"The Master" is a film where a very messed up man, Freddie (Joaquin Phoenix),drifts through life after serving in WWII. He accidentally falls in with a very strange and charismatic man (Philip Seymour Hoffman)--a man who ultimately changes his life. Using a variety of brainwashing and hypnotic techniques (similar to the auditing done in Scientology),he manages to get very close to the Master--and becomes a very devoted disciple.

"The Master" is a film that the Academy loved (with three acting nominations),as did the professional film reviewers. However, the public stayed away and the film, at least according to IMDb estimates, was a total financial bust. And, after seeing the film, I could see why folks didn't go to see the film. Part of it surely was the subject matter--most people aren't particularly interested in a story about an L. Ron Hubbard-like guru leading a cult. Part of it is that the film isn't exactly family-friendly--with some VERY crude scenes (particularly at the beginning but they are sprinkled throughout). Most of it, however, is that the film is VERY, VERY slow, seemingly directionless and dull. In essence, the film had no idea WHAT it was saying about Scientology or anything for that matter and when it counted, the film constantly pulled its punches. Sure, the acting is nice, but I had a heck of a time sticking with this one. rather unpleasant film. And, while I normally love a longer film, in this case it was not an asset.

It was interesting that Phoenix chose to do this film. I assume it might have to do with him growing up in a an organization often seen as a cult. Perhaps it was his way of dealing with this part of his past.

Although 'Inherent Vice' has yet to be seen, Paul Thomas Anderson strikes me as an equally talented film-maker and director who has yet to make a bad film. Even his weakest (so far, to me) 'Hard Eight' is still very good, and of his films 'Boogie Nights' and 'There Will Be Blood' are particularly note-worthy films.

'The Master', when ranking his films, ranks as his second weakest. However as said, this is in no way a knock as it is still a very good film and often fantastic, the few not so good things are far outweighed by the numerous good things. And when the good things are good, man do they shine.

Biggest flaw in 'The Master', the only big one really, is the final act. A case of an incredibly strong first two acts being somewhat let down by the somewhat unsatisfying final one. The momentum isn't as strong and it also seemed vague, incomplete and confused. Again, like 'Magolia's ending was, it is a polarising ending, that some will find touching and others will be negatively dumbfounded. It's not without emotional impact, just that it feels unsatisfying. While much of the script is fine, there are a few parts that are a bit too repetitive.

However, as always with Anderson 'The Master' is superbly made. Anderson's films are some of the most visually beautiful and bold around, and 'The Master' is no exception. Exquisitely shot with sumptuous and atmospheric production values, Anderson's trademark visual style shines completely with his distinctive use of constantly moving camera, steadicam-based continuous long takes (a famous example in his films being the opening shot in 'Boogie Nights'),tracking shots and very multi-layered audio-visual imagery. Anderson's direction is superb.

Paul Thomas Anderson's films have always had memorable utilisation of music, and again 'The Master' shines, being memorable and rich in emotion. The script is incredibly thought-provoking, rich in its bold use of multi-layered themes and gives 'Magnolia' a run for its money in the poignancy department. While not as polarising as 'Magnolia' perhaps, though some may disagree, 'The Master' is a challenging watch but also highly rewarding. The story on the most part while deliberately paced is just as thoughtful and very touching, it's also thematically intriguing and richly developed and contains realistically flawed and compelling characters if hard to like, important for a film that is essentially a character study.

Great acting helps, and even the word great doesn't do justice to the quality of the acting here. Joaquin Phoenix is spellbinding, one of his finest performances and a standout performance that year. The late great Philip Seymour Hoffmann also gives a powerful performances that ranks among his best, his best performance in any of his collaborations with Anderson and he has been in most of them. Amy Adams and Laura Dern's performances are no less inferior either.

In conclusion, very good and often fantastic, let down only properly by an unsatisfying final act. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) is a sexually perversed WWII vet who takes on Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman) as a father figure.

I wished for Paul Thomas Anderson to be declared a master himself. The craftsmanship is certainly evident. The film looks beautifully sad. The acting is completely unique. Joaquin Phoenix does a truly intense portrayal of a broken man. Philip Seymour Hoffman is convincing. Amy Adams plays PSH's wife who turns out to be much more perversed. There is a lot to like about this movie but the intensity of Joaquin's performance does wear thin. It can really grind down the audience. Overall, this is expertly made.