Movie: The Exorcism of Emily Rose

Posted on | January 6, 2009 | Comments Off

I decided to rent The Exorcism of Emily Rose because it had a great cast (Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson) and was loosely based on a true story. Because of the cast, I knew it wouldn’t be a typical thriller movie. But because it was loosely based on a true story about an exorcism gone wrong, I know it would be very intense.

And you know what? It was a pretty decent movie! A nice mix of courtroom drama and debate over whether demons exist and if they do – can they really possess people? Or are people claiming to be possessed merely suffering from delusions and psychotic breaks? There are several good things about this movie:

1) The script – the courtroom scenes were well done and the lone cheesy scene was the inevitable close up on the hand carrying the slip of paper with the written verdict. Doesn’t EVERY courtroom drama have that scene?

2) The actors. Having Tom Wilkinson (as the priest on trial for negligent homicide when the girl he is attempted to help dies) and Laura Linney (as his agnostic defense attorney) on board certainly elevated this movie. They are GREAT actors.

3) The treatment of the subject. In anyone else’s hands this movie probably would have had blatant religious stereotypes – a priest who is evil, an agnostic lawyer who shows the true path, nutjob religious parents who approve the exorcism. Instead, the movie depicts a priest who is earnest in his belief that Emily was possessed by demons and that he honestly tried to help her. He shows the lawyer to be a person who disagrees with the priest’s beliefs that Emily was possessed, but is willing to believe that the priest is telling the truth that he was trying to help. Parents who tried all sorts of methods for helping their daughter (including anti-epileptic and anti-psychotic medication) and considered the exorcism only when their daughter requested it. If the movie had strayed into the religious stereotypes so prevalent in today’s anti-religion Hollywood, I would have hated it. But it didn’t, and that impressed me.

4) It was genuinely freaky. Emily Rose’s story was told in flashbacks during the trial of Father Monroe. The main scene of her exorcism was very intense and the actress playing Emily totally freaked me out at some point with the faces she was making when the demons were speaking through her.

I can’t think of anything NOT good about the movie. Well, I can think of one. The lighting. Seriously – the people in the movie NEVER sat in rooms that were fully-lit. I’m sorry, but if I hear a noise in the other room, you can bet your bottom dollar I’m going to turn on every light in the house to investigate. But really, that’s my only complaint about the movie.

That’s not to say it’s a 5-star movie or anything, but it’s one of the better courtroom thrillers I’ve seen in a while because it had substance and left the viewer to come to his own conclusion about just what troubled Emily Rose. As for the real story (google Anneliese Michel to find out the story of the girl this movie was based on), I saw a couple clips on YouTube at home this morning that showed pictures of the real girl alongside a brief excerpt of a 60-second clip of tape that was recorded during Anneliese’s exorcism in the 1970s. Was she psychotic? I don’t know. Was she possessed? I don’t know. But it’s the mere POSSIBILITY that is most frightening, and that’s what “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” is all about.

3 1/2 stigmata out of five.

Comments