Like most Paul Thomas Anderson films, the Master is a psychological examination of multiple lives, presented all at once, with no clearly defined beginning, middle and end. This lack of a traditional story-line can be quite jarring and often erratic feeling and is not for individuals looking for a traditional movie experience. The Master bares resemblance to his previous work, There Will Be Blood, in it's pacing and depiction, but unlike There Will Be Blood, The Master falls short in it's delivery. Master, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, is a fictional character, based on L. Ron Hubbard: a writer turned religious zealot with a very cult-like following of individuals who travel with him wherever he goes. These cult followers believe whole-heartily in Master's teachings... but Master himself seems lost in his own misgivings... he takes under his wing a sex-crazed, alcoholic war veteran suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (Joaquin Phoenix) as a means of escaping the false world he's created. Phoenix provides Master with a release - Phoenix becomes Master's muse. Master chooses to convert Phonix, but his mental condition gets in the way of Master's attempts. I found the acting quite good - Phoenix is reprehensible and unbelievably convincing. Few actors can play stoic and manipulative quite so well as Hoffman. It's the approach that fails the film - is it about master or is it about PTSD? If it's about PTSD, we need some grounding so those of us not suffering from the disorder can follow successfully, if it's about the manipulation of a people, then don't overwhelm us with the part drunken, part mentally deranged viewpoint we so often find ourselves following. Overall, it's an interesting film but it falls way short in it's delivery. 2 stars.

I’m happy to see Joaquin Phoenix return to “serious” film making after his fake retirement film “I’m Still Here.” Paul Thomas Anderson’s “The Master,” for me does not rise to the great level of “There Will Be Blood,” in which Daniel Day Lewis excellently portrayed true evil. In “The Master,” Joaquin Phoenix excellently portrays a seemingly hopeless lost victim of child abuse, neglect and then some kind of WWII Post Traumatic Syndrome. And then he meets the possible cult master, portrayed by Philip Seymour Hoffman, who develops a Scientology-like “religion.” I will probably have to try watching this film one more time to see if is better than I thought the first time.

HORRIBLE MOVIE ACTING WAS VERY LOUSY

Tedious, rambling, incoherent, boring dribble. I couldn't care less about the Juaquin Phoenix character; a horrific, spiteful little drunk. PT Anderson should have had the balls to call this his personal take on Scientology and instead focused exclusively on Phillip Seymour Hoffman and the manical ravings of the lunatic L. Ron Hubbard. THAT would have been a great film.

Maybe the acting was Ok, but the storyline and themes were very poor. Dialogue was hard to follow at times. Phoenix-GET THE MARBLES OUT OF YOUR MOUTH.

I could not take my eyes off Phoenix. he was mesmerizing in this role but not in a good way because his character was not likeable. I did not think the story was that great either. I thought Hoffman and Adams did a good job too but the story was flat.

From the tally of comments, the scales are mostly tipped in one direction or the other: either pro or con. No middle ground. A very peculiar, unconventional film; well acted, and cast, but bizarre. Perplexing. Difficult to summarize. Well, maybe not. An L. Ron Hubbard-like character and his odd relationship with a turpentine-swilling loose cannon. What was Anderson hoping to impart upon his viewers? Puzzlement? That's mostly what I'm left with. Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams -- all first rate; the story, however, (for me), lacked cohesiveness, and a strong foundation.

An excellent film. A great study of human psychology and how religious cults appeal to humans' need to belong. "Freddy" was an alcoholic mess and those in the cult were the first people to care about him, so of course he was attracted to it. I won't spoil the plot. Brilliant acting. If you're into Disney films, this won't appeal to you.

I have loved every film by Paul Thomas Anderson. This is my least favorite. More Punch Drunk Love than Boogie Nights, but without as much dark humor. Filmed exceptionally well with incredible acting. The plot is winding and more or less much ado about nothing. The journey is much more appealing than any sort of destination. Style over substance. Effective use of music as well, as per the usual for P. T. Anderson films. I will watch this movie again, but I was honestly a bit let down by it. Worth watching if you are a bit of a movie snob or love his other movies (Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch Drunk Love, Pleasantville, There Will Be Blood). Long run time as well.

Alright, people: In the interest of anyone who doesn't wish to "waste their time" on this movie and in order to get it into the hands of people who appreciate "film"... I'm willing to play the part of pretentious film student. If "The Blindside" or "Silver Linings Playbook" is your idea of time well spent -- DO NOT BOTHER with this film. It will not be inspiring, hopeful, entertaining, romantic (though it contains, in my opinion, one of the most stirring kisses ever put on film), or even thought-provoking in the way that you want it to be. This is pure cinema meant for that subset of people who have graduated from your average "movie-lover" to someone who LOVES FILM. Others here have said it better than I could ever hope to as I'm no critic -- just another know-it-all young film geek who's aware that American cinematic history did not begin with Star Wars. I'm hoping this will effectively thin out the line of 137 people before me because I am ACHING to see this movie a second (and likely third) time. Oh and p.s. -- if you're into Scientology, I imagine you'll find this film offensive on some fronts.