Escape to the Movies: The Rite

zaphod121

New member
Nov 15, 2010
18
0
0
Unfortunately I wasted money on this movie.

I plead to others just stay home and watch Exorcist and Exorcist III if you want good exorcism movies (stay away from II though W. P. Blatty had nothing to do with it and calls III the sequel to I)
 

lastoflancas

New member
Aug 17, 2009
24
0
0
Gunnyboy said:
lastoflancas said:
This is exactly why I always stick to good old Asian horror films, if I ever want to get my horror movie fix. No, not remakes. Remakes tend to remove actual tension and thrill out of the original.
Yeah, how many dead ghost girls movies has Asia released? How many gore filled lame killer movies? Give me a break.
Uh, it's more of a horror aspect that I am looking for, not the plot. Personally, I think plot for both movie genres are pretty typical (at least Act 3 part is). Besides, I think I am more engaged to plot of Asian horror movie (which seldom has good/happy endings) than typical American serial killer movies.

In that Asian horror aspect, I think exorcism movies comes close, but not close enough these days. If you don't like any of them, that's fine by me. Just telling you that even actual American seeks something overseas.
 

ReiverCorrupter

New member
Jun 4, 2010
629
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
Snippy snip-

I learned of evolution at an early age, and yet it doesn't conflict with anything religion says. People are just trying to use religion as a cover so they can act like they are more than animals when humans are just that, smart animals. Life is amazing and can do and be anything, simple as that. Anyone who thinks life isn't incredibly flexible has one hell of a closed mind. The free will part was a part of the now-deleted point about free will and how god doesn't factor into what people do. Humanity is a big boy, and can make decisions for itself. It just so happens that people exercise their free will to make life hell for other people. You can't exactly blame and vilify god because people chose to be assholes. God didn't tell them to be assholes, they chose to be assholes by themselves. It's just humanity's way, and it has been humanity's way since we climbed our way up the evolutionary ladder to sentient thought.
What the hell is 'religion' and what does it say? I'm only familiar with different religious traditions and the sects they are composed of. Like I said, one can easily make a deist argument about god creating man through evolution. However, that person wouldn't have a literalistic interpretation of the bible. And many people do. Who's right in their interpretation? Not relevant to what I'm trying to say.

Another point to consider is the long running theological debate associated with free will and the problem of evil. You state your opinion as if you're the only one who has thought about this properly, but very clever people have been debating it for centuries. Free will is fine as long as you're willing to give up both god's complete omniscience and omnipotence. But many people find that option unattractive. But even putting god aside, there is considerable problems with the doctrine of free will from the physicalist standpoint. If a person's behavior is completely determined by physical factors, then they don't really have free will do they? Of course there's also compatiblist theories as well, but their move is usually to reduce the definition of free will to a much weaker stance, i.e. not being physically forced to do something. The problem with this is that a person is still bound to do what he or she is going to do, so it isn't a very meaningful solution.

You sound almost like a deist, though deists typically believe in an absentee god, i.e. a god that creates the universe and then goes off somewhere else. Not really satisfying as a personal deity though. I'm more sympathetic to deists, but that's because I REALLY dislike the idea of some universal father figure looking over my shoulder and judging everything I do. I like the more hands-off deities.
 

roostuf

New member
Dec 29, 2009
724
0
0
Thanks for the heads up bob but i already have "exorcism" movies on my dont watch list.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
ReiverCorrupter said:
Ultratwinkie said:
Snippy snip-

I learned of evolution at an early age, and yet it doesn't conflict with anything religion says. People are just trying to use religion as a cover so they can act like they are more than animals when humans are just that, smart animals. Life is amazing and can do and be anything, simple as that. Anyone who thinks life isn't incredibly flexible has one hell of a closed mind. The free will part was a part of the now-deleted point about free will and how god doesn't factor into what people do. Humanity is a big boy, and can make decisions for itself. It just so happens that people exercise their free will to make life hell for other people. You can't exactly blame and vilify god because people chose to be assholes. God didn't tell them to be assholes, they chose to be assholes by themselves. It's just humanity's way, and it has been humanity's way since we climbed our way up the evolutionary ladder to sentient thought.
What the hell is 'religion' and what does it say? I'm only familiar with different religious traditions and the sects they are composed of. Like I said, one can easily make a deist argument about god creating man through evolution. However, that person wouldn't have a literalistic interpretation of the bible. And many people do. Who's right in their interpretation? Not relevant to what I'm trying to say.

Another point to consider is the long running theological debate associated with free will and the problem of evil. You state your opinion as if you're the only one who has thought about this properly, but very clever people have been debating it for centuries. Free will is fine as long as you're willing to give up both god's complete omniscience and omnipotence. But many people find that option unattractive. But even putting god aside, there is considerable problems with the doctrine of free will from the physicalist standpoint. If a person's behavior is completely determined by physical factors, then they don't really have free will do they? Of course there's also compatiblist theories as well, but their move is usually to reduce the definition of free will to a much weaker stance, i.e. not being physically forced to do something. The problem with this is that a person is still bound to do what he or she is going to do, so it isn't a very meaningful solution.

You sound almost like a deist, though deists typically believe in an absentee god, i.e. a god that creates the universe and then goes off somewhere else. Not really satisfying as a personal deity though. I'm more sympathetic to deists, but that's because I REALLY dislike the idea of some universal father figure looking over my shoulder and judging everything I do. I like the more hands-off deities.
I am saying the link between a crime and god is nothing making the plot illogical. God cannot force you to kill, and if you say god did then you end up in an asylum. If i could blame a deity for a crime i would be rioting in the streets saying "Don't blame me! Blame Loki the Norse god of mischief, he made me do this!". That way all they can say is "that dastardly Loki! This is his 1,000th crime today!".

There is a reason i cut the free will part out, it would end in an infinite loop like other philosophical debates.
 

jabrwock

New member
Sep 5, 2007
204
0
0
The CBC reviewed this on the radio the other day, and the reviewer said pretty much the same thing. He was mad that Hopkins was "wasted" on such a mediocre plot.
 

ReiverCorrupter

New member
Jun 4, 2010
629
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
ReiverCorrupter said:
Ultratwinkie said:
Snippy snip-

I learned of evolution at an early age, and yet it doesn't conflict with anything religion says. People are just trying to use religion as a cover so they can act like they are more than animals when humans are just that, smart animals. Life is amazing and can do and be anything, simple as that. Anyone who thinks life isn't incredibly flexible has one hell of a closed mind. The free will part was a part of the now-deleted point about free will and how god doesn't factor into what people do. Humanity is a big boy, and can make decisions for itself. It just so happens that people exercise their free will to make life hell for other people. You can't exactly blame and vilify god because people chose to be assholes. God didn't tell them to be assholes, they chose to be assholes by themselves. It's just humanity's way, and it has been humanity's way since we climbed our way up the evolutionary ladder to sentient thought.
What the hell is 'religion' and what does it say? I'm only familiar with different religious traditions and the sects they are composed of. Like I said, one can easily make a deist argument about god creating man through evolution. However, that person wouldn't have a literalistic interpretation of the bible. And many people do. Who's right in their interpretation? Not relevant to what I'm trying to say.

Another point to consider is the long running theological debate associated with free will and the problem of evil. You state your opinion as if you're the only one who has thought about this properly, but very clever people have been debating it for centuries. Free will is fine as long as you're willing to give up both god's complete omniscience and omnipotence. But many people find that option unattractive. But even putting god aside, there is considerable problems with the doctrine of free will from the physicalist standpoint. If a person's behavior is completely determined by physical factors, then they don't really have free will do they? Of course there's also compatiblist theories as well, but their move is usually to reduce the definition of free will to a much weaker stance, i.e. not being physically forced to do something. The problem with this is that a person is still bound to do what he or she is going to do, so it isn't a very meaningful solution.

You sound almost like a deist, though deists typically believe in an absentee god, i.e. a god that creates the universe and then goes off somewhere else. Not really satisfying as a personal deity though. I'm more sympathetic to deists, but that's because I REALLY dislike the idea of some universal father figure looking over my shoulder and judging everything I do. I like the more hands-off deities.
I am saying the link between a crime and god is nothing making the plot illogical. God cannot force you to kill, and if you say god did then you end up in an asylum. If i could blame a deity for a crime i would be rioting in the streets saying "Don't blame me! Blame Loki the Norse god of mischief, he made me do this!". That way all they can say is "that dastardly Loki! This is his 1,000th crime today!".

There is a reason i cut the free will part out, it would end in an infinite loop like other philosophical debates.
The idea wasn't that he was blaming god. It was that he becomes disillusioned with religion as a social system and starts seeing it arising out of the needs of society and human nature. Atheists who blame god are idiots, and not really atheists at all. A real atheist is someone who just finds the idea of god unnecessary and too prone to creating absurdities, and they therefore reject the plausibility of the idea by using Ockham's razor, i.e. it's easier to explain the world and even the existence of religions through naturalistic means. I'm not saying that atheists are right or wrong, I'm just saying that the character doesn't have to hate god in order to become disillusioned with Christianity.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
ReiverCorrupter said:
Ultratwinkie said:
ReiverCorrupter said:
Ultratwinkie said:
Snippy snip-

I learned of evolution at an early age, and yet it doesn't conflict with anything religion says. People are just trying to use religion as a cover so they can act like they are more than animals when humans are just that, smart animals. Life is amazing and can do and be anything, simple as that. Anyone who thinks life isn't incredibly flexible has one hell of a closed mind. The free will part was a part of the now-deleted point about free will and how god doesn't factor into what people do. Humanity is a big boy, and can make decisions for itself. It just so happens that people exercise their free will to make life hell for other people. You can't exactly blame and vilify god because people chose to be assholes. God didn't tell them to be assholes, they chose to be assholes by themselves. It's just humanity's way, and it has been humanity's way since we climbed our way up the evolutionary ladder to sentient thought.
What the hell is 'religion' and what does it say? I'm only familiar with different religious traditions and the sects they are composed of. Like I said, one can easily make a deist argument about god creating man through evolution. However, that person wouldn't have a literalistic interpretation of the bible. And many people do. Who's right in their interpretation? Not relevant to what I'm trying to say.

Another point to consider is the long running theological debate associated with free will and the problem of evil. You state your opinion as if you're the only one who has thought about this properly, but very clever people have been debating it for centuries. Free will is fine as long as you're willing to give up both god's complete omniscience and omnipotence. But many people find that option unattractive. But even putting god aside, there is considerable problems with the doctrine of free will from the physicalist standpoint. If a person's behavior is completely determined by physical factors, then they don't really have free will do they? Of course there's also compatiblist theories as well, but their move is usually to reduce the definition of free will to a much weaker stance, i.e. not being physically forced to do something. The problem with this is that a person is still bound to do what he or she is going to do, so it isn't a very meaningful solution.

You sound almost like a deist, though deists typically believe in an absentee god, i.e. a god that creates the universe and then goes off somewhere else. Not really satisfying as a personal deity though. I'm more sympathetic to deists, but that's because I REALLY dislike the idea of some universal father figure looking over my shoulder and judging everything I do. I like the more hands-off deities.
I am saying the link between a crime and god is nothing making the plot illogical. God cannot force you to kill, and if you say god did then you end up in an asylum. If i could blame a deity for a crime i would be rioting in the streets saying "Don't blame me! Blame Loki the Norse god of mischief, he made me do this!". That way all they can say is "that dastardly Loki! This is his 1,000th crime today!".

There is a reason i cut the free will part out, it would end in an infinite loop like other philosophical debates.
The idea wasn't that he was blaming god. It was that he becomes disillusioned with religion as a social system and starts seeing it arising out of the needs of society and human nature. Atheists who blame god are idiots, and not really atheists at all. A real atheist is someone who just finds the idea of god unnecessary and too prone to creating absurdities, and they therefore reject the plausibility of the idea by using Ockham's razor, i.e. it's easier to explain the world and even the existence of religions through naturalistic means. I'm not saying that atheists are right or wrong, I'm just saying that the character doesn't have to hate god in order to become disillusioned with Christianity.
That same argument can be said of anything from government to science itself. It all depends on how the person uses said object instead of the said object itself. All he would gain i a new view that everything has a darker side that people can exploit.
 

ReiverCorrupter

New member
Jun 4, 2010
629
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
ReiverCorrupter said:
Ultratwinkie said:
ReiverCorrupter said:
Ultratwinkie said:
Snippy snip-

I learned of evolution at an early age, and yet it doesn't conflict with anything religion says. People are just trying to use religion as a cover so they can act like they are more than animals when humans are just that, smart animals. Life is amazing and can do and be anything, simple as that. Anyone who thinks life isn't incredibly flexible has one hell of a closed mind. The free will part was a part of the now-deleted point about free will and how god doesn't factor into what people do. Humanity is a big boy, and can make decisions for itself. It just so happens that people exercise their free will to make life hell for other people. You can't exactly blame and vilify god because people chose to be assholes. God didn't tell them to be assholes, they chose to be assholes by themselves. It's just humanity's way, and it has been humanity's way since we climbed our way up the evolutionary ladder to sentient thought.
What the hell is 'religion' and what does it say? I'm only familiar with different religious traditions and the sects they are composed of. Like I said, one can easily make a deist argument about god creating man through evolution. However, that person wouldn't have a literalistic interpretation of the bible. And many people do. Who's right in their interpretation? Not relevant to what I'm trying to say.

Another point to consider is the long running theological debate associated with free will and the problem of evil. You state your opinion as if you're the only one who has thought about this properly, but very clever people have been debating it for centuries. Free will is fine as long as you're willing to give up both god's complete omniscience and omnipotence. But many people find that option unattractive. But even putting god aside, there is considerable problems with the doctrine of free will from the physicalist standpoint. If a person's behavior is completely determined by physical factors, then they don't really have free will do they? Of course there's also compatiblist theories as well, but their move is usually to reduce the definition of free will to a much weaker stance, i.e. not being physically forced to do something. The problem with this is that a person is still bound to do what he or she is going to do, so it isn't a very meaningful solution.

You sound almost like a deist, though deists typically believe in an absentee god, i.e. a god that creates the universe and then goes off somewhere else. Not really satisfying as a personal deity though. I'm more sympathetic to deists, but that's because I REALLY dislike the idea of some universal father figure looking over my shoulder and judging everything I do. I like the more hands-off deities.
I am saying the link between a crime and god is nothing making the plot illogical. God cannot force you to kill, and if you say god did then you end up in an asylum. If i could blame a deity for a crime i would be rioting in the streets saying "Don't blame me! Blame Loki the Norse god of mischief, he made me do this!". That way all they can say is "that dastardly Loki! This is his 1,000th crime today!".

There is a reason i cut the free will part out, it would end in an infinite loop like other philosophical debates.
The idea wasn't that he was blaming god. It was that he becomes disillusioned with religion as a social system and starts seeing it arising out of the needs of society and human nature. Atheists who blame god are idiots, and not really atheists at all. A real atheist is someone who just finds the idea of god unnecessary and too prone to creating absurdities, and they therefore reject the plausibility of the idea by using Ockham's razor, i.e. it's easier to explain the world and even the existence of religions through naturalistic means. I'm not saying that atheists are right or wrong, I'm just saying that the character doesn't have to hate god in order to become disillusioned with Christianity.
That same argument can be said of anything from government to science itself. It all depends on how the person uses said object instead of the said object itself. All he would gain i a new view that everything has a darker side that people can exploit.
I'm not saying the character would be right or perfectly reasonable, or even that he loses his faith. Given the circumstances I think it's relatively reasonable if he looses his affinity for organized religion. Maybe he just quits the seminary and prays on his own.

It's true, the same thing could be said about government (I assume you're talking about disillusionment and not about Ockham's razor because that wouldn't make sense). And if someone had a really negative experience where someone in government abused their power, then it wouldn't be completely unreasonable that that person become disillusioned with government. Granted, it doesn't mean that government is all bad, but the negative experience could be more than enough to put the person off of it. It's kind of like whiskey or tequila.
 

Mosstromo

New member
Jul 5, 2008
227
0
0
Movie Bob is "rite" in all accounts: the film sucks for the reasons he enumerated. PLUS... the most intriguing sequences that made me want to go and watch it, do not feature in the goddamned movie.
It is a waste of time, and the money that accompanies the use of such time.
:-(
 

D0WNT0WN

New member
Sep 28, 2008
808
0
0
Im only seeing this because a girl im into has an amazing love of horror movies. Im at least hoping for some shocking jumpy moments, even if the trailers pretty much gave the whole twist of the movie away.
 

HandofSet

New member
Sep 10, 2008
4
0
0
As someone that's actually read the book, I found the movie disappointing compared to what it could have been. About the closest this gets to truth or the story its based on is that there are exorcists in Rome. Honestly, I think if they would have adapted the book to a tv show format, and you know, followed the story and concepts in the book, it would have been much more solid.

As for the stakes an exorcism film, you have to remember that spiritual warfare is different than traditional warfare. If a demon possesses a person and guns down a bunch of random strangers, all they're accomplishing in their eyes is early transition of those souls. If they go "recruiting" and kill a bunch of bad people, they lessen the evil in the world caused by those people. If they take out good people, they're sending souls to god before they potentially could have been corrupted. None of these are of long term benefit. Think of a demon as a special forces operative who goes behind enemy lines to try and force a good(ish) soul into hell by alternate means, and in the process wreak misery in the lives of the people around the possessed. If the demon is successful, then one must remember that it doesn't end with the possessed dieing, it ends with an eternity of torment in Hell. Eternity in a pit of suffering beyond human imagining is a pretty big stake.

Of course there is another kind of possession too, which is influenced by a simple fact. Demon's hate us. Not in the day to day sense of "I hate such and such an artist" or "I hate my ex", but in the kind of inhuman sense that you see in the worst psycho sadists. Sometimes the pain that a demon subjects people to isn't about some Eternal War or rebelling against the throne, but simply because they enjoy it, the same way Dahmer enjoyed torturing his victims. Demons are evil, not in the supposedly cool or edgy way, but twisted and absolutely wrong. So not every possession will be part of some great grander scheme, but rather simply the demon getting off on hurting people. According to the book it happens a lot to people who use curses/black magic.

As an aside, now that I sound like a crazy religious person let me also state that I'm all for medical examination and treatment of people claiming possession. Priests treat spiritual maladies, not physical or mental ones, and to try and use exorcism to solve non spiritual problems is like performing an amputation to cut the crazy out, it will waste the wrong doctor's time, make things worse, and the original problem will remain.
 

Space Lion

Void Traveller
Apr 4, 2010
20
0
0
Thanks Bob, I almost missed something with Anthony Hopkins in.

PS. Rec 1 and 2 are exorcism films technically and I know their foreign and you've seen Quarantine the American remake but they really blow exorcism flicks out of the friggin' water. Even if you have seen Quarantine watch them, you won't regret it.
 

Duskwaith

New member
Sep 20, 2008
647
0
0
Boba Frag said:
Hi Bob, Ciarán Hinds' name is pronounced "Kee-raWn", not Cee-rawn.

Cheers.
I laughed when i heard that.

Anthony Hopkins can make any movie good, hes that good
 

Boba Frag

New member
Dec 11, 2009
1,288
0
0
Duskwaith said:
Boba Frag said:
Hi Bob, Ciarán Hinds' name is pronounced "Kee-raWn", not Cee-rawn.

Cheers.
I laughed when i heard that.

Anthony Hopkins can make any movie good, hes that good
Eh, I'm glad you got a chuckle then? I'm just one of those people that have an impulse to correct mispronunciations :p
Plus it's painful hearing it pronounced the way Bob did.

And I've watched many a subpar or shoddy movie purely because I wanted to see Hopkins in it. Even the lacklustre Hannibal. Not a fan of Moore, but loved the arty surroundings and his performance.