I love this movie so much

Instant Favorite.

Excellent but underrated film

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Exactly as Mick LaSalle said in his review of the movie, what's so frustrating about The Master is the exceptional potential of the movie. Phoenix is exceptional as always and Hoffman is great, and the idea of the Cause is fascinating, but the stream of consciousness, nontraditional narrative just didn't work for me. At no point was I emotionally invested in any character, and there was no clear plot, just a series of interactions between the two main characters, with Adams in the background to reinforce the Cause. As the movie went on, it was a character study of two characters who were flat and led to an extremely dull third act. The visuals are nice and there are some good themes present, but not enough or any well developed enough to entertain throughout the film. If there had been more development and actual moving plot in both Freddie and the Cause, this could have been an excellent movie. Instead, it's a middling one.

Seen at the Viennale 2017: the story is not right (to me). The master (played brilliantly by Seymour Hoffman, 10 stars for his acting!) is preaching his philosophy of the character-development of human beings. And his theories go far: happenings in past lifes have effect on today's life of a person. But in the story itself it all collapses down to a simple failed love in the current life of Freddie Quell (completely over-acted by Phoenix - no wonder, he did not get an Oscar). Who ever tried a similar treatment for his own psyche, knows that true problems go so much deeper, than a missed love! Anderson was not able to catch the complexity (and possible beauty) of his subject. And it's really a shame - The Master was filmed onto 70 mm. And the festival here in Vienna showed a 70 mm copy on analog projection. Beautiful pictures and easily understandable spoken words. Overall, a missed opportunity, because of a lousy script.

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*

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.