak · 9/10 · 17 February 2013]

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..

A great film about a great fraud

[latinfineart · 7/10 · 23 August 2020]

The master is a stunning movie, very beautifully crafted, directed with pitch perfect tone, and featuring great performances by Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adam's. It's an interesting story, a somewhat fictionalized version of a biography of L. Ron Hubbard and the foundation of Scientology. However, knowing as much about scientology as I know it was a slightly difficult film to sit through, being aware that it was about one of the greatest frauds and one of the greatest depictions of a fake master ever filmed. L. Ron Hubbard was a super freak who was actually a minor sci-fi writer, and Dianetics is basically one big sci-fi hoax.

My heart goes out to the millions of people who have been duped by this organization and this movie does a fairly good job of portraying the absolute ridiculousness of the entire teaching. Too bad they did not fast forward to the leadership under the gangster Miscavige. That would have been a hoot.

Phoenix is the performance of the year! Anderson excels once again

[ClaytonDavis · 9/10 · 12 September 2012]

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.

PTA is the Master, but I am not Freddie Quell

[nickm3513 · 7/10 · 18 December 2019]

It's very clear to me why this film has polarized its audience. In scrolling across, I saw at least 5 people call this the worst film they've ever seen, and an innumerable call it a masterpiece. For me, it falls somewhere in the middle but below the midline.

Many of the film's parts were exceptional. The acting is deservedly raved about. I was convinced by the Master's (Hoffman) smooth talking and drawn to his radiating confidence. Freddie (Phoenix) many times made me physically uncomfortable. The music is also gripping, and a lot of the shots are gorgeous.

The film, however, is seriously lacking in substance and storyline. The ending left me feeling unsatisfied and wondering just what the point was. Freddie is our main character. He is a navy veteran with possible scoliosis that has sex with his aunt and drinks gasoline/ paint thinner cocktails. He can't keep a job due to his alcoholism and tendency towards violent outbursts. He then meets a charismatic cult leader named Dodd/ the Master, and is, for some reason, not only taken under Dodd's wing but also treated like family. Neither of the characters are moving in any discernible direction at any point in the film. At one point, Freddie up and leaves the cult. Then he comes back. Then he leaves again. Nothing is really driving these decisions. Dodd is questioned by his disciples after the release of his second book, but nothing becomes of that either.

There are some gripping sequences, specifically the moments where Freddie is being gaslit (don't blink, or the wall to window walk). But not enough here to make an engaging or even entertaining story.

Two very different men try to fulfill one another.

[treywillwest · 10/10 · 11 October 2012]

Unquestionably P.T. Anderson's best film so far. I've always liked his work, but early on I had no sense he would achieve heights such as this. Let me say this, Anderson, ALONE, I think amongst relatively big-budget American filmmakers, allows his imagery to play by its own rules. EVERY other studio filmmaker- from Scorsese to Tarantino, to Jarmusch, plays by some kind of pre-established rules-even if they are the pre-established rules of "art cinema" or "second cinema". Anderson, like Weerasthakul or Bela Tarr, speaks his own tongue. I thought There Will Be Blood was pretty great, but this is Truly Great- a singularly challenging work of art. Similarly, I would compare Daniel Day-Lewis's work in Blood with Phoenix's work here. The former was impressive, creative, witty. The latter is brave, adventuresome, and merciless. More than any of the "canonical" "method" performances of cinema, I think Phoenix reaches into places of himself, of all of us, that's very unearthing demands new philosophical questions. Here's my take, for what it's worth, of the "meaning" of the film. It's a comparison of two drastically contradictory and complementary personalities. One wants to live without any Master by becoming a Master himself. The other wants a master to give some kind of shape to his life. L. Ron Hubbard- inspired guru Lancaster Dodd (played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman in a performance that's beautiful but not ground-breaking) is a con-man, but as I read him, he's not exactly a charlatan. He truly wants to believe the (self-serving) things he's saying, and he needs other people to believe them too. He's very successful at (least the latter half of) this. But this does not make him free. Instead, it turns him into a kind of King and, as we know from the example of Louis XVI, any sovereign is ultimately a privileged prisoner of his/her subjects. They are exempt from the laws of the land, of life, exactly in so far as others believe they are. Dodd's "freedom" from mastery is wholly dependent on the worship of the other, an other outstandingly represented by Phoenix's Freddie Quell, a potentially unbreakable "scoundrel" who Dodd both fears and admires as such. Quell is a completely, irredeemably, broken individual, whose only surviving qualities are sheer animal instinct- screw, eat, and drink. He yearns to be put back together, to be mastered by some other, to serve some sovereign and thus be welcomed back into civilization. But he's too far gone, or too savage, for that to work. He can't be mastered, even by any coherent sense of self. Dodd seeks the solitude of the sublime but is ultimately made completely dependent on the Other, while Quell, very unwillingly, achieves the freedom, and loneliness, of God.

Best performance of P.S. Hoffman's career

[jackmilfordpr · 7/10 · 15 January 2021]

Quite often you watch a performance, and love it, but you're still always very aware you're watching that actor perform. Phillip Seymour Hoffman here gives one of those rare performances where you don't even recognize the actor as they become so engrossing as the character. Phoenix is also brilliant, hard to think this role wasn't heavily discussed by the casting team on Joker.

An exhibition in pretentious meandering

[patrickfranciscollins · 5/10 · 21 August 2021]

2012 saw renowned director Paul Thomas Anderson lapse into pure meaninglessness, with his absurdly pretentious exhibition of meandering - The Master - which operates as a film that attempts to tackle or at least discuss many, many serious issues and in so doing it fails to discuss even the issue of its own characters.

The film dedicates itself largely to two characters: one, the main, Freddie, and two, the Master. And yet, at the beginning and end of the film both of these characters are exactly the same, they are explored only in specific, key areas otherwise not at all, and the events that the film depicts don't even feel important in the scope of their stories. The film attempts to speak on various issues and ultimately does none of them justice, and they all come off as gimmicks, tacked on to make the film seem more original.

Joaquin Phoenix and Phillip Seymour Hoffman give life-alteringly good performances, a showcase of which is the fantastic interview scene which takes place over the course of several minutes of repeated questioning, the former actor gradually becoming more emotionally worked up and even distressed at times, while Hoffman spouts lines here and there about his philosophy, decorating the cake nicely with his weirdo Scientology icing. There's another great scene where Hoffman shines in showing the Master's impulsivity when attempting to disable a critic, if the reader requires a more fulfilling representation of his talent in the film.

The picture is a lot like that, though, a fantastic scene here and there, but altogether, a cluttered and unfocused mess. In spite of the beautiful cinematography of this film, and the outstanding performances, the movie is, in a word, purposeless. The definition of "pretentious" is for something to affect a larger purpose or importance than it actually has, and in this we can see that the Master more than fits this bill. For one, this messy assembly of loosely connected ideas that never go anywhere is pretentious for affecting that it has any purpose, for it doesn't, but it goes farther than this. In the end, the deflated and useless finish writes itself six feet below ground, but in this task it simultaneously twiddles its own moustache acting superior and genius, especially when some of Hoffman's final words are uttered, and it's as though the picture is unable to escape its own ego.

He says "If you ever do learn to live without a master, do tell us, because you'll be the first in human history" and then proceeds to sing eerily. The scene, though decent, sums up perfectly the faux "importance" of the film. 2 and a half hours of nonsense, little to no character development and a non-existent plot, only to cement a message that humans have had leaders throughout history. Wow. Perhaps it's deeper than that, perhaps it's a commentary on the master himself, how he excuses his own flaws because he deems it a sacrifice for leadership, and if not him, then who? But even then, this is a point the film fails to make the audience care about. Why does it matter? In short, it doesn't. The characters can be unpacked all you want, but their end goal doesn't change, doesn't falter, doesn't adapt to their own emotions, and ultimately the film feels entirely pointless, like a poor project written by a man affecting talent greater than that which he actually possesses.

The film may find fans in those that prioritise good looks above all else, ironic for a medium whose fans often criticise that which is "flashy" but lacking in substance, and perhaps the performances persuade some viewers that there is something lurking there, under the surface, waiting to be peeled back. If there is though, you'll need a ninety inch scalpel and some firm tweezers to pull out anything but dust from this bloodless wound of a film.

P.T. Anderson makes another under appreciated masterpiece

[rpezl · 10/10 · 3 November 2012]

Often in the history of film there have been remarkable gems, hailed by few and ignored by the masses. Over time many of these gain the credit they deserve, Citizen Kane was panned by many critics at the time and only with the passing of time has its influence and brilliance been generally acknowledged. P.T. Anderson's new film The Master may not be Citizen Kane but it is certainly in the same vein. As Orson Welles modeled Charles Foster Kane after William Randolph Hearst, Anderson's new film focuses on another controversial historical figure, L. Ron Hubbard. Like Welles, Anderson treats his characters with the same mixture of examination and empathy that leaves you questioning pre- conceptions and wondering what truly defines an individual.

In post-war America Freddie Quell (played by Joaquin Phoenix) , a former soldier with an abnormal libido and a hobby of making near toxic alcohol, is wandering through life like an actor oblivious of his stage. His course takes a slight detour when he wakes up aboard a ship with Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and his followers who make up "The Cause", a cult-ish religion clouded in the guise of science, philosophy and psychology. Dodd sees in Quell the opportunity to display the power of his new methods, and in Dodd Quell sees a mentor and hope for answers to the questions that plague all humanity.

Like many of Anderson's films the pace can often be trying and the often surreal visions expounded are certainly not for everyone's taste. Images of swirling water are only a drop in the bucket of metaphors Anderson buries his audience in. Like Anderson's last film, 2007's There Will Be Blood, gorgeous imagery and an eerie score help create a dream-like sense of bewilderment that stays with you long after the lights go up and the popcorn is stale.

Anderson's ability to craft film as art is only matched by his eye for talent. Philip Seymour Hoffman, in his fifth collaboration with Anderson, plays Dodd with wonderful simplicity that allows the complexity of the character speak for itself. With subtly and reserve Hoffman lets his character's egotism and magnetism shine through Anderson's typically biting dialogue. Joaquin Phoenix, still recovering from his 2010 film debacle I'm Still Here, gives a powerhouse performance reminding us all what was so intriguing to begin with. Somehow Phoenix makes a character who should come off as a simpleton violent alcoholic a very empathetic and human individual. In the end he is still not very likable, like many people in this world, but you can nevertheless sympathize with his mortal struggle. Whether or not Phoenix will get the Best Actor Oscar as many have discussed is still anyone's guess, especially with the multi-Oscar winning Daniel Day Lewis (who won his second Oscar for Anderson's There Will Be Blood) in the competition. Rounding out the cast is Office darling Amy Adams as Dodd's wife Peggy, who has a far more pragmatic view of the relationship between Dodd and Quell.

It is a tragedy how often brilliance is not recognized by those in its presence. P.T. Anderson with masterpieces like Boogie Nights, Magnolia and There Will Be Blood under his belt would surely be Oscar material, but he is not. After the fall when Spielberg and all the other mainstream directors release their fare Anderson's little art film will receive little attention. He may get a nod with yet another nomination, but the sad truth is that his work may simply be ahead of his time. Just as his films are too "arty" for mainstream box office success the Oscars are too mainstream for him. So maybe he won't get the award until he's thirty years deep like Scorsese or perhaps never at all, but perhaps that's okay. After all he is in good company, there have been other perfectionist film makers who never won the Best Director statue, like Orson Welles.

The acting warrants a good rating, but the story is occasionally tedious

[steiner-sam · 7/10 · 17 May 2022]

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.

Slow boat to nowhere

[hughman55 · 1/10 · 17 November 2012]

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.