The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)

Summary: Emily Rose is dead and the question of what caused it has gotten the priest of her local parish on trial for negligent homicide. Did his belief that Emily was possessed and need an exorcism solve the problem or was it a misdiagnosis of epileptic fits? Only Erin Bruner, defense attorney, can help the priest prove that Emily needed help that only he could provide.           Overall: I’m gonna break this into a few sections. Brief history on the story the film is based on, critique of the film as it exists and what I think the film could have been.           The movie is based on the true story of Anneliese Michel who died in 1976 in Germany. Many believe she was possessed by various demons and indeed for years more than a few priests tried exorcism rites to save her. Alas, nothing worked and she died of starvation. What is true is that she suffered from epilepsy...she died of starvation and the priests went on trial, eventually being convicted. The Church denied Emily was ever truly possessed and in fact for years refused to permit an exorcism because the evidence never supported the idea she was possessed. Years later, she dug up her dead body and found nothing out of the ordinary with its decomposition rate.           As we watch the film, given the fact above, the movie portrays itself “based on a true story.” Well, not exactly...it’s been 3 decades, switched continents and made the idea of epilepsy from a fact into an unknown. But I’m not that bothered by it. Frankly every movie would love to say “based on…” for the publicity. I’m ok with the loose connections. The movie is a courtroom drama with some flashbacks of horror and evil thrown in for some good scares. We have some good actors and a tremendous performance by the lady playing Emily. Overall the film is decent. It tries to show us dark forces going after the defense attorney but then fails to truly finish that off at the end. But the cinematography and camera work is quite nice. It’s a scary film, at times, but tosses in a silly “Hollywood” ending to the trial’s conclusion.           What the film could have been….was so much more. All the flashbacks and great acting by “Emily” showed me was that film was on the right tract. It had great atmosphere, greats cares…but every time we fall back into the courtroom, it lost momentum. Sure, the producers want to tell you a story. Sure, they wanna bring out the conundrum of our legal system and give us some stuff to think about. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too. This could have been one of the greats, on par with “Exorcist” and I think could have done some serious damage in scaring people. But the producers chose the wrong way to film the story. And alas...you come out of this film acknowledging some nice scares...but also thinking...Didn’t Laura Linney do this courtroom drama with Edward Norton?           Comparison: Primal Fear meets The Exorcist

Links to other sites at The Sinning Room

Horror Films A-K Review Page

Horror Films Review Page