The Exorcism of Emily Rose

First of all this was a good movie.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose is based upon a true story, the events that lead up to the death of Emily Rose. The real person who inspired this movie was Anneliese Michel. Emily Rose was a young college student, who believed she was possessed. Her family and her pastor did everything they could to save her. The story wasn't overly predictable. It was a look back on what exactly happened when Emily Rose got possessed and how it ended. the Priest, Father Moore was help by an agnostic lawyer, Erin Bruner and her trying to not only get ahead in her career but convince a journey that medical science could not determine. Emily Rose had a medical condition but a demonic possession. But the prosecutor, Ethan Thomas was a devout catholic and against the priest, Father Moore. The dynamics between the key characters is interesting and well thought out.

With the exception of the title, " Emily Rose" vs "Anneliese Michel", this was an excellent adaptation of the book. Actually, one of the consultants was Felicitas Goodman, the author and anthropologist who studied this case and I believe, owns the audiotapes of the ritual.

It is actually more of a court room drama. However, there is no sparing of pure psychological terror. All and all an excellent movie. Other posters have observed that believing in Christianity or the lack thereof, is not shoved down the viewer's throats. It allows one to form their own opinion.

My only concern; the PG-13 rating. Way too intense for viewers 10-13 years old or younger.

Yes, I know, we've seen too many mediocre horror movies in the past few years. Yes, I'm fed up with horror stories that are "based on true events", too, but don't write this movie off too soon. If you ignore the assertion that this has all happened in reality and just accept that you're in for a supernatural movie, you'll have a gay ol' time with "The Exorcism Of The Emily Rose".

The first thing to mention is that there has never been a combination of horror movie and courtroom drama before, and while some reviewers have stated that the two genres don't go together well, I have to disagree. The courtroom setting added a lot of suspense to the story and horror movies always work best when there is suspense added to the spooky and creepy elements. And boy, does this movie have some creepy scenes.

The four main actors do a fine job and the restrained direction is pretty atmospheric too, except for some minor fashionable shots that are probably not going to age very well (for example, one time Scott Derrickson reverts to Darren Aronofsky-cam, which is already getting old). Anyway, the main attraction is the story itself, and as I've said, it's fast paced and exciting - at least until the third act. Up until that point it's hard to watch the screen at times because Derrickson uses his shock scenes so effectively and steers clear of any jump-clichés. Then a certain climax is reached, the movie reduces its supernatural elements and relies maybe a bit too much on the courtroom drama aspect. On the plus side Derrickson avoids going over the top like so many other horror movies do including embarrassing CGI-orgies in their showdowns. On the other hand, it is exactly that relatively quiet ending that prevents "The Exorcism Of Emily Rose" from becoming a real classic. One just has the feeling that the priest and the trial made a whole lot of fuss about nothing, because there's no real solution in the end.

"The Exorcism Of Emily Rose" has enough chilling moments not to be overshadowed by "The Exorcist", the big Kahuna of the exorcism genre, but it's not going to be remembered as a cornerstone of the horror genre. In 2005 you couldn't find a lot of spooky movies that were better than this one, though.

This is an interesting film. While it's not terribly frightening, the film's juxtaposition of court room drama, and the exorcism scenes are intriguing. I found it to be less of your stereotypical demonic possession movie (ie: The Exorcist), and more of a film that leaves you pondering the possibilities and questioning our more modern perspectives and scientific rationales for things that sometimes can't be adequately explained through these means. The fact that it's based on the reported possession of Anneliese Michel (circa 1970, Germany) does make the film more unnerving. The actor's performances, while not exceptional, are at least engaging. The special effects are rather limited, but well done. All in all, It's a film that 's certainly worth watching.

Wonderful, wonderful movie. A lesson in film-making. I know a lot of people won't be able to see it for what it is because of the supernatural/horror elements (which are usually a turn-off for film snobs), but the movie is just extremely well-made.

Consider the fact that Linney's character's true conflict is not winning the trial, but a satisfyingly complex internal struggle which I will not name so as not to spoil the movie. Or the plethora of food for thought that the movie offers, regarding existentialist issues of perception vs. objective truth, and social issues of liability and responsibility.

Some very interesting scenes that find ways to express things in subtle and creative ways without spelling them out. And an incredible and ballsy performance by Jennifer Carpenter, which takes Linda Blair's possession to a whole new level. Also, notice how a key dramatic monologue is presented, contrary to what we might expect, with no sentimental music in the background. The cinematography is also great. I was reminded of Dario Argento's vivid colors in Suspiria on more than one occasion.

Although it's not the focus of the film, the movie also offers a few very cool scare moments, and seeing Emily possessed is terrifying.

This is my favorite "underdog" movie of the year so far.