Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Library => Topic started by: andy on April 18, 2023, 07:12:53 PM
-
for some reason I cannot post it the general category so here it comes.
Any opinions about Nefarious movie?
-
Is the movie named “Nefarious”?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txwrLGAL7Sg
-
I saw this movie....The actor that played the possessed prisoner was very good...
He was stating his case from the point of the demon so it was revelatory. Certainly many people need to hear this. But the other main actors and cast were of a lesser quality and quite pedestrian. The low point of the movie was at the end when Glenn Beck was supposedly interviewing the psychiatrist who "treated" the possessed prisoner. GB must have financed this because his big mug on the screen was very "cringe"- there was really no good reason for him to show up in the film. I would give it a 5 out of 10 rating.
-
Just heard great review from Catholic friends I deeply respect. According to them, the trailer really isn't a good indication of the movie as a whole. We hope to see it at some point.
-
I saw the movie yesterday and I thought it was quite good. I have red a review written by an exorcist and he said it was an accurate depicting of what possession looks like. There is np profanity in the movie, it is not a horror film, it does make you think. I was fully alert during the whole thing.
-
I don't see it listed anywhere in Vermont.
-
Intersting thing is that it gets 30% "fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes ... from the critics, but 97% from audiences.
This invariably means that there's something not "politically correct" about the movie or isn't touchy-feely enough, etc.
-
Intersting thing is that it gets 30% "fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes ... from the critics, but 97% from audiences.
This invariably means that there's something not "politically correct" about the movie or isn't touchy-feely enough, etc.
So I read summaries of the the first 5 negative reviews from critics and ... BINGO. Here are 4 of the 5:
The film's heavy-handed and bogus message tells us that Hollywood is immoral because it acts to corrupt its viewer's minds.
...
The only thing not covered in this Christo-fascist manifesto of a movie is “guns.”
...
While there are moments of intensity in Nefarious, there isn't a moment in the film that feels like cinematic horror unless you're talking about one of those evangelical haunted houses where demons pop out of the walls to warn of the evils of the world.
...
Nefarious builds to a howler of a climax that delivers exactly what you’d anticipate from the makers of God’s Not Dead, just in an even more preposterous way. The big scene would be perfect for an Airplane!-style spoof of evangelical-themed films.
Nearly all movie critics are flaming Leftist anti-religious hedonistic dirtbags.
If a move has a PC theme, promoting sodomy or anything immotal, it'll get rave reviews from these scuм critics. But dare a movie touch upon anything non-PC, their objective and unbiased "reviews" try to shred the movie.
I use Rotten Tomatoes as an anti-review. If I find a much higher audience score than the critics score, it's usually a safe bet that it's a good movie.
-
I have red a review written by an exorcist and he said it was an accurate depicting of what possession looks like.
I only watched the trailer. Can devil just pop a light bulb like this? No way.
-
I only watched the trailer.
That trailer strikes me as bait for those who are just looking for a movie to watch. Well done. :laugh1:
I haven't seen the movie, but I listen to Deace enough to know who/what Nefarious is all about.
-
My husband and I watched the movie. We were the only ones in the movie theater which was cool. It was spot on about people being possessed by demons. (Yes, demons can blow out lightbulbs.) There are many people walking around these days who are possessed for real.
Lol. Dr James Martin. That was funny. ( Fr. James Martin).
Yes, the actor who played the criminal did a great job.
Good movie. Yes, it was a horror film. It was scary.
-
Yes, demons can blow out lightbulbs.
This is like saying that Satan can exceed natural laws. He cannot. Would you mind to provide a good quote from reliable source that is possible?
-
This is like saying that Satan can exceed natural laws. He cannot. Would you mind to provide a good quote from reliable source that is possible?
Of course he can. He's a preternatural being. Preternatural=beyond what is natural.
-
I only watched the trailer. Can devil just pop a light bulb like this? No way.
Hmmm? Of course the devil can pop a light bulb.
-
Hmmm? Of course the devil can pop a light bulb.
Still no quotes and to the contrary of what St. Thomas says https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1110.htm
-
If a demon can make someone levitate, he surely can break a light bulb.
-
According to Saint Thomas, Angels can affect nature by employing corporeal seeds by local movement. So breaking a light bulb for an Angel is no problem, just as we can break a bulb by hitting it.
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]I answer that, A miracle (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm) properly so called is when something is done outside the order of nature (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm). But it is not enough for a miracle (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm) if something is done outside the order of any particular nature (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm); for otherwise anyone would perform a miracle (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm) by throwing a stone upwards, as such a thing is outside the order of the stone's nature (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm). So for a miracle (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm) is required that it be against the order of the whole created (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm) nature (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm). But God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) alone can do this, because, whatever an angel (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm) or any other creature does by its own power, is according to the order of created (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm) nature (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm); and thus it is not a miracle (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm). Hence God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) alone can work miracles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm).[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Reply to Objection 1. Some angels (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm) are said to work miracles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm); either because God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) works miracles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm) at their request, in the same way as holy (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07386a.htm) men are said to work miracles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm); or because they exercise a kind of ministry in the miracles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm) which take place; as in collecting the dust in the general resurrection (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12792a.htm), or by doing something of that kind.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Reply to Objection 2. Properly speaking, as said above, miracles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm) are those things which are done outside the order of the whole created (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm) nature (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm). But as we do not know (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) all the power of created (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm) nature (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm), it follows that when anything is done outside the order of created (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm) nature (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) by a power unknown to us, it is called a miracle (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm) as regards ourselves. So when the demons (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04710a.htm) do anything of their own natural (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) power, these things are called "miracles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm)" not in an absolute sense, but in reference to ourselves. In this way the magicians work miracles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm) through the demons (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04710a.htm); and these are said to be done by "private contracts," forasmuch as every power of the creature, in the universe (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15183a.htm), may be compared to the power of a private person (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) in a city. Hence when a magician does anything by compact with the devil (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm), this is done as it were by private contract. On the other hand, the Divine justice (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htm) is in the whole universe (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15183a.htm) as the public law (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm) is in the city. Therefore good (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm) Christians (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm), so far as they work miracles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm) by Divine justice (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htm), are said to work miracles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm) by "public justice (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htm)": but bad Christians (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) by the "signs of public justice (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htm)," as by invoking the name of Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), or by making use of other sacred signs.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Reply to Objection 3. Spiritual powers are able to effect whatever happens in this visible world, by employing corporeal seeds by local movement.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Reply to Objection 4. Although the angels (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm) can do something which is outside the order of corporeal nature (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm), yet they cannot do anything outside the whole created (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm) order, which is essential (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm) to a miracle (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm), as above explained.[/color]
-
Still no quotes and to the contrary of what St. Thomas says https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1110.htm
This says the exact opposite of what you claim it's evidence for.
-
This says the exact opposite of what you claim it's evidence for.
You are hallucinating.
Reply to Objection 3. Spiritual powers are able to effect whatever happens in this visible world, by employing corporeal seeds by local movement.
Reply to Objection 4. Although the angels (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm) can do something which is outside the order of corporeal nature (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm), yet they cannot do anything outside the whole created (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm) order, which is essential (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm) to a miracle (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm), as above explained.
Reply to Objection 2. The angels (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm), by causing (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03459a.htm) local motion, as the first motion, can thereby cause (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03459a.htm) other movements; that is, by employing corporeal agents to produce these effects, as a workman employs fire to soften iron.
Demons can influence souls and hence indirectly movements of humans or animals but will never ever be able to go beyond natural law.
E.g. a demon can make a person to dial the phone number but will never be able to do that himself.
-
So I read summaries of the the first 5 negative reviews from critics and ... BINGO. Here are 4 of the 5:
Nearly all movie critics are flaming Leftist anti-religious hedonistic dirtbags.
If a move has a PC theme, promoting sodomy or anything immotal, it'll get rave reviews from these scuм critics. But dare a movie touch upon anything non-PC, their objective and unbiased "reviews" try to shred the movie.
I use Rotten Tomatoes as an anti-review. If I find a much higher audience score than the critics score, it's usually a safe bet that it's a good movie.
Bravo!
The way I used to select movies was to check the L.A. Times and select from the movies they hated.
-
You are hallucinating.
Demons can influence souls and hence indirectly movements of humans or animals but will never ever be able to go beyond natural law.
E.g. a demon can make a person to dial the phone number but will never be able to do that himself.
:facepalm: ... St. Thomas is explaining that it is NOT beyond the natural law for them to be able to manipulate matter. You're begging the question that because angels are pure spirit that they cannot interact with the material world. This is simply incorrect. By the same "reasoning", God, who (outside of the Incarnation) is also Pure Spirit (or, rather Pure Being) could never have done things like part the Red Sea or perform any other such miracle.
Please quit while you're behind. I mean, are daft, man, and simply lack the comprehension to even see St. Thomas' Reply to Objection 3?
All this passage is saying is that something is not properly a "miracle" because it surpasses the capabilities fo the thing being affected, but has to be outside the order of nature per se.
-
All this passage is saying is that something is not properly a "miracle" because it surpasses the capabilities fo the thing being affected, but has to be outside the order of nature per se.
Demons are capable to dial a phone number directly: true or false?
Is dialing a phone number directly by demon a miracle: true or false?
-
Let's also not forget that, in the times we live in, the devil has been given (temporary) greater power over men who choose to follow him and also nature. Per Pope Leo XIII's vision, we live in unique times in all of history.
-
Let's also not forget that, in the times we live in, the devil has been given (temporary) greater power over men who choose to follow him and also nature. Per Pope Leo XIII's vision, we live in unique times in all of history.
Over man but not over the natural law. This is the key distinction here.
-
Interviewing the Directors of Nefarious - Spiritual & Earthly Battles
"I interviewed Cary Solomon and Chuck Konzelman, the directors and writers of the new thriller Nefarious. They explained their struggles with canceling in Hollywood, how bizarre spiritual battles impacted the production, and the greater point of the movie as it relates to our culture. Check out the interview and go see the movie!"
(https://gab.com/CrusaderGal/posts/110238173505920768)Sarah Cain on Gab: 'Interviewing the Directors of Nefarious - Spiritua…' (https://gab.com/CrusaderGal/posts/110238173505920768)
-
Interviewing the Directors of Nefarious - Spiritual & Earthly Battles
"I interviewed Cary Solomon and Chuck Konzelman, the directors and writers of the new thriller Nefarious. They explained their struggles with canceling in Hollywood, how bizarre spiritual battles impacted the production, and the greater point of the movie as it relates to our culture. Check out the interview and go see the movie!"
(https://gab.com/CrusaderGal/posts/110238173505920768)Sarah Cain on Gab: 'Interviewing the Directors of Nefarious - Spiritua…' (https://gab.com/CrusaderGal/posts/110238173505920768)
So you trust Novus Ordo catholics more than St. Thomas? Huh.
I started watching this interview but things started getting odd when they say the intention was to "Trojan Horse" minds of unbelievers. That does not sound honest nor catholic.
One more thing from the trailer which is just false. The "demon" says 'you will kill 3 people today'. This is the lie. Demons do not know the future.
-
We saw it as a Family. there were several quotes from the demon which were apes of the words of Our Lord. an interesting scene was when the N.O. Priest came in and as saying that the church's no longer believers in silly superstition like possession. The Demon calls him a fraud and a "Poser". r3ferencing the invalid orders of the Post 68 ritual?
-
We saw it as a Family. there were several quotes from the demon which were apes of the words of Our Lord. an interesting scene was when the N.O. Priest came in and as saying that the church's no longer believers in silly superstition like possession. The Demon calls him a fraud and a "Poser". r3ferencing the invalid orders of the Post 68 ritual?
No doubt the demon is "content" - in the diabolical framework of the term - that the so called priest does not believe in possession, and thus the diabolic altogether.
(https://i.imgflip.com/2j92p8.jpg)
-
From the brief snippets I've seen on Youtube, this movie strikes me as overly didactic and ideologically on the nose. Like it was written by a couple of theology nerds without a sense for realistic dialogue.
Did anyone else have this sense?
-
From the brief snippets I've seen on Youtube, this movie strikes me as overly didactic and ideologically on the nose. Like it was written by a couple of theology nerds without a sense for realistic dialogue.
Did anyone else have this sense?
No, I thought it was excellent. What kind of "realistic dialogue" were you expecting? Context was the demon attempting to persuade this psychologist evaluator to do his bidding and to persuade him that he was in fact a demon, and so the dialogue fits well within that context.
-
Over man but not over the natural law. This is the key distinction here.
.
Angels are able to move physical objects. The angel rolled back the stone of Christ's sepulcher. An angel stirred up the water at the probatic pool in St. John's gospel, chapter 5. There are countless other examples in Scripture.
-
No, I thought it was excellent. What kind of "realistic dialogue" were you expecting? Context was the demon attempting to persuade this psychologist evaluator to do his bidding and to persuade him that he was in fact a demon, and so the dialogue fits well within that context.
I agree. The dialogue is excellent and is not "overly theological".
-
Like it was written by a couple of theology nerds without a sense for realistic dialogue.
That's the point. Angels (and demons, despite their darkened intellects) are very intelligent.
-
We saw the movie and recommend it.
-
I thought about watching this film when it came out in the theaters. It got such poor ratings from the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ/Communist press that it interested me. Then I heard Glen Beck was in it and decided to pass. I guess I will watch it at home.
-
I heard Glen Beck was in it and decided to pass.
In a useless scene at the end that could've been cut without any loss, yes.
-
I had seen the movie when friends asked the other day if I could get it up for them. My son got it up and six saw it and were very moved by it as Catholics. I wondered how such a movie would be shown in a cinema given what it revealed. As I suppose most know it was about a possessed prisoner due to be hung being interviewed by an typical young atheist psychologist who was to determine if the man was insane. If found insane he could not be hung. The prisoner says he is possessed and it was this devil who made him commit the crime. then the demon took over and takes on the psychologist's beliefs. In other words in this case it is a demon who argues the case for God, not a saint. Then the demon in the prisoner tells the psychologist he too has committed two murders and will commit a third before it is finished. He tells the atheist how he was responsible for an abortion of his child, a murder. He then tells the atheist he was responsible for the murder of his mother when agreeing to her euthanasia before she died of natural causes. This is the part that made sure the movie will not be popular among anyone other than those who know abortion and euthanasia are mortal sins against God and coming from a demon, not from a saint or priest. The third murder is when the psychologist signs the prisoner off as sane after being told he is possessed.
-
In a useless scene at the end that could've been cut without any loss, yes.
Yeah, Beck almost ruined the movie. If I watch it again, I would stop before it gets to that point.
To paraphrase Gollum from the Lord of the Rings: "The fat one; he ruins it." :laugh1:
-
I see it's now on DVD. I might buy it:
Amazon.com: Nefarious [DVD] : Chuck Konzelman, Cary Solomon, Sean Patrick Flanery, Jordan Belfi, James Healy Jr.: Movies & TV (https://www.amazon.com/Nefarious-DVD-Chuck-Konzelman/dp/B0C6FMBCSF#customerReviews)
-
I saw it twice- there is a line that really impressed me but you have to listen carefully. It's in one of the devil's ( possessed man's) rants.
I'm paraphrasing, but he said it was much easier to destroy the children because so many are unbaptized.
That really hit me because my brother's grandchildren are unbaptized and are being raised "evangelical". They are all under the age of reason. People are allowing their children to go to Hell (limbo) before the age of reason because they are against infant baptism. I know that the whole of Protestantism is heresy and deserving of hell, but I hate it that the innocents are lost so easily.
-
I saw it twice- there is a line that really impressed me but you have to listen carefully. It's in one of the devil's ( possessed man's) rants.
I'm paraphrasing, but he said it was much easier to destroy the children because so many are unbaptized.
That really hit me because my brother's grandchildren are unbaptized and are being raised "evangelical". They are all under the age of reason. People are allowing their children to go to Hell (limbo) before the age of reason because they are against infant baptism. I know that the whole of Protestantism is heresy and deserving of hell, but I hate it that the innocents are lost so easily.
Friends of mine, very traditional Catholics, told me their grandchildren are not baptised even though their parents, my friends children, were reared with the TLM. That is now more rampant than Catholics leaving the faith. Serious.
-
I saw it twice- there is a line that really impressed me but you have to listen carefully. It's in one of the devil's ( possessed man's) rants.
I'm paraphrasing, but he said it was much easier to destroy the children because so many are unbaptized.
That struck me as well, given that Protestants were behind this movie.
-
Now free on Amazon Prime.
I liked it overall, but I thought the first half was much better than the second.
I thought it was funny how the movie is based on a book that is then pitched to you at the end of the movie. :laugh1:
I didn't like how they really wanted you to feel sorry for the possessed man despite the demon explaining early on that he had to be a willing participant in order to become / remain possessed.
-
Every time I see a video of our idiot "president" I feel like I'm watching Nefarious in real time.
-
Now free on Amazon Prime.
I liked it overall, but I thought the first half was much better than the second.
I thought it was funny how the movie is based on a book that is then pitched to you at the end of the movie. :laugh1:
I didn't like how they really wanted you to feel sorry for the possessed man despite the demon explaining early on that he had to be a willing participant in order to become / remain possessed.
The old " devil made me do it " is a bunch of accountability avoidance crap.
If this guy killed one of my family members, you think I want to hear that bs?
-
Yeah, Beck almost ruined the movie. If I watch it again, I would stop before it gets to that point.
To paraphrase Gollum from the Lord of the Rings: "The fat one; he ruins it." :laugh1:
Sometimes Trads drive me nuts. Several members have complained about Beck in this thread. To those members: what IS your problem with Glenn Beck? I'm not saying you have to become a Mormon, or start sending him financial support, but do we really need to dislike him that much? He's a conservative talk show host. Doesn't he get a lot of things right about the things he talks about? Politics, current events, etc.?
Just because he's not awake to the JQ he's completely useless? Is that it?
Glenn Beck's existence, his work, and his continued "sucking of air" doesn't bother me ONE BIT. I'm not in his target audience, I know more than he does, he's not my cup of tea -- but he doesn't bother me. Actually Taylor Marshall's "apostolate" bothers me MUCH MUCH more, because he is supposed to be conservative/Trad Catholic, and he has no place teaching people, despite his Episcopalian clergy background. He is just a layman.
Maybe it's because Beck is not attempting to be a religious leader for Traditional Catholics. He is just working as a talk show host -- which is perfectly suitable for laymen. Taylor Marshall however attempts to be a "religious leader" and spokesman for conservative if not Traditional Catholicism. And like a priest, he seeks financial support from laymen as if he works in the Lord's vineyard. Hey, go get ordained and then we'll talk! In my book, there is only ONE kind of "religious leader" for a Catholic and they all go by "Father", "Your Excellency" or higher titles. Marshall only woke up himself a few years ago, and now he's an "expert" and teacher of men. Ugh. He's not part of the Ecclesia Docens, so he shouldn't pretend to be. If he limited himself to teaching politics/current events/news issues, like Beck or other talk show hosts, I wouldn't have a problem with him. Anyhow, back to the subject at hand...
One thing I've been fully convinced of, is that Trads are SUPER PICKY and can never be pleased with anything short of a Traditional Catholic saint. They find fault with EVERYTHING and it can be quite annoying to those with less than 100% "blackpilled" negativity flowing in their veins. Those with a touch of optimism left.
In other words, it's annoying how many Trads are blackpilled. They think it's over, there are no good guys, they give up on everyone and everything. These same Trads usually have no heroes in the Trad movement either, because they have such a CRITICAL SPIRIT they tear apart everything and everyone, even those within their own movement. You just can't please them.
It's a good thing I know that these negative Trads are a minority, AND such negativity is not essential to being Traditional Catholic or it would be very discouraging.
-
Glenn Beck tells serious lies.
The last time I watch his show when the Ukraine war started, everything he said was correct, but the poison was in the premise was that "Russia invaded for no reason as an aggressor" which was totally false and that lie colored everything else stated about Ukraine.
He is zionist run so I can't take him seriously - he's terribly compromised.
-
Glenn Beck tells serious lies.
The last time I watch his show when the Ukraine war started, everything he said was correct, but the poison was in the premise was that "Russia invaded for no reason as an aggressor" which was totally false and that lie colored everything else stated about Ukraine.
He is zionist run so I can't take him seriously - he's terribly compromised.
Maybe ignorance is bliss.
I haven't watched Glenn Beck myself. I've only caught bits and pieces of his voice in different contexts. I know OF him, but like most talk show hosts I don't spend any time listening to them. I'm not part of their target audience.
Once you know about the JQ, you're going to know more (have more of the truth) than most of these talk show hosts, and then their errors -- the parts they DON'T get right -- are only going to annoy you.
-
Sometimes Trads drive me nuts. Several members have complained about Beck in this thread. To those members: what IS your problem with Glenn Beck? I'm not saying you have to become a Mormon, or start sending him financial support, but do we really need to dislike him that much? He's a conservative talk show host. Doesn't he get a lot of things right about the things he talks about? Politics, current events, etc.?
So, in the context of this movie, my problem with Beck was just that the stupid interview segment basically ruined the movie. It was ridiculously cheesy and took the movie from being a solid move into the typical Protestant cheese-land, ala the "Left Behind" movies.
Otherwise, he's virulently pro-Israel, was very anti-Trump (including his famous cheetos-face schtick) ... so typical fake neocon, but my criticism of Beck in the move wasn't in that regard, just that the entire segment ruined the movie, IMO.
-
So, in the context of this movie, my problem with Beck was just that the stupid interview segment basically ruined the movie. It was ridiculously cheesy and took the movie from being a solid move into the typical Protestant cheese-land, ala the "Left Behind" movies.
I thought it went downhill way before that last scene. It was solid up until the abortion phone call, but started to fall apart after that.
-
Trads are SUPER PICKY and can never be pleased with anything short of a Traditional Catholic saint. They find fault with EVERYTHING and it can be quite annoying to those with less than 100% "blackpilled" negativity flowing in their veins.
Yup. Not exactly a quality that will lead one to heaven.
-
OK, I understand what you're saying, Matthew, about some Trads being extremely picky. I've been annoyed by the attacks on +Vigano, Shia LaBeouf, etc. But I'm also not going to say that Glenn should be nominated for an academy award in the movie when his segment stunk and added the Prot "cheese" element into what I considered an otherwise-fantastic movie. I passed over the fact that there was no reference to Our Lady, but pointed out the positive elements, some of which were surprisingly Catholic. I stated that I didn't find anything in there contrary to Catholic faith, even if there were some gaps.
With that said, there's a difference between Trads being extremely picky (going after +Vigano, LaBeouf, etc. for every perceived fault or imperfection) ... and being critical of Glenn Beck who's virulently pro-Zionist, despised Trump for the wrong reasons, etc.
Even then, I would have given him a pass for just being in the movie ... except that I felt that his segment in the movie dramatically reduced the quality of the entire thing. So it was from the perspective of "movie critic" only.
-
OK, I understand what you're saying, Matthew, about some Trads being extremely picky. I've been annoyed by the attacks on +Vigano, Shia LaBeouf, etc. But I'm also not going to say that Glenn should be nominated for an academy award in the movie when his segment stunk and added the Prot "cheese" element into what I considered an otherwise-fantastic movie. I passed over the fact that there was no reference to Our Lady, but pointed out the positive elements, some of which were surprisingly Catholic. I stated that I didn't find anything in there contrary to Catholic faith, even if there were some gaps.
With that said, there's a difference between Trads being extremely picky (going after +Vigano, LaBeouf, etc. for every perceived fault or imperfection) ... and being critical of Glenn Beck who's virulently pro-Zionist, despised Trump for the wrong reasons, etc.
Even then, I would have given him a pass for just being in the movie ... except that I felt that his segment in the movie dramatically reduced the quality of the entire thing. So it was from the perspective of "movie critic" only.
Ok, fair enough.
-
Here's a thought --
Some of us might be tempted to think it's ONLY an issue of "well, the movie didn't violate anything theologically"
BUT what about all the things it DID state -- ideas and truths that never get said these days?
For Ladislaus and myself, such facts about theology and the supernatural are a given -- about as exciting as 2+2 = 4.
But what about people who have never heard these concepts? It might seem ground breaking for them, to hear such truths.
That's what I think was best about this movie. It was a very accurate portrayal of demonic malice and evil. And they got all their theology right.
The only flaw was they make the possessed man seem like a pure victim, as if he didn't cooperate at all during his whole life's path of evil. On the contrary, the devil had to have many CHOICES from the man, decisions of his own free will, before he could go to the next step. That is also very realistic.
To get to death row, that "victim" committed a long line of evil acts, mortal sins, with his own free will with full deliberation. That is how he became possessed in the first place. He might have been sad, or cried -- but so did Judas. There's repentance unto conversion and salvation (like St. Peter), and then there's fruitless regret and despair (like Judas). Both involve bad emotions, regret, fear, sadness, etc. but they are fundamentally different.
-
The only flaw was they make the possessed man seem like a pure victim, as if he didn't cooperate at all during his whole life's path of evil. On the contrary, the devil had to have many CHOICES from the man, decisions of his own free will, before he could go to the next step. That is also very realistic.
To get to death row, that "victim" committed a long line of evil acts, mortal sins, with his own free will with full deliberation. That is how he became possessed in the first place. He might have been sad, or cried -- but so did Judas. There's repentance unto conversion and salvation (like St. Peter), and then there's fruitless regret and despair (like Judas). Both involve bad emotions, regret, fear, sadness, etc. but they are fundamentally different.
Yes, if you contrast the prisoner with the other main character, you can see how we shouldn't feel sorry for Edward. James of his own free will actively sought the death of 2 individuals and yet with the simple utterance of "help me, God" was freed from his very brief possession. So, Edward is at least as evil as James and completely unrepentant.
-
Maybe ignorance is bliss.
I haven't watched Glenn Beck myself. I've only caught bits and pieces of his voice in different contexts. I know OF him, but like most talk show hosts I don't spend any time listening to them. I'm not part of their target audience.
Once you know about the JQ, you're going to know more (have more of the truth) than most of these talk show hosts, and then their errors -- the parts they DON'T get right -- are only going to annoy you.
I think they know obviously, this guy has been around " the business" a long time.
But he also knows who writes his checks, so he'll only push it so far.
-
The only flaw was they make the possessed man seem like a pure victim, as if he didn't cooperate at all during his whole life's path of evil. On the contrary, the devil had to have many CHOICES from the man, decisions of his own free will, before he could go to the next step. That is also very realistic.
To get to death row, that "victim" committed a long line of evil acts, mortal sins, with his own free will with full deliberation. That is how he became possessed in the first place. He might have been sad, or cried -- but so did Judas. There's repentance unto conversion and salvation (like St. Peter), and then there's fruitless regret and despair (like Judas). Both involve bad emotions, regret, fear, sadness, etc. but they are fundamentally different.
Yes, they didn't go into detail about the plight of the possessed man, regarding how he got to that point, but if I recall (it's been a few months since I saw it) there were some hints along those lines about his having opened himself up to the possession somehow. I do believe that in some cases, possession can happen without an individual consenting to it, with the key being that the entire time he retains his free will, even if the devil has taken control of his body. I got the impression, though, that it wasn't the central focus of the story, but rather how the demon enjoyed tormenting the man. There was the one statement that took me by surprise, given that Protestants are behind the film, namely, that the lack of infant Baptism allows demons to have greater influence over souls very early in life.
-
For Ladislaus and myself, such facts about theology and the supernatural are a given -- about as exciting as 2+2 = 4.
But what about people who have never heard these concepts? It might seem ground breaking for them, to hear such truths.
Right. There's nothing new in this movie for Traditional Catholics. I just think that I relished the fact that others might be exposed to these concepts.
-
Right. There's nothing new in this movie for Traditional Catholics. I just think that I relished the fact that others might be exposed to these concepts.
I wouldn't go that far. There's nothing new for well-educated Trad Catholics, ex-seminarians. It depends on how serious a Catholic they are; how many books they've read or studying they've done. How much of a "hobby" they've made the Faith in their lives. There are lots of Trads who don't know much about theology or demonology, stages of possession, etc.
If they just go to Mass on Sunday, know their basic Catechism (or what they can remember from First Communion/Confirmation, which was years ago), do some basic Catholic practices, try to avoid sin, etc. there are a lot of things they're not going to know.
We really ALL need to study as if we were going to get a part-time job as a priest.
-
We really ALL need to study as if we were going to get a part-time job as a priest.
Agreed.