Frailty

[Srot]

Just saw this movie, and i have to say, it's probably the best movie (or favorite so i dont get flamed to much i've seen this year.

What are some peoples thoughts on it here who have seen it.

I love movies like this where the whole thing becomes clearer at the end (ie twelve monkeys, fight club) rather than movies where it's all interpretation (for lack of better saying, i can't think now its 4am (ie mulhollhand drive, donnie darko).

it's Not like any other out there, even with the weirdness. it sure is worth the $4.00 at Blockbuster to rent it or order on direct tv.

[off_world]

More publicity should have been made for this movie. I thought it was messed up, but excellent nonetheless. The whole premise is very original and was not sure if it was all in Bill Paxton’s head, until the very end. BTW, Bill also directed this flick. Check it out if you are looking for a good horror flick. Sleeper hit of the year.

[Kaylum]

this movie sucked. completely predictable, poorly acted, and not a scary moment in the entire thing.

i dont remember a single redeeming moment in the whole movie.

[QueefMaker]

An enthusiastic thumbs up for this one. Felt bad for the one kid. Surprise ending. Well done by Mr. Paxton.

[Grimble]

Yeah I just saw this movie about a week ago and I thought it was excellent. Its really creepy and gets under your skin. And although I did predict the ending it took me until nearly the end to figure it out. All in all much scarier than most crap that passes for horror movies, because you can actually picture people thinking like that in real life.

[Xaen]

Agree. This movie was really good. It did get some good reviews initially but people just overlooked it (Like myself). I wasn't sure where this was going till the end and i'm glad they didn't just leave it hanging.. I was starting to think "great, another artsy movie that you have to interpret by watching it again".. But it wasn't. Thumbs up.

[Voron]

One of the WORST movies in HISTORY of movies. The religious propaganda in this piece of shit was absolutely unbearable; even my friends who believe in god couldn't stand it.

The begining and middle of the movie are actually okay, but the ending just utterly destroys it. Jesus fucking crhist, it made me want to do bad things to my television.

[Bumbaz]

I don't think this movie was made as religious propaganda, I think it can be looked at both ways. Are they really the hand of god, or was DAD simply disturbed. Because of the strong father and son bond, especially because of Adam's age caused him to follow in DADs footsteps. Yes near the end it becomes a little more swayed towards actual hand of god powers. But remember Adam was a sherrif and had information that many others would not have had. I think its open just enough that it can be viewed from both angles.

Its still a great story that poses interesting questions, but remember its still simply a movie.

[Voron]

Come on, his face being blurred on all the camera tapes, and the detective not being able to remember him at all? Plus, it was actually contested that the visions Adam and his father saw when they touched the "demons" were genuine.

This is without a doubt religious propaganda. I'm an open-minded person and I will look at issues from different angles, but this movie is not such case.

[Southern]

so because it has a religious theme its not an entertaining story?

dont let hate/disgust of faith/beliefs/religion ruin having fun with an interesting movie~

disliking a movie because of that is as ridiculous as someone disliking harry potter because 'its evil'

southern

(btw harry potter is evil!)

[Xaen]

This is without a doubt religious propaganda. I'm an open-minded person and I will look at issues from different angles, but this movie is not such case.

To imply propaganda you mean to say this movie was preeching about God? I think you're just one of those bitter anti-religous people who hate anything when the word "God" is mentioned. This movie had zero propaganda. Zero.

Say it with me: It was a movie. It was fiction. It wasn't pushing any views about anything down anyones throats.

Your misuse of word "propaganda" is hysterical at best, and shows you are close minded regardless what you think you are.

[Synd D`nys]

You make it sound like the Pope was the executive producer or something. Just because a movie has what could be considered a "God actively influences the world" theme does not make it religious propoganda.

I think Xaen hit the nail on the head. Had this movie implied that they were nutbags and not divinely insipred in their actions, you wouldn't have said one bad word.

[Voron]

I'm not gonna copy and paste all the comments the 3 of you left for me, and just gonna respond to all at once.

I'm not close-minded or bitter towards religion alone; I dislike pretty much all propaganda when it's incorporated in entertainment projects. That being said, I can still enjoy a movie with a "message"/propaganda when it is well done (example: Signs).

This movie was simply pure shit. Probably the biggest reason why it was such shit was the fact that for 90% of the movie, the story is being told in a rational way, showcasing the mental breakdown of a single father and how that breakdown affected his young impressionable son, and suddenly it turns into this "demon-slaying God's righteous crusade against evil" campaign. All logic, all rational sense is flushed down the toilet; it's like you've been reading a great author for 200 pages, and the final 5 were written by some nut who just decided to undermine anything that was said before him with his own radically different point of view. It may be the worst twist of any movie I've ever seen.

Now think for a second; do I really have to explain why I think a movie that justifies and glorifies mentally ill people deciding that they're God's weapons and KILLING other PEOPLE is -- hmm, retarded? Can you honestly argue that the movie is an objective piece or art and/or entertainment?

Frankly, you'll have an easier time convincing me that 2 + 2 = 5.

[Southern]

hey...enjoying works of fiction is all about suspension of disbelief.

you didnt suspend yours, you didnt enjoy it. that doesnt make it a piece of shit.

and 2+2=5 at large enough values of 2

southern

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The History of 2 + 2 = 5
by Houston Euler
"First and above all he was a logician. At least thirty-five years of the half-century or so of his existence had been devoted exclusively to proving that two and two always equal four, except in unusual cases, where they equal three or five, as the case may be."
-- Jacques Futrelle, "The Problem of Cell 13"



Most mathematicians are familiar with -- or have at least seen references in the literature to -- the equation 2 + 2 = 4. However, the less well known equation 2 + 2 = 5 also has a rich, complex history behind it. Like any other complex quantitiy, this history has a real part and an imaginary part; we shall deal exclusively with the latter here.
Many cultures, in their early mathematical development, discovered the equation 2 + 2 = 5. For example, consider the Bolb tribe, descended from the Incas of South America. The Bolbs counted by tying knots in ropes. They quickly realized that when a 2-knot rope is put together with another 2-knot rope, a 5-knot rope results.

Recent findings indicate that the Pythagorean Brotherhood discovered a proof that 2 + 2 = 5, but the proof never got written up. Contrary to what one might expect, the proof's nonappearance was not caused by a cover-up such as the Pythagoreans attempted with the irrationality of the square root of two. Rather, they simply could not pay for the necessary scribe service. They had lost their grant money due to the protests of an oxen-rights activist who objected to the Brotherhood's method of celebrating the discovery of theorems. Thus it was that only the equation 2 + 2 = 4 was used in Euclid's "Elements," and nothing more was heard of 2 + 2 = 5 for several centuries.

Around A.D. 1200 Leonardo of Pisa (Fibonacci) discovered that a few weeks after putting 2 male rabbits plus 2 female rabbits in the same cage, he ended up with considerably more than 4 rabbits. Fearing that too strong a challenge to the value 4 given in Euclid would meet with opposition, Leonardo conservatively stated, "2 + 2 is more like 5 than 4." Even this cautious rendition of his data was roundly condemned and earned Leonardo the nickname "Blockhead." By the way, his practice of underestimating the number of rabbits persisted; his celebrated model of rabbit populations had each birth consisting of only two babies, a gross underestimate if ever there was one.

Some 400 years later, the thread was picked up once more, this time by the French mathematicians. Descartes announced, "I think 2 + 2 = 5; therefore it does." However, others objected that his argument was somewhat less than totally rigorous. Apparently, Fermat had a more rigorous proof which was to appear as part of a book, but it and other material were cut by the editor so that the book could be printed with wider margins.

Between the fact that no definitive proof of 2 + 2 = 5 was available and the excitement of the development of calculus, by 1700 mathematicians had again lost interest in the equation. In fact, the only known 18th-century reference to 2 + 2 = 5 is due to the philosopher Bishop Berkeley who, upon discovering it in an old manuscript, wryly commented, "Well, now I know where all the departed quantities went to -- the right-hand side of this equation." That witticism so impressed California intellectuals that they named a university town after him.

But in the early to middle 1800's, 2 + 2 began to take on great significance. Riemann developed an arithmetic in which 2 + 2 = 5, paralleling the Euclidean 2 + 2 = 4 arithmetic. Moreover, during this period Gauss produced an arithmetic in which 2 + 2 = 3. Naturally, there ensued decades of great confusion as to the actual value of 2 + 2. Because of changing opinions on this topic, Kempe's proof in 1880 of the 4-color theorem was deemed 11 years later to yield, instead, the 5-color theorem. Dedekind entered the debate with an article entitled "Was ist und was soll 2 + 2?"

Frege thought he had settled the question while preparing a condensed version of his "Begriffsschrift." This condensation, entitled "Die Kleine Begriffsschrift (The Short Schrift)," contained what he considered to be a definitive proof of 2 + 2 = 5. But then Frege received a letter from Bertrand Russell, reminding him that in "Grundbeefen der Mathematik" Frege had proved that 2 + 2 = 4. This contradiction so discouraged Frege that he abandoned mathematics altogether and went into university administration.

Faced with this profound and bewildering foundational question of the value of 2 + 2, mathematicians followed the reasonable course of action: they just ignored the whole thing. And so everyone reverted to 2 + 2 = 4 with nothing being done with its rival equation during the 20th century. There had been rumors that Bourbaki was planning to devote a volume to 2 + 2 = 5 (the first forty pages taken up by the symbolic expression for the number five), but those rumor remained unconfirmed. Recently, though, there have been reported computer-assisted proofs that 2 + 2 = 5, typically involving computers belonging to utility companies. Perhaps the 21st century will see yet another revival of this historic equation.




Hardy's proof of the pope's identity:
The following conversation at the Trinity High Table is recorded in Sir Harold Jeffreys' Scientific Inference, in a note to chapter one. Jeffreys remarks that the fact that everything followed from a single contradiction had been noticed by Aristotle. He goes on to say that McTaggart denied the consequence: "If 2+2=5, how can you prove that I am the pope?" Hardy is supposed to have replied: "If 2+2=5, 4=5; subtract 3; then 1=2; but McTaggart and the pope are two; therefore McTaggart and the pope are one."

There are related stories like the following:

The great logician Bertrand Russell once claimed that he could prove anything if given that 1+1=1.
So one day, some smarty-pants asked him, "Ok. Prove that you're the Pope."
He thought for a while and proclaimed, "I am one. The Pope is one. Therefore, the Pope and I are one."

[Xaen]

Signs had no propaganda in it also. I think you've got your blinders on bro. Need to step back sometime and realise no one is trying to push sh*t down your throat like you think they are. Leave your hate for the guys preaching on the street corners or something since you've got issues with it.