Recensioni degli utenti

For the most part, films which were intended to frighten the viewing audience usually succeed in instead producing involuntary laughs. So it was nice to see a 'horror' film that not only has a brain for a change, but actually succeeds in being frightening. It may help that the film is allegedly based on true events, which gives credibility to the storyline, and prevents the movie from having those annoyingly gaping plot holes. And indeed, the heading "Based on a true story" doesn't come off as a glaring lie. There are indeed events happening in the film which are questionable as to whether they actually occurred in real life, but the beauty of 'Emily Rose' is that most of the film is retold by various characters, so the events described are as the character perceived them. In this way, the film doesn't distance its audience by declaring that "well, demons were in the film which was 'based on a true story', so demons must actually exist".

But in many ways, 'Emily Rose' is different from almost every past horror movie in the sense that it doesn't make really obvious attempts to frighten its audience. Instead, director/co-screenwriter Scott Derickson seems content to make us think. There are several questions raised in the film regarding religious beliefs and the public's general perception of them, but these are all handled in an objective and impartial manner. And as for the scare factor, since the filmmakers aren't overly obvious in trying to scare the audience, the film actually is frightening at several points - again, unusual for a horror film. The frightening events regarding Emily Rose's exorcism are all the more frightening as they don't seem horribly staged and predictable. (although the cheesy demonic animation, as shown in the trailer, could have been done far better) It's true that composer Christopher Young seems unable to resist the horror movie cliché of having horribly over-dramatic music which builds to a climax at the most frightening moment, but for the most part the movie is able to surpass the usual horror clichés.

It helps of course that the cast all deliver quality performances, the obvious standout being Jennifer Carpenter as Emily. Her possession scenes are nothing short of incredible, the sheer torment she seems capable of portraying is utterly captivating. Laura Linney also shines in the lead, giving a powerful and affecting performance as the attorney of the convicted priest who performed Emily Rose's exorcism. As said priest, Tom Wilkinson also manages to impress, delivering a quietly effective and very human performance. My only complaint is that the characters of Campbell Scott and Colm Feore were really badly written, coming off as the typical antagonistic figures, and nothing more. Both give satisfying performances, despite their one dimensional characters, especially Feore, who has always been talented at taking terribly written characters, and giving them life and personality nonetheless.

So The Exorcism of Emily Rose may not quite be the very best of its genre, but it certainly proves to be one of the more intelligently made ones. The director seems to have for once taken that extra step, and put aside the endless thrills and shocks in favor of making us think a bit. There are some cheesy effects, such as the demonic visions, but there are some genuinely frightening parts, especially the actual exorcism scene, mainly due to the chilling and captivating performance from Jennifer Carpenter as the title character. The principle cast members, Laura Linney and Tom Wilkinson also give strong performances, bringing many layers to their characters. Quite the quality piece overall, and one worth seeing.

-8/10

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ironically enough, "The Excorcism of Emily Rose" got released in my country (Belgium) synchronously with another similar, real-life lawsuit. A self-acclaimed exorcist has to justify the death of a young girl after performing inhuman rituals and fatal exorcism tricks. It's weird having seen this movie and then follow the lawsuit on TV and in newspapers. It's so easy to deny the existence of demonic possession and to brush aside exorcism as quackery, but then – as this film shows – you're also questioning people's beliefs and family values. Emily Rose is the sympathetic daughter of a poor but deeply religious rural family. Shortly after her long-anticipated start at the university, her body becomes the host of no less than 6 different demons. The priest of the little town where she lives, father Moore, is doing everything he can to purify Emily's body but the demons are too strong and she doesn't survive the exorcism. What makes this film different than the obvious 70's classic "The Exorcist" (which also entirely revolves on the possession of an innocent girl) is that the story takes place after the actual exorcism and in the courtroom where father Moore is on trial for negligent homicide. His ambitious lawyer Erin Bruner goes straight for the acquittal of her client, but father Moore only cares for telling Emily's story, despite the fact that this can cost him his career as a priest. The screenplay of this film was based on a true story and director Scott Derrickson does a great job in making the extended courtroom sequences interesting and compelling. The flashbacks, showing Emily's horrible decrepit, are very atmospheric and contain multiple shock-moments. The acting is sublime, with a powerful Tom Wilkinson as the devoted priest and an enchanting Jennifer Carpenter as the poor Emily Rose. This is not a full-blooded horror film, but definitely one of the most unsettling, disturbing and thought-provoking dramas of the last few years. Highly recommended!

I just saw this movie today and thought it was wonderful.

The acting was excellent, from one end to the other. The scenes, the flashbacks, the drama, the horror, the faith vs doubt theme ... all were entwined in a back-and-forth web that maintained constant focus on the strongest feature of all: the Story itself.

And what a Story! I won't give it away except to say that the plots and subplots and intrigue and characterizations were all woven together to spin a simply riveting, terrifying, provocative, endearing, challenging Story.

I really liked the multiple depictions of What Happens and How the Characters React. You see Something Happen; and then feel Fear; and then watch the Face of the Character on hand experience Fear; and then perhaps the order is slightly changed: you see the Face of the Character experience Fear as the Character gazes in terror over the viewer's shoulder. Then you see What the Character is looking at. And experience Fear.

I also really liked the legal conflict ... and the way the Story honored both sides. There's no doubt, ever, where our sympathies lie: with the Laura Linney character. Yet, the prosecutor is not at all a "straw man." He is give a great opening, and is effective and believable throughout. This enhanced greatly the Doubt vs Faith conflict that reinforced the Story throughout.

And through all this, the Priest's insistence that the Story should be told, is what really drove the action above all. This gave a feeling of authenticity to the Story that both made it appealing, and frightening.

A wonderful, wonderful, movie ... !

I think one of the biggest problems with today's movie industry is that in teasers and trailers most, if not all, of the action/special effects are shown. Then you go see a movie because the trailer looks great only to find out that you've basically seen all the good stuff. Thankfully, I have learned that this is how many trailers work, but I still go see a movie praying that I'm not wasting my hard-earned money on a really expensive and really long commercial; let me savor something! I was pleasantly surprised at The Exorcism of Emily Rose; going knowing that it's not only about her exorcism, but also about the trial that follows.This movie is also about alternatives,what ifs, and perceptions. A good movie for psychology majors--as am I--who are trying to learn about mental illness, diagnosis, and the DSM-IV.

You don't need to know much about Emily, science, exorcism, or the Bible to be able to follow this movie; but, if you do, it'll definitely make you raise questions about your own faith, beliefs, and what you've learned throughout life about yourself.

Will you like this movie? Think "Primal Fear" meets "The Exorcist" meets the TV Show "Fact or Fiction".

It's been a while since we had a good exorcism movie – not counting that rubbishy EXORCIST sequel that came out a few years ago. When I heard about THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE, I thought it sounded good – different enough to be worth a look. When I caught it on TV last night, I knew I'd been right. This takes the true-life case of a failed exorcism and turns it into a gripping John Grisham-style courtroom drama in a very intriguing, thought-provoking way.

I'm a big believer in the supernatural and I've studied it a lot in the past. What is presented here is a very believable, very frightening account of demonic possession. I honestly believe that this really happened. Although the film is lengthy and slow-moving, it's never boring and that's because somebody had the great idea of including harrowing flashbacks of the possessed Emily during the courtroom case. It really works, breaking up the courtroom tension, and adding in genuine frights and chills along the way too.

The movie is topped off with a fantastic cast working at the top of their game. I don't believe Laura Linney has ever been better than she has here, and her portrayal of a woman with integrity is fine. Tom Wilkinson makes us believe he is the disturbed priest with every drop of sweat that comes from him. As for Jennifer Carpenter, well she should be going places with her portrayal of the tormented Emily here, and I hope she doesn't suffer the same kind of career nosedive as Linda Blair did in the '80s.

This is properly one the most disgusting films ever made.

In the mid-70th a German girl was killed by a Catholic priest and her deeply religious parents. The murder took place in the form of an exorcism performed because of the girl's epilepsy and borderline personality.

I could have accepted the concept of plain horror movie based on that story, but to turn this sad event into a defence for cold religious fanatics that killed in the name of God - and for two of them even their own daughter - makes me wanna p***.

Taking into consideration the fact, that more and more innocent people are being killed directly and indirectly by religious fanatics of various kinds through wars and acts of terrorism, just makes the purpose of this film even more disgusting.

If you want to see a horror movie about exorcism go see an "The Exorcist" movie - if you want to see the true story about the case this movie claims to be based on go see the German movie "Requim" (2006).

Scott Derricksen's well-executed multi-layered film works both as a psychological horror and a gripping courtroom drama. He was so inspired by the novel and intrigued by the issues presented that he ended up making this movie. It shows that he has done extensive research.

What I liked about the horror element is that even though there are a few jumps, it does not derail into ridicule. The director doesn't overdo any violence, blood, scary faces and whatever. Derricksen uses a lot of silence which leaves the viewer in a heightened state of suspense desperately wondering what will break the silence. His use of colour is clever and it sets a chilling atmosphere. You can see hints of Dario Argento and Gaspar Noé. For example the red lit corridor in Emily's dorm looks eerily like that underground subway passage in 'Irréversible'. The exorcism scenes are quite chilling (unlike the unintentionally funny ones in 'The Exorcist'). The courtroom sequences raise some interesting questions about scientific reasoning versus the unknown and unexplained. I was impressed that it didn't become one of those God versus Science movies but the Shohreh Agdashloo track left a lot to be desired.

In addition to being a well crafted film, the performances are among the highlights. Tom Wilkinson gives a phenomenal subtle performance. A ravishing Laura Linney is equally electrifying from the yuppie ambitious lawyer to one whose internal conflict makes her doubtful. Jennifer Carpenter delivers an astonishing performance. It couldn't have been an easy part to pull off and would have been easier to mess up but she does a solid job. It definitely makes Linda Blair's bad performance (in the 'Exorcist') look miserable.

I'm not much of a horror movie fan, mostly because they tend to be ridiculous and end up being funny or boring rather than having the intended effect. It will be wrong to lable 'The Exorcism of Emily Rose' is much more than just another horror flick because it does raise questions and tackles some issues without coming to a definitive conclusion (as there are simply no answers to some things that happen).

The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) is a movie I recently watched on HBOMAX. The storyline follows a lawyer who takes a case where she represents a priest accused of murder of a young lady who was going through the exorcism process. The lawyer will need to prove that the exorcism was real and that the priest did everything he could to save her.

This movie is directed by Scott Derrickson (Doctor Strange) and stars Laura Linney (Mystic River), Tom Wilkinson (Michael Clayton), Jennifer Carpenter (Dexter), Colm Feore (Thor), Joshua Close (Fargo) and Kenneth Welsh (The Day After Tomorrow).

This film has a lot going for it. The cast is absolutely amazing top to bottom. Linney and Carpenter deliver perfect performances. The storyline has a fantastic setup and does a great job of establishing the characters and circumstances. The cinematography is very good as are the settings to set the mood. The exorcism scenes are solid as are the possession sequences. Unfortunately, the court scenes are just okay and the ending is a bit cheesy, but still worth watching.

Overall, this is far from a classic but it is a worthwhile possession movie and addition to the horror genre. I would score this a 6.5/10 and recommend seeing it once.

Definitely not a horror, rather drama. Not an empty one with the depth replaced by FX. Yes, something to think about. Decent shooting. Decent acting even with so little place to act, especially for Emily. At least one under-bottom, and the sort of twist at the end. Almost everything to be significant one.

Why almost? One famous citation says that if there is a gun in the play it should fire once, meaning there should be no useless details in the script. Here we have plenty of underused moments. Emily's decision is just the case, no development. Black ghost - no development. Demon(s) inside - no development. Family tragedy - no development. All this empty space is filled with repetitive scenes, screams, howls, and even lines.

First of all this was a good movie. I wouldn't necessarily consider it a horror movie like Friday The 13th but it was suspenseful like The Ring. I had to look away sometimes because being a suspenseful movie watcher all my life I knew by the sound of the chilling music something was gonna happen that would freak me out and boy did it do its job.

It wasn't overly predictable. It was a look back on what exactly happened when Emily Rose got possessed and how it ended. It wasn't a "push the catholic belief down everyones throat" because defending the Priest was an agnostic lawyer trying to not only get ahead in her career but convince a journey that medical science could not determine she had a medical condition but a demonic possession. Cant tell you anymore than that.

The movie had a "dark" look and was cozy it kept me on the edge of my seat and the way she got possessed and how she looked was way freaky. Good movie and worth to own on DVD!

This film is a strange mix of courtroom drama and demonic possession horror film. It is a mix that I have not seen elsewhere.

Emily Rose is a rural girl who gets a scholarship to university. She comes from a religiously strict family and starts having 'supernatural' episodes. Maybe these are the result of epileptic fits, or maybe it is the work of the devil.

The strength of the storytelling is the retention of ambiguity. Either explanation works.

What is never discussed is the issue of a deity who reveals himself through the horrible suffering of his followers. There is a questionable morality for sure.

When one reads here the opinions of a lot of fellow cinema lovers on this film they will realise that there are a lot of creditable variables by which one perceives the ''right'' course this film should have taken.

To my mind though,technicalities and possible directorial ''irregularities'' are not what's most important about this film.This film shows strong ,excellent performances by all the main actors and the director has managed to make this seem like a real story that could have happened to just anybody.

We don't see the horrible violence of ''The Exorcist'' nor are the images and scenes shown as scary.What we see, lays emphasis on the drama and suffering of a girl and touches on the human side of things.I think that the perspective of this film is to a have more a social impact,not so much to be a horror film.

It conveys a lot of messages and stresses how important it is to have integrity how sometimes you have to sacrifice your ambitions ,to do what your heart tells you.How some life experiences change us,our personality,and give us a true,deeper wisdom and understanding of life.How they can make us revise some views that previously we thought were unshakeable.

Finally,the film provides an explanation why sometimes God allows some horrible things to take place and some people to become martyrs.

I do agree though that for a materialistic,atheistic person this film might be less ''thrilling'' than he would have expected it to be.I have called it a ''modest masterpiece'' because in a simple,humane,full of strong performances way,it touches our hearts and strengthens our beliefs in justice,moral values,and for those of us who believe,in God and His mercy.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose delivers a well-constructed and engaging story within the supernatural horror subgenre, exploring unconventional paths. It intelligently addresses complex themes, prompting reflections on faith and science. The performances, particularly by Laura Linney and Jennifer Carpenter, are solid and good. Supernatural scenes, except those with excessive visual effects, effectively generate fear and credibility, impacting the viewer psychologically. However, the film may be lengthy and tiresome for some viewers, and certain scenes with exaggerated visual effects have aged very poorly.

The film "Exorcism of Emily Rose" is blatant propaganda, all but unwatchable for its cringe-inducing transparency. Its first purpose is not to tell a story but is instead to persuade viewer that exorcism - and therefore the Devil and God - are real entities.

The story centres on a courtroom, used as a vehicle to "prove" the case of the film makers. The courtroom drama is interposed with cuts of the "posssesion" which are designed to add verisimilitude to their case, but which I find disingenuous.

The use of an "anthropologist" as a "scientific" witness to back their case yet further is appalling, especially when contrasted with the frailty of the medical evidence given in support of the prosecution (that is, in opposition to the film makers views).

I concluded this film is really about "science versus religion", and that its maker believes such a debate exists to be won; a proposition that surely is most unwelcome.

The nineteen years old Catholic college girl Emily Rose (Jennifer Carpenter) dies a couple of days after being submitted to an exorcism carried out by her parish priest, Father Moore (Tom Wilkinson). Emily believed she was possessed by six demons, and although authorized by Emily and he parents, Father Moore is accused of negligent homicide, since he had suggested Emily to interrupt the use of medications for epilepsy. In order to avoid a scandal, the Archdiocese hires the successful, ambitious and agnostic lawyer Erin Bruner (Laura Linney), and the prosecution assigns the religious prosecutor Ethan Thomas (Campbell Scott). Along the days, there is a battle between science and religion in the court.

"The Exorcism of Emily Rose" was a great surprise for me. Based on a true event, I was expecting a horror movie like "The Exorcist", but actually it is a great story of trial, with the confrontation of science and religion, but with an agnostic lawyer defending and a religious one accusing a priest. The story is leaded by Erin, and her contact with the unknown and her final speech are some of the great moments of this film. Among the scariest parts are Dr. Cartwright (Duncan Fraser) saying that he started praying again since he had witnessed the exorcism, and when the priest explains that 3 AM is the demoniac witching hour. The direction of Scott Derrickson is excellent, using special effects only when necessary, and very well supported by a magnificent cast, leaded by the wonderful Laura Linney and the great Tom Wilkinson, followed by the unknown Jennifer Carpenter, who is great in the role of Emily Rose, Campbell Scott and Colm Feore. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Exorcismo de Emily Rose" ("The Exorcism of Emily Rose")

Scott Derrickson does many things right in this little "courtroom horror" picture. His possession scenes are top notch, with most of the chills coming from jarring camera work and generally only subtle special effects. Rarely is a special effect in this film more than a digitally altered scary face or subtly enhanced human ability (as often seen in The X-Files). The rest is done through editing, lighting, and scoring. I believe that Derrickson did this for a very specific reason - to add credibility to both sides of the courtroom argument. Was Emily possessed by demons or mentally/physically ill? Emily's feats of strength, obscene bodily contortions, and other frightening abilities can all be explained by both science and religion. For some of the more supernatural moments that Emily experiences, Derrickson lets us observe from two perspectives: demonic influence and objective science. Since this is of course a horror picture, there are noticeably more scenes of the former. This is a good thing because Derrickson unfortunately does not handle drama very consistently in this picture. Several key moments in the film, including a fervent assertion made by the district attorney, that should have resonated with the audience instead made everyone in the theater laugh at the scene's ridiculousness. Still, the scares are top notch (particularly a long exorcism scene which begins like Friedkin's Exorcist but then takes some surprisingly different turns) and presenting both religious and scientific explanations for the possessions (which was never an option for the head-spinning, levitating Reagan) will satisfy both believers and skeptics. Worth seeing.