|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 29, 2019 21:33:59 GMT
If the movie, The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005), was discussed much here or on the previous IMDb board I must have missed it.
It appears to be a rather significant oversight.
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Aug 29, 2019 22:05:14 GMT
It popped up a lot on the Horror Board.
It's worth a look, nothing special, nothing you haven't seen in a million other demonic possession flicks, very loosely inspired by a true story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 29, 2019 22:40:22 GMT
If the movie, The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005), was discussed much here or on the previous IMDb board I must have missed it. It appears to be a rather significant oversight. Not your favorite movie, goz? Why not? They totally misunderstood and misrepresented proofs of spirit. That's your style.
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Aug 30, 2019 22:36:18 GMT
It was a box office hit.
6.7 on imdb, pretty decent rating. A fair majority of those who rated it obviously liked it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 30, 2019 23:41:31 GMT
It was a box office hit.
6.7 on imdb, pretty decent rating. A fair majority of those who rated it obviously liked it.
Why am I not surprised?
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Sept 1, 2019 9:27:21 GMT
I have seen that movie, i thought it was boring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 1, 2019 13:20:28 GMT
I have seen that movie, i thought it was boring. It's noticeably anti-Catholic, but that is not the problem. I suppose God might get along fine without Catholics. What is really wrong with the movie is such amateur scientists are running things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 9, 2019 13:31:09 GMT
The Exorcism Of Arlon10 sounds like it might do a world of good for the possessed one.
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Sept 12, 2019 7:31:18 GMT
3/10 I never cared for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Sept 12, 2019 12:05:22 GMT
It won a few awards.
Saturn Award for Best Horror Film - 2006
Golden Trailer for Best Horror - 2006
MTV Movie Award for Best Frightened Performance (Jennifer Carpenter) - 2006
Scream Award for Breakout Performance (Jennifer Carpenter) - 2006
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 12, 2019 12:28:50 GMT
It won a few awards.
Saturn Award for Best Horror Film - 2006
Golden Trailer for Best Horror - 2006
MTV Movie Award for Best Frightened Performance (Jennifer Carpenter) - 2006
Scream Award for Breakout Performance (Jennifer Carpenter) - 2006 What I especially disliked was that the movie "disproved" exorcism and what are known as "proofs" of the spirit to people who have the rare experiences with them. We've been over it before on this board. If a person speaks a foreign language "without study or training" most people are going to believe they actually had study and training but are lying about it. A child's own mother is one of very few people who will be certain what study or training there was. Similarly, knowledge of some very private event in a person's life is going to be disregarded by the wide world as a scam, only the person certain the information could only be obtained through extrasensory perception will be impressed. You perhaps noticed that there are several mentally retarded people on this board who are rather adamant that "there is no evidence" of spiritual phenomena. What is true is that the evidence is not generally available to the wide world for the reasons I mentioned. The movie The Exorcism of Emily Rose will make the doubters feel triumphant without good reason. Otherwise the movie was a typical fright movie. I suspect some of the "awards" were the result of the military grunts who are determined to "win the game" even though they obviously do not deserve to win.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Sept 12, 2019 13:07:38 GMT
You perhaps noticed that there are several mentally retarded people on this board who are rather adamant that "there is no evidence" of spiritual phenomena. That's because for anyone with the discipline and standards that an understanding of science and human nature impose, there really is no evidence of supernatural phenomena. For someone with no standards such as yourself, you'll always find reasons to be deeply gullible, and even be proud of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Sept 12, 2019 15:28:47 GMT
It was pretty meh. 5/10 from me. Nowhere near as good as the original Exorcist. Basically it's a film about how even well-meaning religious types can end up doing harm.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 12, 2019 17:15:15 GMT
Looks lame
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 12, 2019 18:13:04 GMT
I especially disliked was that the movie "disproved" exorcism OK then: how would one ' prove' exorcism? (As opposed to different types of mental illness, say) Are you here referring to the speaking in tongues (glossolalia)? Or just the very widely observed and familiar phenomenon of someone in a bi-lingual family (or a immigrant one) speaking two languages fluently? It certainly true that the credulous are always among the first to be impressed ... by anything. What I think you describe is the anti-realist position where the truth of a statement rests on its demonstrability through internal logic mechanisms, such as the context principle or intuitionistic logic, in direct opposition to the realist notion that the truth of a statement rests on its correspondence to an external, independent reality. Or in simple terms, something can be true and valid, if only for the individual. This is a perfectly consistent and logical way to view reality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2019 1:59:19 GMT
Possession is 9/10 law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 13, 2019 9:17:18 GMT
You perhaps noticed that there are several mentally retarded people on this board who are rather adamant that "there is no evidence" of spiritual phenomena. That's because for anyone with the discipline and standards that an understanding of science and human nature impose, there really is no evidence of supernatural phenomena. For someone with no standards such as yourself, you'll always find reasons to be deeply gullible, and even be proud of it. Perhaps your problem is with English rather than science. 1 I have seen no evidence. 2 There is no evidence. Sentences 1 and 2 do not necessarily mean the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 13, 2019 9:27:55 GMT
I especially disliked was that the movie "disproved" exorcism OK then: how would one ' prove' exorcism? (As opposed to different types of mental illness, say) Are you here referring to the speaking in tongues (glossolalia)? Or just the very widely observed and familiar phenomenon of someone in a bi-lingual family (or a immigrant one) speaking two languages fluently? It certainly true that the credulous are always among the first to be impressed ... by anything. What I think you describe is the anti-realist position where the truth of a statement rests on its demonstrability through internal logic mechanisms, such as the context principle or intuitionistic logic, in direct opposition to the realist notion that the truth of a statement rests on its correspondence to an external, independent reality. Or in simple terms, something can be true and valid, if only for the individual. This is a perfectly consistent and logical way to view reality. A quaint expression from ancient Rome is, "One witness is no witness." Your view is rather more extreme, "The fox does not exist until a crowd sees it," is known as the "mentally retarded" logic. When you recover your mental health you should be able to understand that existence does not depend on witnesses of any number. It is also known as the infant game "peek-a-boo" where a face or other object is hidden from an infant in order to surprise the infant that the thing hidden did not cease to exist simply by being hidden.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Sept 13, 2019 9:55:45 GMT
I especially disliked was that the movie "disproved" exorcism OK then: how would one ' prove' exorcism? (As opposed to different types of mental illness, say) Are you here referring to the speaking in tongues (glossolalia)? Or just the very widely observed and familiar phenomenon of someone in a bi-lingual family (or a immigrant one) speaking two languages fluently? It certainly true that the credulous are always among the first to be impressed ... by anything. What I think you describe is the anti-realist position where the truth of a statement rests on its demonstrability through internal logic mechanisms, such as the context principle or intuitionistic logic, in direct opposition to the realist notion that the truth of a statement rests on its correspondence to an external, independent reality. Or in simple terms, something can be true and valid, if only for the individual. This is a perfectly consistent and logical way to view reality. ...and the incredulous refuse to be impressed by anything. I believe there are things in this world that cannot be scientifically quantified. Can we quantify love? Or see it? Or feel it? But we know it exists - we assume it's real.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Sept 13, 2019 10:17:06 GMT
Perhaps your problem is with English rather than science. 1 I have seen no evidence. 2 There is no evidence. Sentences 1 and 2 do not necessarily mean the same thing. For centuries there has been debate over evidence for the supernatural, with believers eager to share and notes taken by all sides. Given that your side has nothing but weak and questionable bullshit to show for yourselves, the conclusion that there is no evidence is as safe as anything.
|
|
