P.T. Anderson's "The Master" (2012)

Catcher7791

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I don't know if Samsara is screening 70mm in the IFI, it says digital cinema on the website.

I was at the JDIFF screening when the producer was there and I asked him afterwards if it would be released in 70mm. Despite the big deal the publicity has made of it being shot in 70mm, and the big deal the end credits make of it being shot in 70mm, he said that not only would it not be released on 70mm, it wouldn't even be available on 35mm. More converts to digital, and another loss to audiences, especially when so few cinemas are equipped to show 4K.

Regarding 'The Master', the word over on the Cigarettes And Red Vines blog is that the UK distributor won't be releasing it on 70mm, presumably for reasons of cost. This also sucks.

Da Shins Kelly

Joaquin Phoenix acting weird again at a promotional event for The Master. What's the story with him? I know the shenanigans a couple of years ago was a hoax, still there's something queer about him.

The film getting "lukewarm" reviews from the Venice Film Festival apparently too.

http://www.inquisitr.com/319059/joaquin-phoenix-booed-while-promoting-the-master/

Sad Professor

I wouldn't read too much into that article. Most of the reviews I've read have been extremely positive if not outright raves. Phoenix was probably responding to the crowd. Film journalists are well known for acting like children at these big festivals. Booing and jeering films and people for no particular reason. Phoenix never enjoyed doing publicity and certainly didn't endear himself to the media after his previous film anyway.

Da Shins Kelly

Sad Professor wrote: »

I wouldn't read too much into that article. Most of the reviews I've read have been extremely positive if not outright raves. Phoenix was probably responding to the crowd. Film journalists are well known for acting like children at these big festivals. Booing and jeering films and people for no particular reason. Phoenix never enjoyed doing publicity and certainly didn't endear himself to the media after his previous film anyway.

I didn't know this. Why??

I have read reviews that have been nothing but positive too, so I was surprised to read this. Not too surprised that Phoenix was being weird, but based on what you're saying about the crowd at these festivals, he probably had just cause.

pookiesboo

Sad Professor wrote: »

I wouldn't read too much into that article. Most of the reviews I've read have been extremely positive if not outright raves. Phoenix was probably responding to the crowd. Film journalists are well known for acting like children at these big festivals. Booing and jeering films and people for no particular reason. Phoenix never enjoyed doing publicity and certainly didn't endear himself to the media after his previous film anyway.

Joaquin is a joanker

Sad Professor

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I didn't know this. Why??

I have read reviews that have been nothing but positive too, so I was surprised to read this. Not too surprised that Phoenix was being weird, but based on what you're saying about the crowd at these festivals, he probably had just cause.

It's a cultural thing, I guess. It's mostly industry insiders and journalists at big elitist festivals like Venice and Cannes. Things get a bit rowdy. A film being booed is frequently a good sign as it means the audience cared enough to make their feelings felt. And actors are always getting hassle for not standing for photographers or giving interviews. Also, reports of booing always gets overblown which is probably another reason why people do it.

johnny_ultimate

Festival responses can often be bizarre alright, always to be taken with several pinches of salt. There's always going to be a bit of hysteria and hyperbole when a film of high profile or one that's 'challenging' gets its premieres. Can't forget that early viewers are always more eager to either praise it to high heavens or savagely attack it just to be ahead of the curve. L'Avventura is a famous example: apparently met with boos and vitriol at its premiere at Cannes, but subsequently awarded several of the festival's prizes and went onto become a huge hit with critics and audiences. Plenty of similar examples.

JP Liz V1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/08/the-master-venice-film-festival-award_n_1867317.html

Did well in the Toronto Film Festival even picking up a few awards (hopefully bodes well for Oscars) but it lost the Golden Lion despite winning it

Thrillhouse11

The Master is getting a 2 week 70mm run at London's Odeon, which means a 70mm run at the IFI is not completely off the cards. It was also recently announced that the movie will receive a brief 70mm run in Australia, which seemed to come about purely as a result of demand from fans. People just started petitions, phoned the theater, sent emails, etc.

So basically I think it would be a great idea to start emailing the IFI about the potential for a 70mm run, at least just to express an interest in seeing this happen. With the recent announcement from the UK, I definitely think it's worth a push. Admittedly the IFI are notoriously rubbish when it comes to answering emails but if they receive a heap of them about the same subject they might be difficult to ignore. Worth a try.

info@irishfilm.ie
+353 1 679 5744

Is it worth starting another thread about this? The enthusiasm for the movie in this thread seems to have waned a bit.

WatchWolf

I saw it and loved it.

QikBax

Saw it yesterday. It is absolutely sensational. Jaw droppingly good.

Phoenix gives one of the greatest performances I've ever seen and Hoffman and Amy Adams are excellent.

johnny_ultimate

Good news and bad news, everyone!

The IFI catalogue for November confirms there will be 70mm screenings of The Master! Huzzah!

The bad news: they will be held at "a future date" and are still to be announced (probably when a print from the UK is freed up). The initial release will be digital.

Tempted to wait for the 70mm screenings, but it's been a hella long wait already...

Sad Professor

Yeah, I was just about to post about that. No way am I waiting, but if the film impresses I'll definitely consider going to one of the 70mm screenings. Shame they couldn't get a print in time for release.

Tbh though I barely have time/money to see new releases once, never mind a second time.

johnny_ultimate

Oh yay, luckily going to be in London this week, which coincides with the 70mm run in Odeon West End Going to see it on Thursday afternoon - really, really looking forward to it!

Catcher7791

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Oh yay, luckily going to be in London this week, which coincides with the 70mm run in Odeon West End Going to see it on Thursday afternoon - really, really looking forward to it!

Let us know how it looked, after this:

http://joaquinphoenixcentral.com/article/odeons-master-print-is-scratched/

S.M.B.

I saw it there pre-scratch!

johnny_ultimate

Well that was something. Intense, weird and challenging. Need a while to articulate my opinions on it. The performances are stunning though - I've rarely seen someone so menally and physically committed to a role. The extended scenes where Phoenix and Hoffman play off each other are remarkable and hypnotic.

The 70mm print was in grand nick - the warnings of a scratch have been greatly exaggerated. The Odeon screen was smaller than I would have liked but it did the job. The cinematography is subtly stylised, but it conjures up a strange, almost surreal tone. Plenty of visually memorable images throughout. Well worth checking out in the format if you can - the film projection certainly enhances the visual identity of a distinctively modern film that still is heavily influenced by old school astethics.

Outkast_IRE

No sign of this playing at my local cinema they are showing twilight twice an hour though :mad:

Oh well there seems to be a few good movies between now and Christmas anyway so at least that's a consolation

Da Shins Kelly

Don't know if I'll get a chance to see this either.

catallus

I'm just after seeing this and I thought the early scenes with Hoffman and Phoenix were very well done and set up the mood of the film for me, but I was left feeling underwhelmed by the film as a whole. I thing it's another Paul Thomas Anderson film which puts way too much effort into telling a very thin tale, like There Will Be Blood. I get the feeling that the makers of the movie believe that the story warrants a symphonic orchestra to communicate the gravity of the story being told but at the end I'm left questioning why there are so few notes.

There's a scene in which a minor character criticises the new book by saying the whole thing could be printed on one sheet. That kind of summed up my feelings about the film. It's basically a movie about a spoof-artist who has a short-temper who takes advantage of a very disturbed young man, and not much more could be made of it by me.

e_e

Film of the year so far for me. The kind of thing that you almost right off while watching it and then come to realize hours later that you can't stop thinking about it. I'd see it again in a heartbeat, but I'm gonna wait for the 70MM print to play. It's the kind of filmmaking audiences should demand more of. Unsettling, adventurous, dissonant, funny and haunting, and a marvel on just about every technical level.

Of course some are going to loathe it, but I guess it's better to be left hating a film than to be indifferent. I wish more big filmmakers like Anderson and Malick would not get weighed down so much by more typical and predictive narratives.

johnny_ultimate

I'm not sure how many people read the film review forum, so a copy and paste of my (over)extended thoughts from over there. TL;DR: bold, mental, astonishingly acted / directed, exhausting, sometimes undoubtedly brilliant.

The Master - Paul Thomas Anderson's genuinely fascinating new opus - is not the film for anyone looking for traditional plotting, narrative resolution or an evening's light viewing. It is unashamedly, often invigoratingly difficult, and - like the Rorschach tests that feature prominently in both the marketing materials and the film itself - is bravely open to interpretation. While we're all subjected to the same images on screen, this sprawling, intense and infuriating oddity is almost immune to viewer consensus - The Master will mean very different things to different people.

At its core, The Master is a character study, or perhaps more appropriately, a relationship study. Freddie Quell (Joquain Phoenix) is a WWII veteran in a state of near insanity - drifting aimlessly between crazed sexual encounters and barely justified fist fights armed with only a bottle of homemade toxic booze. After a particularly risky bender, Quell drunkingly stows away on a docked ship. He's quickly discovered, but instead of being ejected is introduced to the ship's captain - the charismatically unhinged Lancaster Dodd (Phillip Seymour Hoffman). The cap'n takes an instant shine to Quell as a result of a certain poisonous elixir. Dodd and his wife Peggy (Amy Adams) are the leaders of a movement known as 'The Cause' - a ragtag group drawn together as a result of Dodd's philosophical publications. The Cause members are embarking on a fundraising trip of the East Coast of the US of A, and the rapport between Dodd and Quell ensures Freddie is quickly embraced by the group. As the two men spend more time together, Dodd's unconventional methods begin to evoke some strange changes in the once seemingly hopeless Freddie.

The 'friendship' between these two very different men is dynamic and frequently explosive. Dialogue scenes have rarely come across as so vitally cinematic. The title gives you a hint about how it all generally plays out, but this is a complex relationship that fluctuates wildly throughout the film's 140 minutes. At first, Dodd is the dominant force - managing to persuade and provoke his troubled protegee through a series of tests and carefully considered ploys. In what is arguably the film's most remarkable sequence, Quell is victim to a rigorous, intense psychological dismantling by Dodd. Anderson frames the scene in intense, disquieting close-ups and later uses the opportunity to seamlessly cut to flashback and probe Quell's most defining trauma. He has been well and truly broken, if only temporarily, and it's amazing to watch.

But Dodd - fond of the hooch and unrestrained bursts of obscene aggression - is himself a tortured soul. His bravura and vague philosophical ideas have won him numerous followers, but as the film progresses he's shown to be increasingly unstable. Indeed, there's the strong suggestion that without the smart, forceful Peggy he would be reduced to a ranting, disturbed mess.

Quell, meanwhile, is forced to confront his own identity and history through his time in The Cause, and is ultimately driven to seek a path of independence, and attempts to liberate himself from the man who once tore him apart.

It sounds like a relatively straightforward power struggle, but it's anything but. The film is utterly strange from the outset, full of peculiar tangents and psychological trickery (Johnny Greenwood's truly bizarre score only enhances the oddness). The Master is effectively a series of conversations, albeit interrupted by frequent eccentric curveballs. The film opens with a brilliantly uncomfortable sequence of seaside frolicking, with Quell concocting his dangerous cocktail of coconut juice and engine oil between public masturbation sessions. It's almost the antithesis of the opening of The Thin Red Line - this paradise offers no serenity. Later, the film flirts with perspective while forcing the viewer to work through the multiple possible permutations and interpretations.

At one point a scene appears to be just another social gathering, but in the middle of the scene Anderson without warning removes the clothes of all the females in attendance. It's a startling distortion of form. What point of view are we watching this from? Another strange sex fantasy of Quells? A vivid visual symbol of Dodd's domination over his subjects? A reminder of social inequality during the post-war period?

In a film that often focuses on the peculiar powers of persuasion, Anderson suggests possibilities but never deprives the viewer of the opportunity for personal interpretation. The director has the rare power to craft without condescending - a true master of his art.

As for the already infamous Scientology similarities? They're there, in mostly heavily fictionalised form, but this is much more than a mere deconstruction of cults and organised religion (easy targets). This is a film about many, many things - he challenges of leadership, overcoming trauma, group dynamics, the persuasive powers of trickery, the role of family... We can all eagerly wait for the thesis on this film to come rolling in.

The film's performances are astonishing. Phoenix is the standout, displaying a devastating physical and emotional commitment to the role. It's a testament to his efforts in bringing Quell to life that I genuinely felt concerned for the mental stability of Phoenix himself, such is the rawness of the performance (a concern further heightened by his infamous 'rapper' hijinks). Hoffman, if not quite as sensational, is still wonderful, and can more than hold his own throughout the films many lengthy dialogues. Dodd is a contradiction - both forceful and fragile - and Hoffman is never less than absolutely convincing. Support is strong, even if the cast face the unenviable position of acting against two genuine powerhouse performances. Adams is particularly good - continuing to take risky roles in her stride and being rewarded accordingly. Laura Dern pops up occasionally as a wealthy zealot, as do some younger recurring cast members as Dodd's family and disciples. But effectively this is a two role film, with Adams the only supporting cast member gifted with the space to bring true weight to her role - perhaps the film's third master, albeit in a way that's even more subtle and difficult to articulate than the two leads.

An extended note on the 70mm visuals. I was lucky enough to catch a print while visiting London, even if Odeon's West End screen was a tad smaller than is ideal for such high quality source material. Still, it's the way to view the film. Expensive 70mm stock is traditionally reserved for epic, sweeping visuals. I recently watched Baraka in the format, which is a perfect example of that - the most suitable format for emphasising that film's majestic landscapes and elegantly complex cinematography.

The Master is different. As a film of discussions and conversations, it's almost the polar opposite to Baraka. With a few exceptions, of course - a memorable, narratively significant desert sequence and a recurring image of lapping waves behind a boat benefit from the clarity and vivid colourisation of the film stock. However, for the most part The Master might be the most restrained & subtle 70mm film ever made. Yet: it works. Most prominently, the distinctly cinematic and grainy look of the format ensures the filmmakers work wonders in crafting a modern film that's deeply indebted to classic aesthetics. It's hard to describe exactly why, but the medium allows the period setting to become extremely credible without the need for bludgeoning the audience with excessively signposted period detail. It's most evident in the department store sequence near the start of the film - there's something about 70mm that enhances the architecture and colour of that location with an authenticity that even the best digital cameras would struggle to recapture. Elsewhere, the clarity of the cinematography ensures that the actors' performances are captured with almost unsettling detail. It may not offer the same volume of 'wow' moments as other 70mm efforts, but there's little doubt the unusual (and costly) format choice fully enhances the experience of watching The Master in the cinema. Catch it if you can.

A confession: I watched The Master after not quite enough sleep, and the film's extended second act occasionally proved exhausting. The film's militantly unrushed pacing will inevitably prove challenging to even those who have enjoyed their full eight hours. It's a slow film - some will say dull. One cannot view The Master without expecting a challenge - it's taken me close to a week to sit down and write this, and I remain uncertain about countless details. It's a nontraditional film, even by Anderson's experimental standards. But cinema cannot provoke or provide insight without first offering the viewer something difficult to work through. The Master is obtuse, sometimes maddeningly so. It openly mocks those looking for closure or (in the words of the Dogme 95 crew) superficial action. The result is easily the most distinctive American film of the last number of years (and it's been a pretty good year for American cinema on the whole), made by an auteur who knows what rules to obey and which ones to shatter. It's strange and provocative, and during its best moments almost undoubtedly brilliant. It will woo some, bemuse others and irritate the few. Some might even experience all three responses in equal measure! A film this brave and unconventional deserves nothing less than such a completely divisive response.

superblu

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm not sure how many people read the film review forum, so a copy and paste of my (over)extended thoughts from over there. TL;DR: bold, mental, astonishingly acted / directed, exhausting, sometimes undoubtedly brilliant.

The Master - Paul Thomas Anderson's genuinely fascinating new opus - is not the film for anyone looking for traditional plotting, narrative resolution or an evening's light viewing. It is unashamedly, often invigoratingly difficult, and - like the Rorschach tests that feature prominently in both the marketing materials and the film itself - is bravely open to interpretation. While we're all subjected to the same images on screen, this sprawling, intense and infuriating oddity is almost immune to viewer consensus - The Master will mean very different things to different people.

At its core, The Master is a character study, or perhaps more appropriately, a relationship study. Freddie Quell (Joquain Phoenix) is a WWII veteran in a state of near insanity - drifting aimlessly between crazed sexual encounters and barely justified fist fights armed with only a bottle of homemade toxic booze. After a particularly risky bender, Quell drunkingly stows away on a docked ship. He's quickly discovered, but instead of being ejected is introduced to the ship's captain - the charismatically unhinged Lancaster Dodd (Phillip Seymour Hoffman). The cap'n takes an instant shine to Quell as a result of a certain poisonous elixir. Dodd and his wife Peggy (Amy Adams) are the leaders of a movement known as 'The Cause' - a ragtag group drawn together as a result of Dodd's philosophical publications. The Cause members are embarking on a fundraising trip of the East Coast of the US of A, and the rapport between Dodd and Quell ensures Freddie is quickly embraced by the group. As the two men spend more time together, Dodd's unconventional methods begin to evoke some strange changes in the once seemingly hopeless Freddie.

The 'friendship' between these two very different men is dynamic and frequently explosive. Dialogue scenes have rarely come across as so vitally cinematic. The title gives you a hint about how it all generally plays out, but this is a complex relationship that fluctuates wildly throughout the film's 140 minutes. At first, Dodd is the dominant force - managing to persuade and provoke his troubled protegee through a series of tests and carefully considered ploys. In what is arguably the film's most remarkable sequence, Quell is victim to a rigorous, intense psychological dismantling by Dodd. Anderson frames the scene in intense, disquieting close-ups and later uses the opportunity to seamlessly cut to flashback and probe Quell's most defining trauma. He has been well and truly broken, if only temporarily, and it's amazing to watch.

But Dodd - fond of the hooch and unrestrained bursts of obscene aggression - is himself a tortured soul. His bravura and vague philosophical ideas have won him numerous followers, but as the film progresses he's shown to be increasingly unstable. Indeed, there's the strong suggestion that without the smart, forceful Peggy he would be reduced to a ranting, disturbed mess.

Quell, meanwhile, is forced to confront his own identity and history through his time in The Cause, and is ultimately driven to seek a path of independence, and attempts to liberate himself from the man who once tore him apart.

It sounds like a relatively straightforward power struggle, but it's anything but. The film is utterly strange from the outset, full of peculiar tangents and psychological trickery (Johnny Greenwood's truly bizarre score only enhances the oddness). The Master is effectively a series of conversations, albeit interrupted by frequent eccentric curveballs. The film opens with a brilliantly uncomfortable sequence of seaside frolicking, with Quell concocting his dangerous cocktail of coconut juice and engine oil between public masturbation sessions. It's almost the antithesis of the opening of The Thin Red Line - this paradise offers no serenity. Later, the film flirts with perspective while forcing the viewer to work through the multiple possible permutations and interpretations.

At one point a scene appears to be just another social gathering, but in the middle of the scene Anderson without warning removes the clothes of all the females in attendance. It's a startling distortion of form. What point of view are we watching this from? Another strange sex fantasy of Quells? A vivid visual symbol of Dodd's domination over his subjects? A reminder of social inequality during the post-war period?

In a film that often focuses on the peculiar powers of persuasion, Anderson suggests possibilities but never deprives the viewer of the opportunity for personal interpretation. The director has the rare power to craft without condescending - a true master of his art.

As for the already infamous Scientology similarities? They're there, in mostly heavily fictionalised form, but this is much more than a mere deconstruction of cults and organised religion (easy targets). This is a film about many, many things - he challenges of leadership, overcoming trauma, group dynamics, the persuasive powers of trickery, the role of family... We can all eagerly wait for the thesis on this film to come rolling in.

The film's performances are astonishing. Phoenix is the standout, displaying a devastating physical and emotional commitment to the role. It's a testament to his efforts in bringing Quell to life that I genuinely felt concerned for the mental stability of Phoenix himself, such is the rawness of the performance (a concern further heightened by his infamous 'rapper' hijinks). Hoffman, if not quite as sensational, is still wonderful, and can more than hold his own throughout the films many lengthy dialogues. Dodd is a contradiction - both forceful and fragile - and Hoffman is never less than absolutely convincing. Support is strong, even if the cast face the unenviable position of acting against two genuine powerhouse performances. Adams is particularly good - continuing to take risky roles in her stride and being rewarded accordingly. Laura Dern pops up occasionally as a wealthy zealot, as do some younger recurring cast members as Dodd's family and disciples. But effectively this is a two role film, with Adams the only supporting cast member gifted with the space to bring true weight to her role - perhaps the film's third master, albeit in a way that's even more subtle and difficult to articulate than the two leads.

An extended note on the 70mm visuals. I was lucky enough to catch a print while visiting London, even if Odeon's West End screen was a tad smaller than is ideal for such high quality source material. Still, it's the way to view the film. Expensive 70mm stock is traditionally reserved for epic, sweeping visuals. I recently watched Baraka in the format, which is a perfect example of that - the most suitable format for emphasising that film's majestic landscapes and elegantly complex cinematography.

The Master is different. As a film of discussions and conversations, it's almost the polar opposite to Baraka. With a few exceptions, of course - a memorable, narratively significant desert sequence and a recurring image of lapping waves behind a boat benefit from the clarity and vivid colourisation of the film stock. However, for the most part The Master might be the most restrained & subtle 70mm film ever made. Yet: it works. Most prominently, the distinctly cinematic and grainy look of the format ensures the filmmakers work wonders in crafting a modern film that's deeply indebted to classic aesthetics. It's hard to describe exactly why, but the medium allows the period setting to become extremely credible without the need for bludgeoning the audience with excessively signposted period detail. It's most evident in the department store sequence near the start of the film - there's something about 70mm that enhances the architecture and colour of that location with an authenticity that even the best digital cameras would struggle to recapture. Elsewhere, the clarity of the cinematography ensures that the actors' performances are captured with almost unsettling detail. It may not offer the same volume of 'wow' moments as other 70mm efforts, but there's little doubt the unusual (and costly) format choice fully enhances the experience of watching The Master in the cinema. Catch it if you can.

A confession: I watched The Master after not quite enough sleep, and the film's extended second act occasionally proved exhausting. The film's militantly unrushed pacing will inevitably prove challenging to even those who have enjoyed their full eight hours. It's a slow film - some will say dull. One cannot view The Master without expecting a challenge - it's taken me close to a week to sit down and write this, and I remain uncertain about countless details. It's a nontraditional film, even by Anderson's experimental standards. But cinema cannot provoke or provide insight without first offering the viewer something difficult to work through. The Master is obtuse, sometimes maddeningly so. It openly mocks those looking for closure or (in the words of the Dogme 95 crew) superficial action. The result is easily the most distinctive American film of the last number of years (and it's been a pretty good year for American cinema on the whole), made by an auteur who knows what rules to obey and which ones to shatter. It's strange and provocative, and during its best moments almost undoubtedly brilliant. It will woo some, bemuse others and irritate the few. Some might even experience all three responses in equal measure! A film this brave and unconventional deserves nothing less than such a completely divisive response.

Saw this tonight. Really enjoyed it but having been out for a few pints last night definitely struggled to go the distance.

Corholio

superblu wrote: »

Saw this tonight. Really enjoyed it but having been out for a few pints last night definitely struggled to go the distance.

Not making fun or anything, but thought it was hilarious that johnny_ultimate wrote a huge detailed synopsis and then the reply was 'liked it but was too drunk to watch it all properly' :pac:

Absolutely disgusted that a number of cinemas arent screening this bit have the newest Twilight on three or four screens. I asked in my local cinema why there was only two screenings a day, the answer "no one has any interest in pretentious artsy crap like that". Kinda made me die a little inside.

superblu

Corholio wrote: »

Not making fun or anything, but thought it was hilarious that johnny_ultimate wrote a huge detailed synopsis and then the reply was 'liked it but was too drunk to watch it all properly' :pac:

I was more so making reference to his assertion of making sure that you were in the whole of your health before going in to watch it. I had been out the previous night to watching the film. I certainly wasn't making little of the review. It's a great movie.

johnny_ultimate

Darko wrote: »

Absolutely disgusted that a number of cinemas arent screening this bit have the newest Twilight on three or four screens. I asked in my local cinema why there was only two screenings a day, the answer "no one has any interest in pretentious artsy crap like that". Kinda made me die a little inside.

Are you surprised though? Its an inevitability: depressing but to be expected. If anything, you should be glad your local got it at all, considering the posters who have above not even been granted that luxury. Given the cast and the general prestige surrounding the film, youd think it would enjoy a screening or two in even the most Twilight-happy multiplexes. It certainly doesnt share the equally brilliant Amour's fatal affliction of being subtitled.

Da Shins Kelly

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Are you surprised though? Its an inevitability: depressing but to be expected. If anything, you should be glad your local got it at all, considering the posters who have above not even been granted that luxury. Given the cast and the general prestige surrounding the film, youd think it would enjoy a screening or two in even the most Twilight-happy multiplexes. It certainly doesnt share the equally brilliant Amour's fatal affliction of being subtitled.

It's a reflection of society really that cinemas are showing Twilight multiple times a day and not showing a movie like this at all. They know what sells. Unfortunately throngs of people would rather go and see something mind-numbing like Twilight over something that might challenge them a bit. This is what popular culture is, sadly. (not that there isn't a place for fluff in the world, but it sure is depressing that it is so much more in demand than genuinely interesting and brilliant films)

Kinski

Here's a very odd review of this film:

With so many amateurs who run what’s left of the once-great movie industry making bad movies that pander to an easy-to-satisfy youth market that doesn’t care what it’s watching as long as the projectors keep running, and with so many bogus producers who used to be parking lot attendants at the Brown Derby always miraculously raising the money to make more, one thing is certain: no matter how rotten the movie is that you just suffered through, there’s always another one on its way that is 10 times worse. Paul Thomas Anderson, the egomaniacal writer-director of The Master, is a member of the new group of anarchists [...] Abominations like the neo-Kafka burlesque Synedoche, New York are algebraic extensions of all of them put together—eccentric but brainless. And now The Master, which follows in a perfect line—all style and no content—and therefore offers no fresh equation of its own.

Ok, so The Master is a product of Hollywood trying to "pander to an easy-to-satisfy youth market"? Riiiiiiight... And aside from this being a ludicrous opinion for anyone who's actually seen the film to spout, could the reviewer not even delve as deep as Wikipedia when researching, where he would have discovered that Anderson struggled to get the financial backing to make it?

Kinski

"I've got this script about a guy who returns from the war in the Pacific, suffering from PTSD, with a propensity for violence, and an addiction to drinking paint thinner. Oh, he's also kind of a sexual deviant. He falls under the spell of a charismatic cult leader, and what unfolds is a rambling, episodic, almost plotless meditation on the traumatic affects of war, substance abuse, religious mania..."

"Stop right there, son. I don't need to hear more. This is exactly the sort of film today's easy-to-please teen audience can relate to. Let me get the studio's massive cheque book out. Will $200m be enough? I've got a feeling this is going to be bigger than Transformers!"