REGRESSION (Emma Watson, Ethan Hawke) Alejandro Amenabar Directs

[kowhite]

Emma Watson will soldier on.

Disney will save her.

Nobody will remember this movie.

Forget remember...nobody has even heard of this movie on the first place.

[The Stingray]

The 8% RT score is a joke. It's a fairly decent and well-made film. Ethan Hawke is reliable as always.
 

[baumer]

Gonna try to watch this today.

[Avatree]

3 hours ago, The Stingray said:

The 8% RT score is a joke. It's a fairly decent and well-made film. Ethan Hawke is reliable as always.
 

Your opinion is a joke 

 

 

Fuck Emma Watson for taking this movie, she is a hypocrite. The movie is ridiculously offensive, easily one of the worst films of last year.

[Kvikk Lunsj]

45 minutes ago, Total Treecall said:

Your opinion is a joke 

 

 

Fuck Emma Watson for taking this movie, she is a hypocrite. The movie is ridiculously offensive, easily one of the worst films of last year.

What makes it offensives? I have not seen the film. 

[somebody85]

I forgot I watched this a few weeks ago already. Not as bad as 8% and honestly better then the usual Hollywood jump scare horror stuff. But I knew right where this movie was going once "Inspired by true events" came up since I have researched Satanic Ritual Abuse. That stuff is extremely interesting to me and I still don't believe that it never happened (they just could never prove it). The movie tries to throw the viewer off it's conclusion by making it seem like what's happening is supernatural, so I give it credit. I definitely think that part could have been handled smoother because once it's cards are revealed all that stuff is thrown out the window. And that transition is very sloppy.

Edited February 6, 2016 by somebody85

[somebody85]

54 minutes ago, Darth Dexter of Hoth said:

What makes it offensives? I have not seen the film. 

It's inspired by the claims of alleged Satanic Ritual Abuse during the 80s and early 90s, that caused a lot of paranoia and hysteria.

[somebody85]

On 10/12/2015 at 3:36 PM, Total Treecall said:

This wasn't terrible, and at times quite gripping. I went along with it for the most part... however, its twist ending was disappointing. You could see it coming a mile away but I really hoped the film wouldn't carry through with what I thought it would do. I just wanted to rein it in so I could keep the good side of the film.

 

And then it does what you think it's going to do. And its done so distastefully. I have no clue why Emma Watson agreed to do this movie and particularly play this character given that she is an 'ambassador of feminism' and fights for that equal rights thing. The film's message about sexual assault victims and rape survivors just made me angry...

 

If the movie had been made 30 years ago when these events happened, then it may have been more acceptable, but watching it with a more contemporary social attitude it's just insensitive and insulting.

I kind of wish it hadn't too but it was inspired by true events. There is no proof of Satanic Ritual Abuse so where else could it have ended up if it was going to go by those claims. Otherwise it would have been fiction. That's why as soon as it said that, it's conclusion was inevitable. 
 

"Victims" involved in the real life cases did make claims of sexual assault, rape, and the eating babies stuff. So all of that was faithful to the material. That wasn't the films message, that was what really happened. That was why there was so much hysteria revolving around these allegations. A lot of people still believe that stuff goes on today and probably think it's a grand conspiracy to rate this movie so low so people don't see it lol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satanic_ritual_abuse_allegations

Edited February 6, 2016 by somebody85

[Jake Gittes]

It is kinda terrible. Tries to be a based-on-real-events drama and a schlocky quasi-supernatural horror at the same time and in the end just falls apart. No character or thematic depth, just a bunch of overwrought genre clichés striving for respectability.

[Avatree]

1 hour ago, somebody85 said:

I kind of wish it hadn't too but it was inspired by true events. There is no proof of Satanic Ritual Abuse so where else could it have ended up if it was going to go by those claims. Otherwise it would have been fiction. That's why as soon as it said that, it's conclusion was inevitable. 
 

"Victims" involved in the real life cases did make claims of sexual assault, rape, and the eating babies stuff. So all of that was faithful to the material. That wasn't the films message, that was what really happened. That was why there was so much hysteria revolving around these allegations. A lot of people still believe that stuff goes on today and probably think it's a grand conspiracy to rate this movie so low so people don't see it lol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satanic_ritual_abuse_allegations

 

I understand the real events of satanic ritual abuse. I know it's based on true stories - hysteria pushes people to believe things that never happened. But the WAY in which the film portrays it is wrong. Watsons character makes a conscious, independent choice to accuse the man of raping her, it is completely unrelated to what actually happened.

 

The film could, and should, have depicted it more accurately as people believing false ideas, and people driven by fear to make these claims. But the film makes it out as if she's doing it because she's an angsty teenager who wants revenge. It's disgusting, and for the woman playing the character to be the "UN ambassador for women" is a joke.

[somebody85]

23 minutes ago, Total Treecall said:

 

I understand the real events of satanic ritual abuse. I know it's based on true stories - hysteria pushes people to believe things that never happened. But the WAY in which the film portrays it is wrong. Watsons character makes a conscious, independent choice to accuse the man of raping her, it is completely unrelated to what actually happened.

 

The film could, and should, have depicted it more accurately as people believing false ideas, and people driven by fear to make these claims. But the film makes it out as if she's doing it because she's an angsty teenager who wants revenge. It's disgusting, and for the woman playing the character to be the "UN ambassador for women" is a joke.

But that's what real victims did too? They used the hysteria revolving around such a disgusting idea to get away with these claims. That's why there was so much confusion. No one knew who was telling the truth or not.

"During the investigation of the Belgian serial killer Marc Dutroux, a number of women approached police claiming to be adult survivors of a network of sexual offenders.[4] One witness described satanic ceremonies with a goal of disorienting new victims, causing them to doubt the reality of their memories and prevent disclosure.[5]"

"During the trial, Owen provided her account of incest, organised abuse, and satanic ritual abuse orchestrated by her parents involving at least nine other men and her account was supported by her psychologist.[18] She claimed that her brother, Michael, and sister, Theresa, were also abused, a charge that was denied by her older brother and father. One of the alleged abusers is Cynthia Owen's older brother, Peter Murphy Junior, while the father, Peter Murphy Senior, is also an alleged abuser.[19]"

"In 1983, Manhattan Beach, California resident Judy Johnson asserted to authorities that her son had been anally raped by McMartin Preschool teacher Ray Buckey based on her son having painful bowel movements. Additionally, Johnson made a number of other allegations including that her son saw Buckey “fly”, that bestiality was taking place at the preschool, that children had power drills run through their arms."

"Dan and Fran Keller ran a Daycare center in Oak Hill, Texas. In 1991, a three-year-old child in therapy due to his parents divorcing accused the Kellers of sexually abusing her. Other parents got wind of the accusation and their children began making accusations of their own which included forcing children to drink Kool-Aid with blood in it, have sex on camera with adults, killing animals and babies in a ritualistic way while wearing white robes and candle-lit rooms.
 

In 2013, Mouw retracted his testimony stating that at the time he gave it he was simply wrong and ignorant. Additionally, it also became clear that testimony from one of the supposed victims had retracted their claim of abuse and police had simply ignored this. The suppressed memory psychiatric theories practiced at the time and used to produce allegations of abuse in the first place, including those of clinical psychologist Randy Noblitt, have also since been roundly discredited in psychiatric circles.
 

The Kellers were finally released. Both are now in their mid-60s and have each served twenty-one years in prison."

Seriously look it up. The movie is based on real accounts of what people did and some victims did exactly what Emma Watsons character did. They made accusations of rape when they never happened and then blamed it on Satanic Ritual Abuse. They included these horrific details (like eating babies) to make their claims more public and to have people feel sorry for them. They knew people could not deal with subjects so horrifying so they would automatically assume it as true (because who would make this sort of dark stuff up?). Some "victims" were not driven by fear to make the claims they did.

I understand that you aren't happy with her taking the role but her character is faithful to real life cases.

The true stories are much more interesting then the movie.

 

Edited February 6, 2016 by somebody85

[Avatree]

Maybe I am just poor at explaining myself but you're missing what I am saying. What you're quoting is exactly my point. Never mind.

[somebody85]

3 minutes ago, Total Treecall said:

Maybe I am just poor at explaining myself but you're missing what I am saying. What you're quoting is exactly my point. Never mind.

No you are not poor at explaining yourself. I understand what you are saying but people really did what Emma Watsons character did:
 

"Watsons character makes a conscious, independent choice to accuse the man of raping her, it is completely unrelated to what actually happened. The film could, and should, have depicted it more accurately as people believing false ideas, and people driven by fear to make these claims. But the film makes it out as if she's doing it because she's an angsty teenager who wants revenge."

Compared to real life:
 

"Dan and Fran Keller ran a Daycare center in Oak Hill, Texas. In 1991, a three-year-old child in therapy due to his parents divorcing accused the Kellers of sexually abusing her."

That's just one of many cases where the supposed victim wasn't driven by fear but by angst or revenge and used the hysteria/fear going around other cases to get away with it just like Emma Watsons character did in this movie. 

If you really want me to look up other cases where rape was accused for revenge purposes I can. Most of these claims went to trial.
 

Did you want the movie not to revolve around this? To have Emmas character make her claims out of fear instead of revenge? I mean they could have done that but in doing so, they weren't being unfaithful to real life cases. I guess that was the film makers choice. I wondered which way they would go, because I guessed it was going to be either or.
 

[Avatree]

Maybe I am wrong, the film was pretty forgettable and I watched it like 4 5?) months ago

[somebody85]

13 minutes ago, Total Treecall said:

Maybe I am wrong, the film was pretty forgettable and I watched it like 4 5?) months ago

No you're right. Looking up this stuff is still as dark as ever and if you didn't know, these accusations very much still come up today. Like last year (I believe?) there was a video that went viral of two little blonde haired kids claiming really dark and nasty stuff from the UK (that I won't repeat here). But it was right along the same lines of eating babies and they made accusations of being assaulted multiple times daily.

I think the idea of Regression should have been based on Angela having fake repressed memories. Her character should not have done it for revenge purposes. They should have revealed that she was actually assaulted by a family member or friend but without all the satanic claims (that's where I guessed it could go too). Like she could have used those outrageous claims to get more people aware of what was happening to her. That would have been close to real life too.

The movie would have been a lot more powerful in that regard but probably just as predictable. And if they were going to go that route they should have left out the supernatural stuff and focused a lot more on just her character not on Ethan Hawkes character being followed, etc. 

But people in real life did do what she did. One man murdered someone out of revenge and blamed it on Ritual Abuse.

Researching it again. I still find it hard to believe that out of all of the cases documented they still say that Satanic Ritual Abuse doesn't exist. Also it's kind of hard to find the conclusions to some of the many claims out there.

Edited February 6, 2016 by somebody85

[The Stingray]

13 hours ago, Total Treecall said:

Your opinion is a joke 

 

 

Fuck Emma Watson for taking this movie, she is a hypocrite. The movie is ridiculously offensive, easily one of the worst films of last year.

 

Nah, unless you're one of those crazy radfems who goes over everything with a fine-tooth comb just searching for stuff to get upset about, I don't think you will find anything particularly offensive here. 

Spoiler

Like somebody85 said, it is based on real shit. Or do you actually believe that no woman in the history of mankind has ever faked a rape accusation? I also find it sad that your brand of extreme feminism is making it so much harder for real feminists like Emma Watson who are out there fighting the good fight. 

 

[baumer]

Incredible how someone a opinion can be deemed a joke. Thats why theyre opinions. Geeze

[Jake Gittes]

It's not that no one ever did what Watson's character does in the movie, the problem is that,

Spoiler

instead of exploring the situation, the film makes her a one-dimensional villain, and when the ending is her turning to the camera and saying "Believe us. Believe us", it clumsily paints everyone who claimed to be abused in those times - most of whom did it under a great deal of coercion and pressure - in a uniformly negative light. Meanwhile, the cops who encouraged Watson all the way through are allowed to get off easy and pat each other on the back in a bar.

The movie takes a chunk of hugely complicated actual history and flattens it till there's nothing left but a mediocre Columbo episode. 

[somebody85]

16 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

It's not that no one ever did what Watson's character does in the movie, the problem is that,

  Hide contents

instead of exploring the situation, the film makes her a one-dimensional villain, and when the ending is her turning to the camera and saying "Believe us. Believe us", it clumsily paints everyone who claimed to be abused in those times - most of whom did it under a great deal of coercion and pressure - in a uniformly negative light. Meanwhile, the cops who encouraged Watson all the way through are allowed to get off easy and pat each other on the back in a bar.

The movie takes a chunk of hugely complicated actual history and flattens it till there's nothing left but a mediocre Columbo episode. 

But the key word there is "most" not all. Some victims very much claimed what Angela did. I don't know the backstory of the cases but I'm sure they got on camera and pleaded with people in the same way to draw attention to their cause.

I don't think that the conclusion painted anyone in a negative light because there are people out there who will lie in front of a large audience with no regrets. Remember a large part of why the hysteria revolving around these cases was so large was no one knew who to trust. Were the police supposed to trust the accuser or were they supposed to trust the people who said that they didn't do it?

But you're right in saying that most cases didn't operate this way. Victims made these claims to get the sexual abuse they were suffering from heard. The more outlandish claims they made the better a chance that it would be picked up by the media. In a lot of cases they did find proof of sexual assault but it wasn't related to Satanic Ritual Abuse. Still you can't say the movie was unfaithful to the real cases because they went the route they did.

I wish the movie went a different direction. Like I said earlier, the real cases are so interesting. They could have done so much more with the material and still gotten the paranoia down without resorting to a simple revenge story and an ending that everyone saw coming.

I don't think it's a terrible movie like others but the potential was there to make it a lot more powerful then it was.

[baumer]

Hey guys can you watch the spoilers here.  This isn't the RTM.