Latest Paul Thomas Anderson movie. This is just a clip but jesus I find myself mesmerized by it. I've watched it a dozen times already. PTA has a way of creating the most excruciating tension with an undercurrent of malice and violence ready to break through the surface. The music supports that so well. Joaquin looks like he's in rare form. Seems like the total embodiment of the character. Can't wait to see it.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1560747/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/21/the-master-trailer-paul-thomas-anderson-joaquin-phoenix_n_1533501.html
This looks fantastic.
New trailer with Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Supposedly this is kind of a take on how scientology began with Hoffman being Hubbard and Phoenix being his right hand man.
http://www.imdb.com/list/VL4US2x9jkE/#play-all
This looks really good.
There Will Be Blood is one of my favorite movies of all-time. Maybe my favorite ever, in fact.
Quote from: GodShifter on June 20, 2012, 12:49:06 PM
This looks really good.
There Will Be Blood is one of my favorite movies of all-time. Maybe my favorite ever, in fact.
Boogie Nights for me. Same director though.
how in the holy hell does Magnolia rate higher than Boogie Nights on IMDB?
Quote from: priest on June 21, 2012, 04:14:22 PM
how in the holy hell does Magnolia rate higher than Boogie Nights on IMDB?
The idiot masses are idiots?
"The masses are asses."- Frederick The Great
true, but this is the first IMDB ratings blunder I've noticed. Magnolia was ok, but ripped off Short Cuts' premise and really dragged on in spots. and what the fuck is up with raining frogs?
I could see jackasses downgrading Boogie Nights due to its subject matter without even watching it.
i thought magnolia was pretty damn good. the crime is boogie nights' low ranking, not magnolia's high ranking.
anyway, some trailers:
that auditing session in the second clip is amazing. scientologists be creepy.
I don't think that is an auditing scene. I know Phoenix's character was in the navy and that scene seemed like a military officer was questioning him for the event he brings up at the end. Could be wrong though.
Quote from: The Shocker on August 04, 2012, 06:21:30 PM
Quote from: HORNS on August 04, 2012, 04:22:25 PM
I saw PT Anderson's new film "The Master" last night. I wrote a review over at that other place.
BOO! The least you could do is cut and paste it to here.
Last night I was lucky enough to be in attendance of the first screening of Paul thomas Anderson's newest opus, "The Master".
The film features Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymor Hoffman in a story about a post WWII cult leader who takes a disheveled and violent drunk under his wing as he builds his cult throughout America.
You've probably heard the buzz about the film. Its a damning indictment of Scientology and weaves a host of its "self help techniques" throughout the story. Most interesting is that a film that scrutinizes and lambasts that very powerful hollywood lobby was funded by someone who has enough money to give them the big 'F- You' without fear of reprisal. Multi Billionaire larry Ellison's daughter, Megan Ellison.
The film is massive in length and scope and not nearly as audience friendly as "There Will Be Blood". Remember the flaming oil tower, the "milkshake" monologue, and the confrontation with the oil executives in the saloon in "There Will Be Blood"? There aren't any scenes like that in this movie. There are some beautifully (exquisitely!) shot scenes and fantastic score that you would expect from PT Anderson, but the story itself plods along without any climaxes and at the same pace for its running time of 2:10. There isn't a likeable character in the film and no conflict or plot point established ever resolves itself. So you are left wondering if there was any discrenable theme at all. But perhaps that was the point.
Joaquin Phoenix puts in the best performance of his career without a doubt. I dont know if he was inhabiting the role - I'm quite sure modern makeup and lighting isn't the sole reason - but he looks haggard as hell. His erratic and combustible character often has you unnerved and at the edge of your seat. But truth be told, there is a wide valley between the talent of daniel Day Lewis and Joaquin Phoenix. I could pay to watch Daniel Day Lewis order a sandwich from a menu he's so charismatic.
Joaquin... not so much. But he definitely is at his best here.
And Philip Seymor Hoffman commands every scene he is in. But the role never seems to be a challenge for him. First and foremost he's there as a major player in the story, but the story never grabs hold of the audience. We move from year to year of this man's life and each failure and discovery(there are no successes) is a step towards more struggles.
As an affront to the belief system of Scientology the films works extremely well. I almost wish I was viewing it as a former Scientologist so I could experience the pleasure of seeing their hackneyed philosophy exposed on the big screen in 70mm. -Oh, I forgot, PT Anderson shot this film in 70mm. the first film to be filmed in 70mm in 26 years or something.
Overall I give it a 6.5 out of 10. But lately I have been changing my mind about films days after seeing them. I'm already feeling better about this film than I did when I walked out of the theater. Its a looong viewing without a lot of high points that register immediately because it never tells you where its going. Now that I've been through it, I'd like to see it again.
_________________
Don't be surprised if smartly dressed men get out of a car and shout at you sometime soon.
I guess my thread isn't good enough for you
http://stonerrocklives.com/forum/index.php?topic=6029.0
SMOTED.
I'm going to attribute blame to the forums themselves for allowing me to make a thread with the same title.
"Its not my fault!"
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/300/195/0c7.jpg)
Now everybody can be happy.
Hey HORNS, what did you think about Boogie Nights?
i thought magnolia was great. but boogie nights was better. and there will be blood is straight-up phenomenal. the thing about there will be blood is that it's based on the upton sinclair novel oil!. so i read oil! after seeing there will be blood. there is no semblance. i have no idea how you can say the movie is based on the book. maybe he read the book and then wrote the movie but that's where the similarities end.
was oil! a good read, though?
it was alright. you know sinclair was a socialist and the book, in my opinion, was a bit of socialist propaganda. and i'm just not into dogmatic literature, though i may agree with the writer.
most rational people are socialists.
/kidding but not really.
Aw fuck, just saw a review comparing PTA and the movie to Kubrick and his works. My boner is about to bust my pants.
Saw it yesterday, agree with Horns' review -- though with less actual likeage.
I'm sure there was a point but it wasn't developed in the film for someone as dumb as me (it must be me, right?)
A couple stunning visuals (the ship leaving San Fran, a flashback shot of Joaquin late in the movie wearing his helmet and lighting a cigarette that is sumptuous), a lot of "acting" which seemed to indicate something but I just couldn't put it together.
Actually, there's some stuff in the clips above that isn't in the movie that actually helps me understand it a touch more.
The one thing is DID achieve was not so much an indictment of Scientology but an understanding of how something as ridiculous as it might appeal to people in serious need of help. Though it never really seemed to help Joaquin's character as far as I could tell.
EDIT:
I haven't seen Tree Of Life but from what I gather, both Malick and Anderson seem to be bored with traditional storytelling and want to do something else. I guess whatever that is doesn't resonate that much with me. I certainly wasn't pulled into The Thin Red Line very much because it never seemed to amount to enough that I could understand or enjoy (beyond, similarly, some amazing visuals). I vastly enjoyed their earlier more narrative-based films (Days of Heaven, Boogie Nights) more than their later ones because back then they were cohesive AND hauntingly more. But they both seemed to have moved on to more atmospherics and less narrative sense.
If this review is right, then I guess I did glean what was to be gleaned from The Master.
The Master
2.5 stars
Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson
Starring Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams
Rated R
Ask any critic who assigns star ratings to their reviews and they'll tell you that sometimes, even in this Rotten Tomatoes world, a movie defies the cut-and-dry, fresh-or-rotten dichotomy.
"The Master," the new film from Paul Thomas Anderson ("There Will Be Blood"), is the perfect example of a movie that transcends simple categorization. It's an impressive feat of filmmaking, brilliantly acted and handsomely captured on the larger-than-life 70mm format. Anderson creates a trance-like rhythm, filling the movie with unbroken shots and lengthy scenes that immerse you in the cult-like world of the religious group at its center.
But at the same time, the movie is such an opaque, emotionless enterprise that it's a chore to sit through. Joaquin Phoenix returns to the screen as Freddie Quell, a Navy veteran struggling in post-WWII California. He has trouble holding down a job and seems altogether aimless, until a late night of wandering leads him to a boat owned by Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a doctor/philosopher/author and founder of The Cause, a burgeoning pseudoreligion.
Despite Phoenix's visceral performance as Freddie, a work filled with wounded sadness and blinding rage, the film unfolds in an abstract haze that keeps you at a remove. Anderson simply refuses to indulge some basic storytelling impulses, abstaining from catharsis and rejecting bold dramatic developments in favor of a sort of dulling repetitiveness. There's a stillness to "The Master," enhanced by its dreamlike visual blend of one-point perspective imagery, stark close-ups and shots of drifting, rolling waves. That's an admirable motif, but it makes the movie feel a bit like a feature length version of one of The Cause's "processing" therapy sessions, in which the same questions or behaviors are repeated over and over again, with slightly different results.
Of course, the movie's had no trouble drumming up publicity. It's partially inspired by Scientology and its founder L. Ron Hubbard, who is clearly being channeled by Hoffman's Dodd. But viewers seeking some sort of incendiary expose will be disappointed. Anderson is far more interested in exploring the turmoil of displacement and the ways it draws out the fundamental truth that man at his core is ruled by his emotions, not his capacity for reason.
That's a strange notion for such a coldhearted movie but it perfectly sums up the conundrum that is "The Master."
i really liked the master. a lot.
now, disclaimer: i'm a big fan of non-linear storytelling and i tend to gravitate towards character development over plot and narrative (in film and literature). crime and punishment's my favourite book, and that's thousands of pages about a 3-day story with a pretty simple plot. so i'm predisposed to be into this kinda thing anyway. (i loved the thin red line too, although it's been ages since i've seen it).
i thought it was so beautifully filmed. phoenix was really incredible and captivating and heartbreaking. PSH was great too and that final scene, where he's singing to freddy as he tells him to get the fuck out, was pretty amazing. it could've come off so goofy, but instead it was heartbreaking and tense and even a little homoerotic. just really well done. and the score. normally i don't gush about a film score, but jonny greenwood is so damn good at using music to telegraph a character's emotions. his score doesn't set the emotional tone for the audience, it sets the emotional tone for the characters. i dunno if i said that in a way that makes sense, but whatever. it was good.
there's no plot, so don't try to look for one. it's just a really intense, sad character piece. with some occasional titties.
i don't know how i feel about amy adams. i thought she was fine in the role, but as i watched, i kept thinking "it's amy adams." there was nothing really transformative about the way she played the role.
I kept thinking "it's Lady Macbeth."
Great performances, Joaquin Phoenix especially, but it played like a bunch of acting exercises. It was like listening to Yngwie Malmsteen run scales; sounds amazing, but where's the song?
And no I'm not one of those folks who needs a traditional narrative or even narrative at all to get my cock hard. But this movie had me at half mast the whole time. I kept waiting for that spritz of lube and cup of the balls to push me over the edge but it never came, thus neither did I.
It was like a Judd Apatow/Todd Philips bromance comedy without the jokes or plot. The wacky psychopath and the wacky shyster cult leader drink sterno and get into wacky high seas adventures. Oh man, what did we do last night? And where did this baby come from? Oh shit a tiger! They love each other but it's totally NOHOMO. Plus there's boobs. The gag reel under the credits consists of I'm Still Here in its entirety.
Sludge you have outdone yourself with that review. I've already quoted it to two or three friends. Spot on.
saw this last night. I enjoyed it. no stretch of acting for Hoffman at all. pretty much the same character he plays but I like that. It's crazy that phoenix is 6 years my junior and looks at least 12 years my senior. A pretty good performance. Especially for a hairlip.
HORNS plagiarizes what we type