Boring ...opaque, vague, dull and great for mental masturbation
This movie is a field day for pretentious film critics.
One of the most boring films with an unlikeable, hateful, stupid and violent protagonist. blech!!
This film is for those who feel, not those who pretend to.
"Buy the ticket, take the ride." --Raoul Duke, the great shark hunter
What?? another one of those vague crap that's supposed to be like a riddle, a puzzle and a chore. If you have anything meaningful to say, just say it.
It's like this boring movie.. it's all garbled-up and you have to keep speculating what the *beep* is going on the directors head. On a side note, the protagonist was an unlikeable, semi-retarded barbarian. I fail to sympathize and wanted to see him kill the delusional Dodd along with himself.
You're not supposed to speculate about what the director was thinking, you are supposed to think your own thoughts. This kind of movie rewards introspection, and it will mean something different to everyone who watches it.
I didn't mean to attack you or try to talk down to you, I'm just really disappointed that you found it to be so boring and dull.
But your strong language seems to point out that you did indeed have a strong emotional reaction to this dirty film and its dirty characters so...maybe you do feel after all.
"Buy the ticket, take the ride." --Raoul Duke, the great shark hunter
[deleted]
Random is right. I don't understand his defense for this film either.
Let me put my criticism in bullet form:
- Nothing interesting actually ever happens. The good scenes aren't very plentiful. Most of it is just mundane sh!t
- The ending is weak and ambiguous as to why the protagonist copies Dodd's lines.
- The protagonist is unlikeable, violent and moronic.
- There is no clear resolution and it feels like we just sat through the whole thing pointlessly.
- There was no climax or anti-climax. If there were, it's too opaque and vague for such a dull and boring movie.
- How can anyone figure what the director is trying to portray? The whole thing seemed so pointless and boring.
ok, so you guys are trolls. My bad.
"Buy the ticket, take the ride." --Raoul Duke, the great shark hunter
[deleted]
So you don't agree with what this person takes from his viewing of the film... so you call such an individual on this thread a troll.
You'd rather name call than explain how you disagree. Why even bother commenting at all?
I found it simply dull with no value myself. The acting was fine. The dialogue was adequate. But there was nothing to get from it that made me feel much of anything. No laughter. No tears. No thrill. No anger. No fear.
It was valueless to me. A man made no real journey to be something worse or better than he was at the start. He made no true impact on others, as their life journeys would be the same without him. It was like his existence was pointless and the story of his existence was also pointless. If the movie was about basically nothing, then it succeeded at that.
So I'm a troll? Apparently that's what I'd be for not seeing any value in this. This film to me doesn't deserve it's 7.whatever rating. It wasn't worth the time spent viewing it. It might as well never exist.
And to me a troll is someone that just tries to piss other people off, instead of bringing anything of value to the discussion at hand. I'd say you are closer to that than people who honestly are frustrated with watching the film and can explain how so.
Good day.
You spoke my mind. With the one exception that I couldn't even finish the movie. Made it 30 minutes into it and then had to stop because it was SO boring! Mundane *beep* and I really don't understand the appeal. But yeah I totally agree, the guy who called the other guy a troll is probably the one who is actually the troll!
share[deleted]
One thing I've learnt while strolling through forums of "The Shining", "Her", "The Master", "2001", is that you will always bump into people you will never be able to convince through the disparity that is the internet.
But, occasionally you will happen upon someone that regains your faith in humanity, or better, teaches you something new.
I can't tell if you're a troll or not, but here goes.
Nothing interesting actually ever happens.
"Things" most certainly do happen. They're mostly subtle and reveal the inner workings of the character. There are no major plot twists or grand reveals, it's far more realistic. If you need a plot change to be shoved in your face, this type of cinema is clearly not intended for you.
The ending is weak and ambiguous as to why the protagonist copies Dodd's lines.
It's ambiguous because the audience is supposed to make their own interpretation. Does everything need to be written out for you to make sense of it?
The protagonist is unlikeable, violent and moronic.
More of a reason for a film to study him...
There is no clear resolution and it feels like we just sat through the whole thing pointlessly.
Since when do films need a nice little ribbon tied on to have a point? Life doesn't have ribbons, neither do Anderson films.
There was no climax or anti-climax. If there were, it's too opaque and vague for such a dull and boring movie.
Why the hell do movies need to follow the stereotypical structure of a plot graph?
How can anyone figure what the director is trying to portray?
Who cares what PTA is trying to say? Use your goddamn brain cells and think about the film yourself. Maybe then you'll get somewhere. share
The OP created an account on IMDB less than two weeks ago, and his only posts concern this film.
Make of that what you will.
.
To sandoz-I hate those type of comments even worse than "trolling". So WTF, everyone has to join sometime. Can't attack the comments, attack the commenter? FYI-I've been here since '06 Or '08. (Yeah maybe I am attacking a commenter myself...)
shareThe internet is a funny thing. In an ideal world, it would be enough to just consider a viewpoint or argument on it's own terms without bringing personal biases and an individual's history into the fray, but I've been burned too many times in the past by jumping into a discussion with someone without doing a little basic fact-gathering about them to tell if it's worth my time. Too often I've discovered after wasting my breath (or finger-typing) that I've been discoursing with a psycho or, even worse, an idiot.
Finding out that the first post made by someone is a post that vehemently blasts a film strongly indicates that one of these possibilities may be at play:
1. The poster has an ax to grind against the film, or someone in it. Like I said, make of it what you will, and I'm not going to point fingers here, but a controversial film like this one could lead to many explanations for this.
2. The poster is young, hence, their first post here. Nothing wrong with that, we all gotta start sometime. Sometimes young people can be much more perceptive and intuitive than an older poster. But I think that's more the exception than the rule in my experience, so I tend to avoid discussions with youngsters.
3. The reason the poster has a newly registered account is due to their previous account being disabled by IMDB, usually for being an a-hole in their past posts.
Of course these are not the only explanations for a new poster showing up on IMDB just to put-down one individual film, but they are strong possibilities. And although everyone has the right to an opinion, whether positive or negative, I also have the right to ignore them if they express it in a way that makes me think one of the above situations may be in play.
Some men just like to watch the world burn!
Who cares when s/he created his/her account? They can't have an opinion?
Love me some Waltons
"Things" most certainly do happen. They're mostly subtle and reveal the inner workings of the character. There are no major plot twists or grand reveals, it's far more realistic.
That would be great if you portrayed the realism in a way that was actually interesting. Too much subtext and all that garbled puzzle and the movie just becomes symbolic pretentious art-house piece of crap. BORING *yawn*
The pretense under the guise of realism is too unbearably dull. Unbearable.
It's ambiguous because the audience is supposed to make their own interpretation. Does everything need to be written out for you to make sense of it?
Not necessarily. Just because something is vague does not mean it was entertaining or a "masterpiece". Why did you think this was a box-office flop and only the critics seem to enjoy all that ambiguous interpretation nonsense??
But then again, I hate vague films with interpretative and confusing messages. Give me smart rhetoric, give me intelligent plots, give me meaningful arguments and creative twists.. but do NOT, do NOT bore me with puzzling vagueness.
More of a reason for a film to study him...
For you maybe. I can study characters who don't happen to be violent neanderthals enveloped in some opaque BORING story-telling. He is very annoying and I wanted him to kill Dodd, then kill himself.
Since when do films need a nice little ribbon tied on to have a point? Life doesn't have ribbons, neither do Anderson films.
The point?? The point is that it must at least be interesting or entertaining.
Give me polarity, plot-twists, intensity and engaging mysteries. But don't make me do a chore of solving your puzzling and symbolic drivel about a character who I do not even like. I find that extremely annoying and extremely dull. It is BORING and deserves to be a box-office flop.
Why the hell do movies need to follow the stereotypical structure of a plot graph?
They don't have to, but the point is that you're supposed to have one IF you can't tell a good story using experimental methods. If you can only do boring narratives and can't do good movies using your experimental techniques, be prepared for criticism.
Who cares what PTA is trying to say? Use your goddamn brain cells and think about the film yourself.
I did.. and it bored me to tears. If I wanted to make a chore for myself I would be studying philosophy and the structure of logical thought and it's fallacies (something I actually have books for) The point is that the film is not mentally engaging for me and when I try to dissect and analyze it is BORING, I want a satisfying closure, I want that clarity and none of that vague, art-house, pretentious bull-crap. share
I'm terribly sorry that you can't enjoy a film beyond the sheer purposes of entertainment. The Master is meant to be a harrowing film, and making it entertaining would contradict it's themes. Most of the best films out there aren't outright entertaining. One doesn't simply kick off their shoes and turn on the TV and watch some Bergman or Godard, but they're far more enriching films than anything Michael Bay could dream up.
Too much subtext and all that garbled puzzle and the movie just becomes symbolic pretentious art-house piece of crap. BORING *yawn*
Hold on, I'll text PTA and tell him to include a few more explosions in his next films.
this was a box-office flop and only the critics seem to enjoy all that ambiguous interpretation nonsense
So, now we're judging the quality of cinema based on the general public consensus? If you need any evidence that general audiences don't usually have the greatest taste in movies, just visit Cinemascore. Why the hell are we using the opinions of people who cannot understand a film like The Master to evaluate it?
I have no clue why you'd watch a film like this when you overtly refer to art-house cinema as "pretentious bull-crap". I'm sure there's a nice Uwe Boll film you could be enjoying instead. share
"It's just an opinion. How dare you insult someone for their opinion. His opinion is just as valid as yours."
quote unquote
Ingmar, you're doing card tricks for a dog here. You know that, right?
I'd only disagree with you on one point: one's own thoughts are important, but so is what the artist is trying to say.
[deleted]
Who cares what PTA is trying to say? Use your goddamn brain cells and think about the film yourself. Maybe then you'll get somewhere.
I really can't stand this kind of crap. If a person doesn't love or like a film that you do, who cares? Just ignore the poster. Why say "you're an idiot because you don't get it, I am far superior in my viewing skills and intellectual insights." Seriously, where is the bucket. It's just such a weak argument to say "use your brain cells and you'll get somewhere" meaning that s/he will agree with you. The poster used their brain cells and thinks the movie is crap. You disagree and think it's a masterpiece. end of story.
Someone doesn't love some masterpiece that I understand and appreciate, I am either going to try to politely and respectfully explain it to them, or I will say nothing. Go back and review some basic manners and make your mother proud.
Love me some Waltons share
Please, explain what have you made of this film. Try to be concise.
shareI watched the first 40 minutes the other day and turned it off, bored out of my mind. I came to this board to see if there was any reason why I should finish it (some films are slow starters but still well worth it). Your posts convinced me to use my time to something more productive, like picking my nose or watching rain fall.
share[deleted]
One of my favourite things to do is sit back, have a drink and watch it rain. This film I would agree, didn't have anything to say, din't have any character of interest and felt like a cynical attempt at art at best.
Film Reverie: http://filmreverie.blogspot.com.au/
My film diary: http://letterboxd.com/filmreverie/
Well said.
shareBut your strong language seems to point out that you did indeed have a strong emotional reaction to this dirty film and its dirty characters so...maybe you do feel after all.
Neither he (nor I) had a strong reaction to the film. What we have a strong reaction to is people who unjustifiably praise hollow works such as this one. That is quite different than having a strong reaction to the underlying work itself.
It is clearly a case of the Emperor having no clothes because it has become more important for self-described cinefiles to perpetuate the myth of an artistic genius from their own generation who has complete control over his works than to actually grapple with the substance of the work itself. That is why we laugh at PTA lemming fanboys such as yourself.
Having a strong reaction to the vapid and hollow tastes of people who claim to love film is far different than having a strong reaction to weak films.
You're not supposed to speculate about what the director was thinking, you are supposed to think your own thoughts. This kind of movie rewards introspection, and it will mean something different to everyone who watches it.
In other words:
[Person X]: "I have no idea what the author was trying to convey with this work, at least in terms of anything that would be worth my time."
[PTA fanboy]: "You're not supposed to speculate about what the director was thinking, you are supposed to think your own thoughts."
[Person X]: "I have thought my own thoughts, and I have concluded that this film is dull and pointless."
[PTA fanboy]: "Shame on you for thinking you own thoughts. You are obviously just a troll."
I didn't mean to attack you or try to talk down to you, I'm just really disappointed that you found it to be so boring and dull.
In other words:
[PTA fanboy]: "I didn't mean to attack you or try to talk down to you."
[Person X]: "Ok. Good to know. I found this film to be boring and pointless."
[PTA fanboy]: "Shut up troll!"
[Person X]: "Still good to know that you aren't attacking me or talking down to me."
And yes, I myself am absolutely attacking and talking down to the PTA sycophants by calling them "fanboys". I make no apologies for that since you adolescent lemmings deserve no less for your condescension against the well justified critics of this derivative filmmaker.
share