Rex Reed's OSA-like review of The Master

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
I decided to look for some negative reviews of "The Master" thinking the cult has got to be trying to influence some critics to write bad reviews. Now while most serious reviews are overwhelmingly positive, there are a few who pan it or give it so-so reviews. It's expected that a movie won't please everyone. But then I stumbled upon Rex Reed's review for The New York Observer, the mag owned by Donald Trump's son-in-law.

It is not a movie review, it is an attack that eschews all ground rules of professional critique and even tells outright lies. It reads like the cult paid Rex to write this review - and given his background it wouldn't be surprising, nor would blackmail be out of the question. (Ol' Rex has had some embarrassing exposures, caught shop lifting, exploits with hot young men, etc..)

Even more curious is the fact Rex tells outright LIES about the movies reception. In Venice it swept the awards, and was met with massive praise, but Rex reports it was "booed." It got rave reviews in Toronto, but Rex says people "walked out." it's like he is reporting the reality CoS dreams was occurring. He goes on to say all the critical adulation must be a plot from the studio to "rescue" this film.

Then to top it off he only mentions Hubbard & Scientology once and that's only to discount the movie has anything to do with either.

Its not just me, the comments are on fire questioning what the hell type movie review this is supposed to be.

It's truly a very suspicious review, nothing about it reads like a legitimate or professional review. It reads like a bad cult PR ploy.

I don't really want people to give this hack any more hits, but here is a sampling of the review.

"Since it doesn’t make one bit of sense—and probably isn’t supposed to—there’s not much to say about it except … why? It begins with Joaquin Phoenix masturbating and goes steadily downhill from there. With agonized silences interrupted by operatic rages, he plays a lost, unfocused sailor stationed in the Pacific during World War II named Freddie Quell, who creates the image of a woman out of sand on a beach and humps it unmercifully. Subject to black depressions, unprovoked violence and crying jags, he’s an obvious mental case. He’s also such a hopeless alcoholic that he even drinks airplane gasoline and cleaning fluid. After the war, Freddie (removing text for spoilers).....his gullibility lands him in the clutches of another nutcase, writer-philosopher-scientist Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who has invented a new cult religion called “The Cause.” Early hype promised an exposé of Scientology, with Hoffman as a thinly veiled L. Ron Hubbard, but as it turns out, The Master has nothing to do with either—or much of anything else."

Link here: http://observer.com/2012/09/the-mas...hoffman-joaquin-phoenix-paul-thomas-anderson/
 
I decided to look for some negative reviews of "The Master" ...

Why on earth would you bother? :eyeroll:

The movie is a fictional narrative. It is not a story about scientology or l. ron hubbard. Yes, it draws on some elements from the life of hubbard to tell its own story, but that is a wholly fictitious tale. Watching it doesn't add one whit to anyone's actual knowledge about hubbard or the church.

So why would you care what sort of movie reviews it gets? :duh:

I've nothing against the film but if you actually want people to understand hubbard or the church point them in the direction of facts, not some make believe hollywood film about an imaginary cult.


Mark A. Baker
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Rex Reed? He's a dinosaur! He's got to be in his 70's. He's a nasty piece of work. Many just read him for amusement. He's the male equivilent to Joan Rivers in the entertainment business. He's also a crook:


Arrest
In February 2000, Reed was arrested for shoplifting after leaving a Tower Records, in Manhattan, with CDs by Mel Tormé, Peggy Lee, and Carmen McRae in his jacket pockets. Reed, who had just purchased two other CDs, says he forgot about the other three CDs and his offer to pay for them was refused. The charges were later dropped.[9] According to Reed, several days after the arrest Peggy Lee sent him her entire catalog of CDs, because "she was so thrilled I wanted one of her CDs enough to put myself through so much hell."[10]
9. "Rex Reed blames his arrest on fever of forgetfulness", USA Today, February 17, 2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_Reed

Reed has a history of being one of the most abrasive and sarcastic reviewers in the history of entertainment review. His peers are probably not even reading the review, lol
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
Why on earth would you bother? :eyeroll:

The movie is a fictional narrative. It is not a story about scientology or l. ron hubbard. Yes, it draws on some elements from the life of hubbard to tell its own story, but that is a wholly fictitious tale. Watching it doesn't add one whit to anyone's actual knowledge about hubbard or the church.

So why would you care what sort of movie reviews it gets? :duh:

I've nothing against the film but if you actually want people to understand hubbard or the church point them in the direction of facts, not some make believe hollywood film about an imaginary cult.


Mark A. Baker

What are you going on about? I never said I would point some one who was wanted to know more about the cult to this movie. In fact I would not, i would recommend several books and a few websites to get them started. Now, If some one wanted to see an interesting movie delving into the psychological allure of cult in postwar America, then I would refer them to The Master.

I stated exactly why I was looking for bad reviews above. The reviews have been overwhelming positive, gushing even. It obviously chaps the cults ass. Just as when "BOE"came out and they sent members in droves to see it multiple times and tried to rig positive reviews, I figure they would try the opposite tactic for a film they opposed. I found a smattering of bad reviews, nothing that made me think the cult had anything to do with it. Then someone mentioned this review and it was so beyond the pale. It wasn't just a normal bad review - it was an attack job. He reported out right lies about the movies reception and unlike every other review (bad or good) he made only the briefest reference to Scientology and then to only deny any similarity.

It had none of the normal features of a standard critique and all the hallmarks of a cult hack job - lies, denials and attacks.

I posted a brief review of "The Master" in the thread for that and gave my views on it's connection to Scientology and why I think it's a film that explores much grander themes than a movie strictly about the Scientology grand con man and his dupe.
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
Rex Reed? He's a dinosaur! He's got to be in his 70's. He's a nasty piece of work. Many just read him for amusement. He's the male equivilent to Joan Rivers in the entertainment business. He's also a crook:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_Reed

Reed has a history of being one of the most abrasive and sarcastic reviewers in the history of entertainment review. His peers are probably not even reading the review, lol

Yes, his shoplifting and other crap his why I figured he'd be an easy target.

On the other hand writing over the top reviews that disagree with everyone seems to be the only way he can get any one to pay attention to him.

However, how his old hack ass affords an apartment at the Dakota boggles my mind and makes me think he's open to any offers of money for work - hell he's so cheap he's shoplifting Peggy Lee CDs.

It could just be a desperate ploy for attention, like many of his reviews, but the total lies about the film's reception at festivals and the only mention of Scientology being a one sentence dismissal of any similarities had my bad cult PR sense tingling.
 

LA SCN

NOT drinking the kool-aid
What are you going on about? I never said I would point some one who was wanted to know more about the cult to this movie. In fact I would not, i would recommend several books and a few websites to get them started. Now, If some one wanted to see an interesting movie delving into the psychological allure of cult in postwar America, then I would refer them to The Master.

I stated exactly why I was looking for bad reviews above. The reviews have been overwhelming positive, gushing even. It obviously chaps the cults ass. Just as when "BOE"came out and they sent members in droves to see it multiple times and tried to rig positive reviews, I figure they would try the opposite tactic for a film they opposed. I found a smattering of bad reviews, nothing that made me think the cult had anything to do with it. Then someone mentioned this review and it was so beyond the pale. It wasn't just a normal bad review - it was an attack job. He reported out right lies about the movies reception and unlike every other review (bad or good) he made only the briefest reference to Scientology and then to only deny any similarity.

It had none of the normal features of a standard critique and all the hallmarks of a cult hack job - lies, denials and attacks.

I posted a brief review of "The Master" in the thread for that and gave my views on it's connection to Scientology and why I think it's a film that explores much grander themes than a movie strictly about the Scientology grand con man and his dupe.

Mark A. Baker is going on about what he always goes on about; puffery and elegantly verbose buffoonery which he thinks distinguishes himself. :duh:

(Sorry, my M.A.B. ruds were out. I feel better now) :biggrin:

Carry on, Mark. :yes:
 

PTS

Elliott
I am laughing my ass off. Is old Rex Reed the best wog they can get to slag the movie? Again, laughing my ass off.
:roflmao::laugh::hysterical::roflmao::laugh::hysterical::roflmao::laugh::hysterical::roflmao::laugh::hysterical::roflmao::laugh::hysterical::roflmao::laugh::hysterical:
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Why on earth would you bother? :eyeroll:

The movie is a fictional narrative. It is not a story about scientology or l. ron hubbard. Yes, it draws on some elements from the life of hubbard to tell its own story, but that is a wholly fictitious tale. Watching it doesn't add one whit to anyone's actual knowledge about hubbard or the church.

So why would you care what sort of movie reviews it gets? :duh:

I've nothing against the film but if you actually want people to understand hubbard or the church point them in the direction of facts, not some make believe hollywood film about an imaginary cult.

Mark A. Baker

I agree completely. :ohmy: :omg:

It is a fictional movie that is VERY LOOSELY based on Hubbard and Scientology.

It is NOT an expose', and never pretended to be.

In truth, I have paid very little attention to anything having to do with the movie.

I will someday get around to watching it when it hits the DVD Rental Stores (and only AFTER it moves from the New Releases section to the cheaper DVD section). Now, I WILL go out of my way to see Resident Evil: Retribution! :yes: :lol:
 
Last edited:

Lone Star

Crusader
I posted this negative review yesterday on The Master thread...

http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/paul_thomas_andersons_cult_of_personality_20120917/

Although it's negative, I wouldn't say this one is "OSA like". I actually think it's well thought out and written. Now I'm going to watch the movie anyway. I don't give a lot of credence to movie critics in general. If I truly want to watch a movie then I'll watch it and make up my own mind.

I will say this, I think some of you will be disappointed in the movie because I think some of you have expectations of it that will not be met. It is very loosely based on Hubbard and Scientology. But I do think it will give insight into how cults in general are formed, and how people in general end up in cults.
 

clamicide

Gold Meritorious Patron
In the early years of when I was in, someone connected with CC was bragging about how much of Hollywood and film was connected to Scio in some way--agents, casting directors etc. And he said, although it's not to be publicly known, Rex Reed was somehow connected. I didn't pay attention to details, and it's hearsay, but???? I actually was more interested in how so much of Hollywood was connected that the people the cult deemed suppressive didn't stand a chance with their careers (per the source). It kinda ooked me out... ah, red flags...:duh:
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
In the early years of when I was in, someone connected with CC was bragging about how much of Hollywood and film was connected to Scio in some way--agents, casting directors etc. And he said, although it's not to be publicly known, Rex Reed was somehow connected. I didn't pay attention to details, and it's hearsay, but???? I actually was more interested in how so much of Hollywood was connected that the people the cult deemed suppressive didn't stand a chance with their careers (per the source). It kinda ooked me out... ah, red flags...:duh:

The plot thickens... Thanks for sharing Clamicide. His name coming up in this situation is very interesting. There are certainly many more famous, respected, and read critics to name drop if your are making crap up to impress, than Rex Reed.

I think at the very least some emails to the editor about the blantant falsehoods, unprofessional tone and the stink of cult hack work, should be pointed out to the editors. Any one else feel so inclined send your brief, to the point, missives to [email protected]
 

Ogsonofgroo

Crusader
:roflmao: Rex Reed? Good-frikken-fried-horney-toads-onna-crutch! He was an irritating, condescending twat in 70's, and apparently still is, in his 70's (he's 74), lololol, man, I actually thought he died long ago :p (not that I give it any thought one way or t'other). I read the 'review' just for the ick factor, it delivered too.
Don't think he's bought off, just the same old limp-dick he always was imho.

Anyone else think booing in the audience 90% likely to be culties getting their ethics in?

Edit> just skimming through the comments section over there and low! An Aaron Saxton appears! Noice! :)
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Yes, his shoplifting and other crap his why I figured he'd be an easy target.

On the other hand writing over the top reviews that disagree with everyone seems to be the only way he can get any one to pay attention to him.

However, how his old hack ass affords an apartment at the Dakota boggles my mind and makes me think he's open to any offers of money for work - hell he's so cheap he's shoplifting Peggy Lee CDs.

It could just be a desperate ploy for attention, like many of his reviews, but the total lies about the film's reception at festivals and the only mention of Scientology being a one sentence dismissal of any similarities had my bad cult PR sense tingling.

Well, he might just be getting OLD, lol

BYW, He's lived at The Dakota for many years, more 32 years at least:
http://observer.com/2008/03/jared-leto-expands-in-grim-role-of-lennons-killer/

It's a co-op. He has a small apt according to one report on the net, so his shares would be less that most of the other co-op owner shares in the building. Appears that he paid upfront for the shares when he bought it. He has no debt on his shares ( Only once did he borrow off his proprietary lease and he repaid it in 15 years in 2005) so he just pays taxes and maintenance fees.

How is a co-op different from a condo?

Legal Distinction
When you buy a condominium, you are purchasing real property. When you buy a co-op you are not actually purchasing the physical apartment; you're buying shares in the cooperative corporation that owns the building. Once the deal is closed, you will own the number of shares allocated for that apartment based on its size and location. Instead of the deed you receive when you buy a house or a condo, with a co-op you get a stock certificate and a proprietary lease, or occupancy agreement, on a specific apartment.As a shareholder, you become part owner of the building. In addition to the monthly loan payments on your individual unit, if any, you are responsible for monthly building maintenance and real estate tax payments to the co-op and you have a share of the assets and liabilities of the building.
 

clamicide

Gold Meritorious Patron
The plot thickens... Thanks for sharing Clamicide. His name coming up in this situation is very interesting. There are certainly many more famous, respected, and read critics to name drop if your are making crap up to impress, than Rex Reed.

I think at the very least some emails to the editor about the blantant falsehoods, unprofessional tone and the stink of cult hack work, should be pointed out to the editors. Any one else feel so inclined send your brief, to the point, missives to [email protected]

Yeah, I think that's why even when I heard it I sort of moved on to the other stuff the guy was saying. I was trying to figure out why this guy was such a 'coup'. Back then, at least a few people knew who he was, but IIRC, his heyday was many many years earlier. Even then, it seemed like folks listened to his opinion more for the entertainment value than the validity of his opinion. In a way, he was a real-life character actor. (sorry, slip...for some reason I had assumed he died until I read the OP since I hadn't heard anything about him for so many years)
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Sometimes the hyperbole on this forum gets too comical. I just read Reed's review and it's not OSA-like at all. Hell he criticized two past Cruise movies! Geez can some of you just accept that people can disagree with you and not be a "cult hack"? I believe Reed is being honest with his opinion. He may be wrong, or he may be right. Let it go and watch the movie and don't worry about critics. :eyeroll:
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
...


Just a comment about Rex Reed.

When I was very active in the film industry, I used to read the daily trade magazines and reviews. I noticed that Rex Reed often trashed a brilliant film or masterwork. And even more often he lavished praise on poorly written and directed fluff or crap.

It got so bad that I started to avoid theatrical release of movies that he (for reasons unknown) gave extraordinary reviews. I'd just catch them later on dvd or cable. And to look with special interest at films that he trashed.

He's just a dude with a computer. There is nothing that qualifies him to give "expert" opinions and anyone on the street has an equally valid opinion.

One of the valuable things about reviews can be finding great and knowledgeable film lovers WHO ALSO HAPPEN TO BE A FILM CRITIC. Their recommendations can help narrow the field and point out real gems that might otherwise be missed.

It's all opinion anyways, but when most of the mainstream master critics adore a film and a Hollywood publicity hound like Reed is trashing that same movie, there is something very fishy about it. More likely than not, those type of reviewers are getting some kind of consideration for their "attack" or "support", whether in the form of money, invitations to parties or exclusive interviews. Normal stuff in Hollywood and the Celebrity PR Industry.
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
Yeah, he's definitely an industry hack. Trying to remember his name I recalled he is the one name you will see with a positive blurb on the worst pieces of crap. Like the go to guy for the guy who will say a "not to miss tour de force" to put in ads when no one else will. (Peter Travers of RS is also the king of ad blurbs for crap.)

I would have chalked it up to his usual anti-intellectual, aggressive BS but I just can't figure why he would actually lie about the reception of the film in Venice & Toronto.

Oh and the poster who thinks it's all paranoia - the only "Tom Cruise" movie he criticized was the one with that SP Nicole - Kubricks "Eyes Wide Shut." Not to get off on another tangent but there are some weird anti-Scientology themes and comments that movie. It was pointed out to me by a few ex SO members online and I thought at the time it was a bit far fetched - until it revealed Kubrick lost his daughter to the cult and that she joined or became enamored around the same time he was able to start production on EWS.

I don't dismiss the cult's tentacles into the entertainment industry in LA - not the top dogs but they feed off the lower on the totem pole types. A good example is VF having to keep it's LA office completely cut off from the latest TC story due to all the known cult leaks and sympathizers in the office.
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
Every excellent movie gets one or two bad reviews, this is not a big deal. Movie critics are human, sometimes they say stupid things.
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Yeah, he's definitely an industry hack. Trying to remember his name I recalled he is the one name you will see with a positive blurb on the worst pieces of crap. Like the go to guy for the guy who will say a "not to miss tour de force" to put in ads when no one else will. (Peter Travers of RS is also the king of ad blurbs for crap.)

I would have chalked it up to his usual anti-intellectual, aggressive BS but I just can't figure why he would actually lie about the reception of the film in Venice & Toronto.

Oh and the poster who thinks it's all paranoia - the only "Tom Cruise" movie he criticized was the one with that SP Nicole - Kubricks "Eyes Wide Shut." Not to get off on another tangent but there are some weird anti-Scientology themes and comments that movie. It was pointed out to me by a few ex SO members online and I thought at the time it was a bit far fetched - until it revealed Kubrick lost his daughter to the cult and that she joined or became enamored around the same time he was able to start production on EWS.

I don't dismiss the cult's tentacles into the entertainment industry in LA - not the top dogs but they feed off the lower on the totem pole types. A good example is VF having to keep it's LA office completely cut off from the latest TC story due to all the known cult leaks and sympathizers in the office.

I didn't say "paranoid". You may be right about Reed though. I confirmed that he did lie about the audiences booing the movie. That cerainly indicates an agenda for his review. But in reality most people are going to ignore his review. I still predict this movie will earn several Oscars.
 
Top