"The Eorcism of Emily Rose" was a fantastic movie, IMO. It wasn't a horror, and was promoted horribly wrong. It was an odd combination of a court drama and a genuinely stirring suspense thriller. It's what would have made a movie like "The Exorcist" a multiple award winner, because most importantly, "Exorcism" was plausible. Totally, totally credible, and not over the top. The ending was a little convenient in the way of the priest's verdict, but nonetheless, it made you think, and I revelled in the first SMART horror/thriller in years.
Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
"The Eorcism of Emily Rose" was a fantastic movie, IMO. It wasn't a horror, and was promoted horribly wrong. It was an odd combination of a court drama and a genuinely stirring suspense thriller. It's what would have made a movie like "The Exorcist" a multiple award winner, because most importantly, "Exorcism" was plausible. Totally, totally credible, and not over the top. The ending was a little convenient in the way of the priest's verdict, but nonetheless, it made you think, and I revelled in the first SMART horror/thriller in years.
"The Exorcist" is overrated schlock. It didn't even pick up until half way through the film, and even then, it relied on some "oh my goodness! she said that!" verbal shock and awe tactics that were disturbing for 1974, but are laughable now.
You want a solid film about possession, that's as credible as "Emily Rose", try "Rosemary's Baby". I dunno how claiming "Exorcism" being "fantastic" is going over the top, as to say it was a great movie in my opinion. Never said it was flawless or perfect, so I think what I said was fair.
Jayy, just because YOU didn't like it, doesn't mean it sucks. You really have no arguement outside of that.
Thornless "Rose" by M.E. RussellYou have been told that "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" is "based on a true story."
Well, it is... sort of.
The film is vaguely inspired by the 1976 case of Anneliese Michel, a twenty-something student who died during an exorcism in Germany. Prosecutors frowned on the weeks of fasting that contributed to her death, and tried two priests and Michel's parents on charges of negligent manslaughter.
"Emily Rose," on the other hand, is set in present day America. The possessed woman is 19 and speaks English (and Latin and Aramaic... but hey, she is possessed). Only one priest is on trial, and he is defended by an agnostic hot shot lawyer. Also, any pesky questions about belief or ethics are ejected in favor of "Perry Mason" histrionics, right down to a sneering prosecutor played by Campbell Scott, who even grew a mustache to twirl.
There is nothing new about taffy-stretching the "truth" in a horror flick, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" did it with panache. But reducing this tragic case to simple horror grammar is an insult. What is more, the filmmakers are telling a lie right in the title:
This is not "The Exorcism of Emily Rose," this is "The Incredibly Dull Court Trial That Comes After the Exorcism That Killed Emily Rose Before the Movie Even Began."
Carpenter has a wonderfully weird, pliable face for possession, but we never get to meet her before she is stuffed with demons. Instead, we are treated only to overwrought flashbacks of her sporadically chilling antics for maybe 20 minutes. The rest of the time, Linney and Wilkinson talk about events we really should have seen instead, as they try to make the David E. Kelley-on-Quaaludes dialogue seem nuanced and profound, which it is not.
Despite token nods to evidence that Emily Rose suffered from an epileptic psychosis, director Scott Derrickson stacks his deck with enough witching hour coincidences to make it clear that we are firmly on God's side. "There are forces surrounding this trial," Wilkinson says. "Demons exist." Unfortunately, other than letting a single witness get creamed by a car, in "Emily Rose," those unseen "demons" dim lights, open blinds, shut doors, and disrupt sleep. The fiends! Later, Linney argues, "Facts leave no room for possibilities." Umm, exactly; that is why they are called facts.
I am all for hearty theological debate, but this is intellectual suicide. Even worse, it is boring intellectual suicide.
Moreover, the filmmakers argue that these courtroom scenes show a balanced argument, but the structure of the film sabotages this. It is told from the point of view of the defense, so supernatural happenings are presented as concrete events.
👇
Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
"The Exorcist" is overrated schlock. It didn't even pick up until half way through the film, and even then, it relied on some "oh my goodness! she said that!" verbal shock and awe tactics that were disturbing for 1974, but are laughable now.You want a solid film about possession, that's as credible as "Emily Rose", try "Rosemary's Baby". I dunno how claiming "Exorcism" being "fantastic" is going over the top, as to say it was a great movie in my opinion. Never said it was flawless or perfect, so I think what I said was fair.
Jayy, just because YOU didn't like it, doesn't mean it sucks. You really have no arguement outside of that.
Uh, It SUCKED!!
Nuff said!
😄