THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE

It is impossible to approach THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE without thinking of William Friedkin’s film version of William Peter Blatty’s THE EXORCIST. Whereas the latter caused a huge sensation immediately following its December 26, 1973 premiere due to its explicit subject matter, THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE, though well-made, is unlikely to cause a similar phenomenon, although it does deserve to be successful. Director Scott Derrickson, who helmed 2000’s awful URBAN LEGENDS: FINAL CUT, here shows great maturity in balancing the dramatic with the horrific.

The crux of the story is essentially told in flashback. Father Moore (Tom Wilkinson) is arrested after a 19 year-old woman, Emily Rose (Jennifer Carpenter), dies soon after he performs a grueling exorcism on her. Erin Bruner (Laura Linney), a gutsy attorney, is asked by the Catholic Church to talk Father Moore out of testifying to avoid public embarrassment. Father Moore, however, has only one true objective – to tell Emily Rose’s story out of his love, respect, and total willingness to help her. He admirably risks his reputation, his freedom, and his life to tell what he believes to be the truth. Ethan Thomas (Campbell Scott, son of late actor George C. Scott of THE CHANGELING and THE EXORCIST III: LEGION), the prosecutor, wants to convince the jury that Emily’s out-of-control actions are a result of epileptic grand mal seizures, and that Father Moore acted irresponsibly by telling Emily to forgo taking her medication. He also goes to great lengths to point out: Emily studied several foreign languages which explains her bouts of speaking in a foreign tongue; the epileptic fits caused her vocal chords to make two separate concurrent sounds; in short, he cannot mask his desire to completely debunk the whole supernatural possession element of the case.

After taking on the case, Bruner herself begins waking up every night at 3:00 am just as Emily did and experiences noises that she cannot explain. Father Moore is aware of this, and he warns her to be careful of “the demons.”

On the verge of losing the case, Bruner is suddenly approached by (surprise) a medical doctor who witnessed the exorcism and, after keeping his name out of the whole affair, now wants to testify, which could turn the whole case around 180 degrees. Before he can, however, he is suddenly killed in a car “accident,” which looks much too convenient to the shrewd viewer. Bruner soldiers on, and puts her career on the line until the jury makes their final decision.

The film makes a big point out of the nature of uncertainty – was Emily Rose possessed or not? We don’t know, it’s really up to the viewers to decide, as there is bound to be enormous controversy and ambiguity when dealing with matters like this.

Jennifer Carpenter at times looks similar to Brazilian supermodel Gisele Bündchen and gives a helluva good performance, writhing and contorting herself as the demon has his way with her.

The ad campaign for this film leads one to believe that it is a full-fledged horror film. It isn’t. There is more onscreen courtroom drama than horror, so be prepared for a lot of talk. Despite this, there are some damn good scares in the film. Not too many, but there are a few stand-outs: Emily’s walk down the hallway; the classroom sequence; and the scene where Jason (Joshua Close) awakens and finds Emily contorted on the floor.

Caveat emptor: bring earplugs. The exorcism scenes are loud.

Derrickson wisely avoids the insurmountable feat of attempting to top THE EXORCIST. He fills the 2.35:1 anamorphic frame with both languid and frenetic energy to counterpoint good and evil. He co-wrote the script with Paul Harris Boardman, a friend from his USC days and collaborator on other works in addition to this film. This collaboration should continue on to another project which, I hope, will be just as good as this film.

- Jonathan Stryker

WHAT YOU SAID [VIEW]

Scott W. Davis said

They don't get much timlier than this review. Thanks for the heads up, Jon. I'll have to give this one a look. :devil:

Jonathan Stryker said

Yes, Scott - it's definately worth seeing.

-JS

Juan Rayo said

I have read some reviews that imply the movie is a rather heavy handed christian propaganda sorta flick, any of that in your view? nice review, by the way.

Jay said

QUOTE Originally posted by Juan Rayo@Sep 11 2005, 08:12 PM
I have read some reviews that imply the movie is a rather heavy handed christian propaganda sorta flick, any of that in your view? nice review, by the way.
Quoted post

Haven't seen it, but a group of us wanted to go until we read some reviews and it did indeed seem like it might be somewhat of a "christian propaganda sorta flick".

I've heard it described as Law&Order:Exorcist, for some reason dark fantasy/horror in the courtroom doesn't sound appealling.

Jonathan Stryker said

Thank you, Juan.

Sure, I can understand why some people would view it that way. After all the allegations of sexual improprieties within the Catholic Church, they could certainly use some good publicity, which could be a reason why I've heard of no official protests concerning the nature of this film: Father Moore is a man of God who genuinely wants to help Emily Rose and his character is basically painted in a positive light. Father Damien Karras of THE EXORCIST (1973), on the other hand, was a priest questioning his faith. This plot point, coupled with the site of Regan MacNeil mutilating her vagina with a crucifix, both understandably ignited an uproar within the Church. Jean-Luc Godard's HAIL MARY (1985) and Martin Scorsese's THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST (1988) drew vitriol and verbal pronouncements of armageddon when they were released, usually by Catholics who refused to see the films they were condeming, but that is nothing new, either.

I honestly don't think that the writers had propaganda in mind, anymore than George A. Romero was making a statement about the plight of the black man in a white manâ€™s world during the ironic ending of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968).

In closing, is the film â€œbased on a true storyâ€ just like the tagline infers, or is it just a tagline? :)

Tenebraeuk said

How anybody expects a film about an exorcism can come across as anything other than a religious propoganda flick is beyond me. The Exorcist was actually sanctioned by the catholic church but nobody thinks its a recruting movie for the left footers!

Carmilla said

I don't think it's propaganda. It's got some things- and it's logical. It involves a exorcism, it involves a catholic priest, and well, of course, catholic belief, because you couldn't talk about exorcism without it.

I liked how it combined fact and faith. To me it works well that way.

It's not a scary film, but it does have its moments. It also shows what the church is reluctant to admit and how they protect or abandon their members when there are bigger things at stake.

Nordicdusk said

I finally got around to watching it last night and i found it very enjoyable.It was alot better than people and reviews would have me beleive.It is well worth a watch with a few great horror moments.

Juan Rayo said

Well, I've seen it as well, didn't really like it but I readily admit to be biased against movies that pretend to be "based on a real story" and then only give you one, very much onesided view of events. Also, movies -when they pretend to be serious- in which science equals bad/faith equals good false dichotomy is predominant also get under my nerves.

THis is actually a very contradictory subject for me. I LOVE horror, and I can appreciate a lot of horror movies, b-horror, gore, j-horror, sex etc with no problem whatsoever, and I will try to ignore the bad science or blatant stupidity in those movies whenever I can.

However, I find some films more irritating than others, this one being one of those. Probably unfair of me, I guess.