Great bio of jimi:
https://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70305882?trkid=-1
Great bio of Ginger Baker:
https://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70234494?trkid=-1
Great docu of the Muscle Shoals music scene:
https://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70267584?trkid=-1
ASTOUNDING performances by Philip Seymour Hoffman, Joaquin Phoenix, et alia.:
https://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70244163?trkid=-1
And the truly truly bizarre:
last one should be:
I have no idea how to feel about The Master. I was totally awed by the acting and the cinematography the first time I saw it (in a theater that showed it in 70mm, the way it was filmed and intended to be watched), but something bugged me about it that I couldn't place. Second viewing, on Netflix, the storyline seemed to be more convoluted and flawed than I realized at first, starting from when Freddie wanders onto the boat. From that point, the only two scenes that worked for me were the "interview" scene and "Slow Boat to China". That, to me, is a problem with the writing. So, the direction, the cinematography, and the acting are all top notch, but the writing, for me, fails them all.
I agree, in that a novel is a piece of fiction with something wrong with it and a portrait is a painting with something wrong with the mouth.
It's flawed. Deeply.
When Freddie Quinn showed up on the boat I thought PSH was going to be some kind of Captain Nemo seeking a magical drunken elixir from Freddie.
I didn't know what to expect. And to see Freddie become some kind of family/cult figure was strange, regarding his lack of true growth throughout. But if he had changed/grown, would that have been believable?
And to see The Master's continued attraction to Freddie was also strange.
"That, to me, is a problem with the writing."
I don't think it was a problem with the writing, but on choosing what writing/scenes to include.
But damn, the performances...
"But if he had changed/grown, would that have been believable?"
No, not at all, not with what we're given in the first 10-15 minutes pre-Scientology cruise (which is pure poetry, by the way).
If I were to suggest what I'd do differently, I'd say either wait longer to bring Freddie and Dodd together, or don't do it at all. Keep them separate and let their separate actions form an inverse correlation. But then, I'm no Paul Thomas Anderson, not-even-close, though ultimately I don't think he knew exactly what he wanted to do with this film, and while that can be a good thing in artistic creation, it didn't work this time. I rank this film at the bottom of his filmography, which is more a statement of how good his films are than how bad this one is.
Amy Adams, though.
"I don't think he knew exactly what he wanted to do with this film"
I think that's the essence of it.
There must have been 126,543 different possible approaches to doing this.
It must have been hell in the editing room (esp. if he had pressure from outside sources to make it more this or more that).
But damn, the performances...
Yeah, I get the feeling that he took more shit from executives and the money people during production than any of his other films, mainly because of the subject matter, but whatever happened behind the scenes, it must've gotten a little messy, at least, the film reflects that.
Now he's adapting Thomas Pynchon. So, we'll see how THAT goes...
And here is my recommendation for Netflix Instant: Blue Ruin.
http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70278931?trkid=13752289
Seriously, for real, do it.
"Now he's adapting Thomas Pynchon. So, we'll see how THAT goes..."
This one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUZgOQ186-A
Blue Ruin...
Hmmmmmmmm....................
;-)
"Someday this Pain Will Be Useful to You"
A very slow, semi-artless beginning, but really turns the corner about a third of the way through.