 |
|
| List Price: |
|
Salesrank: 4696
Released: 2008-08-01
Theatrical-Release: 2005-09-08
|
| Our Price: |
|
|
|
Availibility:
Costumer Rating:  |
Customer Reviews:
Intriguing mix of Court Room and chiller
With such a recent plethora of movies based on torture and gore to achieve their chills, it is refreshing to find a movie that retains some intelligence and still manages to get a few spine-chilling moments, with barely a speck of blood or guts to be seen.
First and foremost, this is a court room drama. And yet there is an interesting twist, because the subject is one based on belief, not on facts.. and it makes for some interesting moral questions. The movie starts at the tail end of events as the priest is taken into custody. A young woman, Emily Rose, has died in his care following an exorcism. Was it neglect on his part keeping her from medical care for a psychotic epilepsy condition, or were his efforts justified and in fact medical intervention nullified the effects of the exorcism? We are led through the events in flashback throughout the course of the trial, sometimes to eery effect, as the priest refuses to cut a deal and insists on telling Emily’s story to a jury.
At the centre of the movie is the relationship between Laura Linney’s jaded and agnostic defence counsel and her client the priest played by Tom Wilkinson. The two leads play with conviction, but Jennifer Carpenter’s physically demanding role of Emily Rose should not be overlooked.
Admirably, the tone is not one of full on shocks and scares - there is a neutrality which gives you space to make your own mind up, and yet allow you to see events as the Father Moore and Emily saw them. It’s this intelligence towards the subject which sets this apart from most other recent horror movies and makes this worth watching.
Better than the original Exorcist. 
I’ll admit, I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this movie.
Oh goody, another Exorcist rip off.
WRONG!!!
More courtroom drama than horror movie.
Just my opinion, it’s better than the original exorcist.
Here’s why, its way more believable, the filmmakers give you the choice to decide whether or not she was possessed or mentally ill.
Granted the original exorcist was groundbreaking in many ways and can never be touched.
For shock value alone, it will be remembered long after Emily has hit the bargin shelf.
Pity, in this day and age it takes more than shock to even get people into the theater.
Emily accomplishes this. Too bad the filmmakers took such liberties with the real story.
I won’t spoil things here but the info is out there online.
I had four family members watch this and they are not horror fans and they loved this movie.
Less horror, more thriller.
Highly recommended, but not for kids.
Parents as always, use your common sense.
Subtle, Complex, and Creepy Take on Exorcism
Demonic possession and the questions of it actually occurring have always interested me. I’d see specials on television with various experts weighing in on whether someone was mentally or emotionally disturbed and in need of psychological help and treatment, or if they were indeed subject to possibly malevolent supernatural forces or intentions.
Now, such a situation has been effectively dramatized in “The Exorcism of Emily Rose.” Based loosely on a real incident, the story involves a priest, Father Moore, who performed an exorcism on a young girl possibly possessed, and who has since died, being placed on trial to determine if his actions led to her death, due to her not receiving proper medical attention.
Some of what I found effective about the film included how it kept its balance in being a fright film as well as an involving court room drama. The dialogue is believable and never melodramatic, which might have been an easy trap for the film to fall into, considering its mixture of the demon possessed genre, along with the courtroom drama.
The moody and grey cinematography with much fog, also lends the film an effectively mysterious and creepily ominous atmosphere. The writing plays with opposites in order to give the characters and story more complexity, and to befuddle audience’s expectations.
All of the actors are pretty convincing. Laura Linney stars as the defense attorney for the accused Father Moore, and her character is actually an agnostic. Linney effectively takes the audience on her journey from simply viewing her present case as a chance for promotion in her career, to becoming sympathetic to the priest’s cause in telling Emily Rose’s story. She becomes more open to the possibilities of what Emily and her story could well mean, especially as strange things begin to occur around her.
Tom Wilkinson is sincere and courageous as the clergyman on trial, who’s not concerned for his own welfare. He simply wants to tell Emily’s story and why he feels its important. Campbell Scott is strong as the prosecutor determined to prove that Emily Rose died due to medical negligence on Father Moore’s part, and not from any demonic possession. As I mentioned about opposites, what helps make the plot more interesting and complex, is that as Linney’s character is agnostic, so Scott’s is a devout Methodist, but who is also, as he says, “a man of fact.”
The real acting cudos, however, goes to Jennifer Carpenter as Emily. Eschewing much of real heavy make-up effects, the film relies much on Carpenter’s acting ability and her contorting of her facial and body muscles to convey Emily’s struggle. It’s very effectively unnerving to watch her, and Carpenter’s performance always keeps one in a state of wondering if she is really mentally unstable and disturbed, or if she actually is suffering from a demonic influence.
What I appreciate most about the film is that no easy answers are provided. That ambivalence is exactly what the director, Scott Derricksen, is aiming for as the film encourages audience members to question their own preconceptions about the supernatural; if and how it may influence our own world and daily lives. Lastly, it recalls the days of older horror movies that placed more emphasis on the fear of the unknown for the characters, and less on piling up the body count and simply splattering the screen with blood and organs.
While it shares the title and subject matter with that classic T-Rex of demonic possession, “The Exorcist,” the film goes in a direction that more nuanced, chillingly ambiguous and thought provoking than some more recent fare in horror movies of late. I’m excited to see more director Scott Derricksen in the future in movies.
Spectacular
Wow this was a great shocking performence but sad it was based on a true story that actually happend to her, but this movie was great are real great drama and thrill and shocking performence.
Thought provoking movie
Whether you enjoy this movie or not depends a lot upon your expectations. It’s impossible to think about a movie with this theme without recalling The Exorcist, projectile green vomit and all. That movie was just flat out scary. If I were to compare this movie to any other, it would be The Sixth Sense. The tone, the pallet, the hushed conversations, and the supernatural, all elements that make this a riveting movie. I was literally on the edge of my seat, not wanting to miss a word. For a movie with a central theme of an exorcism, it was amazingly grounded. It is after all based on a true story. No need for over the top theatrics. Having said that, the performance by Jennifer Carpenter as Emily Rose was horrifying. Just to be clear, I mean that in a good way. Empathetic and startling. All the actors are great. A-list all the way. More than anything, I found this movie thought provoking. After watching the classic The Exorcist, I just thought, “Wow! That was scary!” After watching this I thought, “Wow! I need to…read my Bible, or pray, or…something!” Watch it with a few friends and than prepare for a lively discussion afterward.
admin | 
07 31st, 2008| 
