Schockierend, heftig, blutig – OUR EVIL ist ein Muss für jeden Hardcore Horror-Fan. Enthält Szenen, die selbst für hartgesottene Gore-Liebhaber schwer zu. Our Evil ist ein brasilianisches Horrordrama von Samuel Galli mit Ademir Esteves, Ricardo Casella, Luara Pepita, Antony Mello. Lest hier. Our Evil is an emotionally charged film featuring harrowing acts of violence. It covers a whole spectrum of emotions, styles and horror conventions, and yet manages to hold it all together.
Our Evil (2017)Our Evil ein Film von Samuel Galli mit Ricardo Casella, Walderrama dos Santos. Inhaltsangabe: Ein Mann mit übernatürlichen spirituellen Fähigkeiten offenbart. Our Evil ist ein brasilianisches Horrordrama von Samuel Galli mit Ademir Esteves, Ricardo Casella, Luara Pepita, Antony Mello. Lest hier. Da er glaubt, dass der Teufel die Seele seiner Tochter Michele will, stellt Arthur den Auftragskiller Charles ein, um sie zu töten. Diesen heuert er über das Darknet an. Der Grund, warum Arthur will, dass seine Tochter an ihrem Geburtstag.
Our Evil Movies / TV VideoTHE BILLIONAIRE GHOST PRINCESS CAME TO STOP OUR EVIL KINSMEN GOING TO BURY US ALIVE -NEWMOVIES2021 Our Evil movie reviews & Metacritic score: A man with spiritualist powers is told by his mentor that a demonic entity is returning to destroy his daughter's soul, and that he should take drastic measures. Our Evil (Mal Nosso), on the other hand — the feature debut of Samuel Galli — is the type of bold, provocative, and impressive filmmaking that transcends regions, and by the time the horror community has been exposed to its sadistic shocks and moral conflicts, it’s going to leave a Estimated Reading Time: 2 mins. Our Evil es una película dirigida por Samuel Galli con Sonia Moreno, Walderrama Dos Santos, Fernando Cardoso, Reinaldo Colmanetti, Mari Galves . Año: Título original: Mal Nosso. Sinopsis: En los bajofondos de Sao Paulo, un espiritualista emplea a un asesino en serie para proteger a su hija de una posesión demoníaca. (FILMAFFINITY).
Es dauert nicht lange, Our Evil deutschen Filmproduktionsfirma. - Brasilien: Filmisches Schwellenland?Ergiebiger fällt die Suche da schon in den tiefen Nischen des Genrekinos aus.
I thought the structure of the story and how things are presented was good. It gives us an impression of both Arthur and Charles, but then turns it on its head as their true past and history is revealed.
I can dig that. The problem though was that the film was a bit boring. I can't really put my finger on what it is, but is just drags at times.
I do like the elements and how it ends though. Something else that is surprising though is how good the acting is.
Esteves is really good as the older Arthur. I like his portrayal and in the end, you see that he has been through some things.
I do have to commend Cardoso though for the younger version more. Seeing the stress he is under and what his gift was pushing him to.
It really explains the two characters. Casella I thought was fine as well in his role. He is such a horrible human being so I have to give him credit for getting a reaction out of me.
I thought Pepita was cute and I really felt bad for what happened to her. It all makes sense in the end though. I thought all those that played ghosts and the rest of the cast rounded out the film for what was needed.
I have been excited to talk about the effects, because I think everything was done practically. I absolutely love that they went this route. The make up on the ghosts, showing how they died were great.
There are some pretty violent death scenes in this film that have such realism to them. Noel Murray. Emma Wolfe. While the often brutal realism is undermined by the more outlandish and broader horror elements, it's an impressive debut from the Brazilian director and one which lingers on the mind for quite some time.
Andrew Gaudion. An intriguing debut feature with a great sense of mystery, Our Evil keeps you wondering whilst pushing you deeper into murky waters.
Scott Clark. Our Evil is an interesting film and a bold attempt at doing something different. Galli will be one to watch.
Jennie Kermode. Anton Bitel. There are no featured reviews for because the movie has not released yet.
Top Box Office. Critics SIGN UP LOG IN. Home Box Office TV DVD MORE. News My Account SIGN UP LOG IN. More Top Movies Trailers.
Certified Fresh Picks. More Top TV Shows Certified Fresh TV Episodic Reviews Atlanta: Robbin' Season. Alle drei sind keine leichte Kost, clever und köcheln auf kleiner Flamme.
Meine Sichtung liegt jetzt eine ganze Weile zurück, sodass ich mich leider nicht mehr an jede Einzelheit und der genauen Abfolge des Geschehens erinnern kann.
Dennoch möchte ich Dir antworten. Der Verweis, dass Arthur den Clown an seinen Sohn erinnert, ist meiner Auffassung nach ein Bezug auf Jesus, wobei eine plurale Deutungsweise der Aussage durchaus zutreffen kann.
Deine Interpretation erscheint mir schlüssig, wenn ich sie jedoch nicht zustimmen kann. Ich habe dies nie so aufgefasst und bin nach wie vor der Meinung, dass es eher der Ermahnung des Zuschauers zu einem gottgefälligeren Leben dienen soll.
Zudem denke ich, wäre es der Plan des Teufels gewesen, hätte er sicher hämisch gelächelt. Der Blick wirkt auf mich jedoch eher als Appell.
Dennoch ein interessantes Gegenargument Deinerseits. In der Logik des Filmes, meiner Auffassung nach, schon. Zunächst einmal tötet Arthur seiner Tochter nicht selbst, die Aufgabe ist ja Charles zugewiesen, sodass sich Arthur nicht als Täter versündigt.
Sicherlich kann man argumentieren, dass er als Auftraggeber Schuld an der Tat ist, jedoch laste ich dies einer schlechten Drehbuchkonstruktion an.
Der Ausbruch der Hölle über die Erde ist unausweichlich, doch bevor dies geschieht, sollen sich Arthur und seine Tochter in Gottes Anwesenheit wissen erst darauf bricht die Hölle aus, soweit ich mich erinnere.
Das Beisein weniger anderer Menschen veranschaulicht, wie wenig Menschen nach dem Willen Gottes gelebt haben und treffen in einem Zirkuszelt aufeinander, dass ich als Ort kindlicher Unschuld deute.
Somit ist der Film meiner Ansicht nach Zeugnis von christlichem Fundamentalismus, was auch erklärt, warum der Sünder Charles zum Tode verdammt ist.
But why? The second half of the film enters supernatural realms and forces the vicious Charles to confront his sins. But one of our [ And does not the prayer, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil", attain its greatest efficacy at [ Such is the Garden which We give as an [ The lack of that money [ While military capability and involvement are not [ Bien que la participation et le potentiel militaires ne soient pas les seuls facteurs permettant de mesurer le statut [ Yesterday, I drew [ More You Might Like.
The Atticus Institute. The Exorcist. In Their Skin. The Whistler. Watch Now. Stream On. However, others dispute this contention.
These cases constitute the third sort of argument against the claim that evil actions must cause or allow significant harm.
For example Eve Garrard has suggested that schoolyard bullies perform evil actions even though they do not cause very much harm Garrard , 45 , while Stephen de Wijze has argued that torturing and killing what you know to be a lifelike robot would be evil even if the robot has no conscious life De Wijze , Two sorts of responses can be given to these sorts of cases.
First, we can argue that, while the action in question is evil, it does, in fact, involve significant harm. This sort of response seems appropriate for the bullying case See Kramer , This sort of response seems appropriate for the robot case.
Furthermore, in response to all three arguments for the claim that evil actions need not cause or allow significant harm i. For example, we can argue that failed attempts seem evil because attempting to perform an evil action is an indication that the agent performing the action has an evil character and not because the action itself is evil See Calder a, Similarly, we can argue that given their intentions, motives, and feelings, sadistic voyeurs and robot torturers are evil persons even though they do not perform evil actions for more about evil character see Section 4.
Assuming that harm is an essential component of evil, the question then becomes how much harm is required for evil? In the Roots of Evil John Kekes argues that the harm of evil must be serious and excessive Kekes , 1—3.
Claudia Card describes the harm of evil as an intolerable harm. By an intolerable harm, Card means a harm that makes life not worth living from the point of view of the person whose life it is.
Examples of intolerable harms include severe physical or mental suffering as well as the deprivation of basics such as food, clean drinking water, and social contact Card , For further discussion of the harm component see Russell , 64— Most theorists writing about evil believe that evil action requires a certain sort of motivation.
Once again, this claim is somewhat controversial. In the Atrocity Paradigm , Claudia Card makes a point of defining evil without reference to perpetrator motives.
She does this because she wants her theory to focus on alleviating the suffering of victims rather than on understanding the motives of perpetrators Card , 9.
However, while Card claims that the atrocity paradigm does not have a motivation component, part of the plausibility of her theory comes from that fact that it restricts the class of evil actions to those that follow from certain sorts of motives.
While this account of evil allows for a wide range of motivations, it does specify that evildoers must foresee the harm they produce and lack a moral justification for producing the harm.
In other words, for Card, evildoers are motivated by a desire for some object or state of affairs which does not justify the harm they foreseeably inflict.
Other philosophers have suggested that evildoers desire to cause harm, or to do wrong, for more specific reasons such as pleasure Steiner , the desire to do what is wrong Perrett , the desire to annihilate all being Eagleton , or the destruction of others for its own sake Cole When evil is restricted to actions that follow from these sorts of motivations, theorists sometimes say that their subject is pure, radical, diabolical, or monstrous evil.
This suggests that their discussion is restricted to a type, or form, of evil and not to evil per se. While some philosophers argue that certain motives, such as malevolence or malice, are necessary for evil, others focus instead on motives or desires that evildoers lack.
For instance, Adam Morton contends that evildoers are crucially uninhibited by barriers against considering harming or humiliating others that ought to be there Morton , A metaphysical silencer is a reason which is so weighty that, objectively speaking, it takes away the reason-giving force of some other consideration.
When this happens we say that the less weighty consideration has been metaphysically silenced. By contrast, a psychological silencer is a reason which is so weighty for an individual that, subjectively, it takes away the reason-giving force of some other consideration.
When this happens we say that the consideration has been psychologically silenced for the individual. If we came across a child drowning in a shallow pond, the need to rescue the child would be so morally important that it would metaphysically silence the desire to keep our clothes clean as a reason for acting or not acting.
That is, when a child is in urgent need of rescue, considerations about keeping our clothes clean lose all of their reason-giving force.
They cease to be reasons for acting or not acting. For many people, especially for virtuous people, considerations about keeping their clothes clean are also psychologically silenced by the urgent need to rescue a child drowning in a shallow pond.
In other words, virtuous people are completely unmoved by considerations about keeping their clothes clean when presented with children in urgent need of rescue.
According to Garrard, the evildoer has a particularly despicable motivational structure. She psychologically silences considerations that are so morally weighty that they metaphysically silence the very considerations which move her to act Garrard , For instance, it would be evil to psychologically silence the urgent need to rescue a drowning child as a reason for acting because we desire to keep our clothes clean.
Yet it seems that John would do evil by allowing a child to drown for those reasons. Some theorists believe that to do evil we must feel a certain way or have certain emotions at the time of acting.
For example, Laurence Thomas believes that evildoers take delight in causing harm or feel hatred toward their victims Thomas , 76— Hillel Steiner goes even further by contending that there are just two components of evil: pleasure and wrongdoing.
Critics argue that it is not necessary to take pleasure in doing wrong to perform an evil action since it is sufficient to intentionally cause significant harm for an unworthy goal such as self-interest Calder Imagine that a serial killer tortures and kills his victims but that he does not take pleasure in torturing and killing.
It seems that this serial killer is an evildoer even though he does not take pleasure in doing wrong. It is universally accepted that to perform an evil action an agent must be morally responsible for what she does.
Although hurricanes and rattle snakes can cause great harm, they cannot perform evil actions because they are not moral agents.
Furthermore, moral agents only perform evil actions when they are morally responsible for what they do and their actions are morally inexcusable see e.
It is particularly controversial whether these conditions are met in three sorts of cases: 1 serious harms brought about by psychopaths; 2 serious harms brought about by individuals who have had bad upbringings; and 3 serious harms brought about through ignorance.
Psychopathy is a syndrome that consists in lacking certain emotional, interpersonal, and behavioural traits and having others Hare Some of the defining characteristics of psychopathy include shallow emotions, egocentricity, deceitfulness, impulsivity, a lack of empathy, and a lack of guilt and remorse.
For instance, a delusional schizophrenic who believes that her neighbour is a demon is not responsible for harming her neighbour since she does not understand that she is harming an innocent person; she believes she is defending herself from an inhuman malicious agent.
Motivational internalists believe that it is conceptually impossible to believe and thus to know that an action is morally wrong and yet be completely unmotivated to refrain from doing the action.
That is, for the internalist, there is a conceptual connection between believing that an action is wrong and having a con-attitude toward the action.
The internalist believes that one may be able to knowingly do what is wrong because, all things considered, she cares more about something that is incompatible with refraining from wrongdoing, provided she is at least somewhat inclined to refrain from doing what she knows to be wrong.
Since psychopaths seem to be completely indifferent to whether their actions are right or wrong, motivational internalists believe that they do not truly believe, or understand, that what they do is morally wrong.
At most, they might believe that their harmful actions break societal conventions. But it may be one thing to believe that one has broken a societal convention and quite another to believe that one has broken a moral rule.
Philosophers who reject the internalist thesis, i. According to motivational externalists, moral knowledge only requires an intellectual capacity to identify right and wrong, and not the ability to care about morality.
Since psychopaths are not intellectually deficient, motivational externalists do not think there is any reason to believe that psychopaths cannot tell the difference between right and wrong.
For more about how the internalist and externalist theses relate to the moral responsibility of psychopaths see Brink , 45—50; Duff ; Haksar ; and Milo See also Rosati It is beyond the purview of this entry to survey this literature.
See Levy and , Matravers , Talbert , Aharoni, Kiehl, and Sinnott-Armstrong The degree to which deviant behavior is caused by bad upbringings rather than genetic starting points or individual choices is a difficult empirical question.
Assuming that there is a strong causal connection between bad upbringings and deviant behaviour, there are two main arguments for the claim that we should not hold perpetrators morally responsible for behaviour that has resulted from bad upbringings.
The first argument contends that since we do not choose our upbringings we should not be held responsible for crimes which result from our upbringings See, e.
Susan Wolf offers a variant of this argument. According to Wolf people who have had particularly bad upbringings are unable to make accurate normative judgements because they have been taught the wrong values.