[SourCherry]

This film looks superb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ1O1...ature=youtu.be

Paul Thomas Anderson never fails to impress, especially alongside Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Can't wait to see it!

[Johnny Clay]

Cheers

I know the anticipation surrounding this is colossal, but, dear Lord, I stopped breathing once or twice during that.

Can't come soon enough.

[Moe's tavern]

There's a fair amount of anticipation surrounding this title amongst cinephiles, which is understandable considering PT Anderson's track record.

The fact is, it's not one of his best.

everyone will go on about the performances, and there's no denying that both Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix pull out all the acting stops with sublime performances.

And yet the film overall is quite a dull affair. The film relies heavily on the relationship between Hoffman and Phoenix, but sadly at the expense of any kind of story. It oh so plods along, serving as nothing but a face off between the two male leads, with the twinkling of Oscar gold in their eyes.

Considering all the hype regarding whether or not this was based on Scientology is completely pointless, as the whole issue of cults is hardly ever addressed, which is a real missed opportunity.

Overall, great acting, shame about the film.

Review here.

[SirMickTravis]

I'm not quite sure about the genius of Paul Thomas Anderson. I liked Boogie Nights and sort of liked There Will Be Blood but was not too sure about Magnolia or Punch Drunk Love

[JCR]

Originally Posted by Moe's tavern

There's a fair amount of anticipation surrounding this title amongst cinephiles, which is understandable considering PT Anderson's track record.

The fact is, it's not one of his best.

everyone will go on about the performances, and there's no denying that both Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix pull out all the acting stops with sublime performances.

And yet the film overall is quite a dull affair. The film relies heavily on the relationship between Hoffman and Phoenix, but sadly at the expense of any kind of story. It oh so plods along, serving as nothing but a face off between the two male leads, with the twinkling of Oscar gold in their eyes.

Considering all the hype regarding whether or not this was based on Scientology is completely pointless, as the whole issue of cults is hardly ever addressed, which is a real missed opportunity.

Overall, great acting, shame about the film.

Review here.

Joaquin Phoenix said the Oscars were "total, utter bullshit" last month, which is a some what odd thing for someone with the "twinkling of Oscar gold in their eyes" to do.

From http://www.interviewmagazine.com/film/joaquin-phoenix

Originally Posted by Joaquin Phoenix

"I think it's bullshit. I think it's total, utter bullshit, and I don't want to be a part of it. I don't believe in it. It's a carrot, but it's the worst-tasting carrot I've ever tasted in my whole life. I don't want this carrot. It's totally subjective. Pitting people against each other … It's the stupidest thing in the whole world. It was one of the most uncomfortable periods of my life when Walk the Line was going through all the awards stuff and all that. I never want to have that experience again. I don't know how to explain it — and it's not like I'm in this place where I think I'm just above it — but I just don't ever want to get comfortable with that part of things."

He has no chance of winning best actor.

[Johnny Clay]

Phoenix made those comments just as it was becoming apparent the film wasn't really clicking in the way they may have hoped. Hmm..

Critics have been a bit tardy as well. No 'master' piece etc. Still a must see though.

Hopefully it's as good as Johnny Greenwood's soundtrack, which is sublime indeed. All old songs and eerie discordance. Lovely stuff.

[Ads]

Saw it last night and was a bit let down by it. Some great actors, wonderful score and cinematography - but the script just wasn't what it should have been and its a very hard movie to fully engage with. A movie you can admire technically, but its very hard to love.

[Wetherby]

To those who have seen it, may I ask has it got interesting story and interesting characters.

[Ads]

Originally Posted by Wetherby

To those who have seen it, may I ask has it got interesting story and interesting characters.

I would say the characters are interesting but not realised as well as they could be, and the story isn't nearly as interesting as it has the potential to be

[jesse_pinkman]

Saw this last night and seriously disappointed... Joaquin Phoenix very good, but otherwise there is very little plot and I agree, some interesting characters that are not developed nearly enough.

Should have seen Argo instead...

[SourCherry]

I saw this yesterday. It's a visually stunning film with superb acting (Joaquin Phoenix giving one of the best performances I've seen in recent years).

If you're expecting some sort of expose of Scientology, you'll be sorely disappointed because it's really not about that. The relationship between Freddie Quell (Phoenix) and Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is central and there is one stand-out scene for me which was spellbinding...

Spoiler

The initial interrogation scene

Special mention to Amy Adams - fantastic as always.

[Evilredzebra]

Saw it at the weekend - complete and utter dross. Far too pleased with itself. Yes, the attention to period detail is fantastic, Phoenix and Hoffman are completely credible in their acting and clearly going for the little gold statue, the camerawork is amazing but the plot and script are painfully slow and I couldn't have cared less about any of the characters.

Self-indulgent twaddle.

Longest two and a bit hours I've had to endure in a long time.

[stripedcat]

Whoops. Sorry for posting in the other thread on this.

A lot of the reviews of the film have said that it suffers from a lack of plot. All characterisation and no plot.

I am sort of intrigued by it being in 70 mm.

From the looks of the views here it seems not to be worth seeing then.

[stripedcat]

I went to see this today. I was sort of intrigued by it being in 70 mm, more than anything else. I went to the Odeon West End to view it. It was strange hearing a mechanical projector churning in the background - especially as now a lot of cinemas are digital only. The projectionists nearly forgot the sound at the beginning of the film - you could hear them quarrelling in the background for a while. Eventually it did get put on.

As for the film - well - hmmmmm. I don't see why it needed 70 mm, it doesn't feel very 'cinematic' to me. Apart from the fact that there are not that many landscape type scenes, this film is a character study. That is where it falls down on so many levels. Over long, and it doesn't seem to know what message it might be trying to convey. The subject matter(religion, in this case Scientology and a person dealing with PTSD)could be interesting, but the storyline doesn't help it.

Good performances from Hoffman and Phoenix, but that can't help the film out that much.

I liked 'Magnolia' and 'Boogie Nights' from PTA. 'There Will Be Blood' was okay, although I did think that Daniel Day Lewis just did a John Huston impression for most of the film. That film was alright, but perhaps not deserving of all the critical praise it received.

I appreciate that PTA tried to do something different here - I just don't think it worked out that well.

[PunksNotDead]

Watched this last night and found it ever so dull which is a shame as i like Phillip Seymour Hoffmann and Joaquin Phoenix.

[little-monster]

I found it incredible dull and it pained me to watch a talented actress like Amy Adams waste her acting talents in this. Although it did her some good because it gave her a 4th oscar nomination.

[finkly]

I watched it a couple of months ago and have to say I don't really remember much about it. The acting was good but nothing else has left an impression on me. Probably the weakest PTA film for me.