The Exorcism of Emily Rose

[xrzn]

Going into The Exorcism of Emily Rose I knew not to expect to get scared since it was basically PG-13. I've noticed a lot with these PG-13 movies that the director tries to get a cheap scare out of the viewer by making something popup. I know that that's the normal with horror movies, but with a PG-13 rating it is so hard to accomplish this since there can't be a lot of gore.

However, the movie itself should not be viewed as a horror movie. We get an interesting plot that includes the actually exorcisms rather just a movie with only exorcism like I suspected. This really helped boost the movie from what was bad to decent. On top of this, the acting was magnificent. Ethan Thomas (Campbell Scott) was by far the best played character. Campbell Scott did an excellent job as the prosecutor. He played the part as if he was the antagonist, and to some extent he was. The rest was the cast also did a wonderful job playing their respective parts. This helped boost the movie from decent to good.

Overall, it was a good film. Don't expect to see original horrifying scenes. Every horror scene in this film has been done before. Nevertheless, the actual plot and the brilliant cast with Campbell Scott stealing the show make this worth the pay of admission. This isn't a classic, but it isn't a failure either.

Grade: C+

A few side notes: I saw the movie last night, and man, it was sold out for both showings at a very large movie theatre (AMC 16). We went to a smaller theatre (AMC 8) in the mall and it was packed. I'm predicting this makes $15 million tonight and maybe $25 million over the weekend.

Also, going to the movies is getting worse and worse. Why do people think they should comment on every trailer after it ends? Why do people feel like they should laugh after screaming from getting scared? Why do people answer their cell phones in the middle of a movie? The next generation of moviegoers are retarded.

[Zodiac_Speaking]

Remember The Exorcist is the once and future king that all related exorcism films will be judged by.

I thought while the film's overall pacing was slow, something most courtroom drama have I think, it was very interesting and kept me entertained. So problems like a bit overly long and the false scares with the priest's lawyer were pointless and lame, but the drama kept me glued. As for the exorcism scenes, which I thought were good, but wisely didn't go over-the-top theatrically, worked well within this story, although one will always have the baggage of the outrageous scenes from The Exorcist. Not really scarey and I don't think that was its intention (if so, then they failed) but an interesting "real" tale that's recommendable.

Grade: "B"

[RonBoster]

I just saw Ex. of Emily Rose. I liked it. I thought the exocist scenes were well shot and creepy. The actress was terrific in terms of physically creating a possesed person.

What I loved most was the concept of belief in possession in modern society. If one believes in God, then one must believe in the satan. Then can satan's minions reek havoc on individuals through their works and the extreme situation a case of possession?

The thing that frightens me most about movie's whose subject is possession is that deep down inside, I believe it is possible...so the subject is rooted in reality for me and my religious beliefs. The movie was terrific in dealing with that topic and searching ones beliefs in today's society.

I have to agree that the "omen type' scenes with the lawyer and the doctor made me smirk, but I would love to know if those situations were rooted in the real story or included to enhance the scare factor. I ran a quick search at Amazon and the original book is out of print.

I agree and would give it a solid "B" rating. It may play better at home with a good HT system....assuming it has a solid audio soundtrack to immerse the viewer with the scare effects.

Ron

[onebyone]

I wasn't as involved as I should have been in the courtroom scenes, as I didn't think the information they presented was all that intellectually interesting. I wish they had dived in more, and I would love to read a book on the real case. I can't believe one wasn't released to coincide with the movie. Oh well. I will hunt one down eventually.

I did enjoy the scenes with Emily Rose and thought they were super. Jennifer Carpenter was really good in this role. It hurt to look at her, and not because of makeup or what not, but because she looked so pained. This part of the movie I thought was really good, coming together for a grade of B- or C+ altogether. I will netflix it down the line to see if I like it more with repeated viewings.

[mdc3000]

I didn't really like it. I was expecting a horror flick, not a courtroom drama. Disappointing performances by most of the actors involved (especially Campbell Scott and Agdashaloo) a far too leisurely pace and bleak cinematography really did a diservice to what is quite a cool story in itself. I think in different hands, this could have been a very chilling movie about faith vs. fact, but as it was handled, it didn't live up to it's potential. No wonder it came out in September.

MATT

[RonBoster]

Matt: I think you bring up a valid and interesting point....how this film is being marketed....as a horror film. From the use of possession specific scenes to the voice over talent (doesn't he sound like the 70's exploitation announcer they used to always use-similar to one of the ads for Skeleton Key). One would rightly assume this is a horror film and not a courtroom drama with the supernatural as the focus of the case. This may have made an interesting documentary in the right hands.

Ron

[DaveCole]

I went into this movie only knowing the title and loved it. The theater was packed for the 10pm showing. I am curious, is it really based on a real event or is that just movie hype? If it is does anyone have any links to the actual case?

[movielib]

Originally Posted by DaveCole

I went into this movie only knowing the title and loved it. The theater was packed for the 10pm showing. I am curious, is it really based on a real event or is that just movie hype? If it is does anyone have any links to the actual case?

I found this:

http://www.fotofetch.com/

THE REAL EMILY ROSE

Emily Rose is actually Anneliese Michel. From her birth on the 21st of September, 1952, Anneliese Michel enjoyed the life of a normal, religiously nurtured young girl. Without warning, her life changed on a day in 1968 when she began shaking and found she was unable to control her body. She could not call out for her parents, Josef and Anna, or any of her 3 sisters. A neurologist at the Psychiatric Clinic Wurzburg diagnosed her with "Grand Mal" epilepsy. Because of the strength of the epileptic fits, and the severity of the depression that followed, Anneliese was admitted for treatment at the hospital.

Soon after the attacks began, Anneliese started seeing devilish grimaces during her daily praying. It was the fall of 1970, and while the young people of the world were enjoying the liberal freedoms of the time, Anneliese was battling with the belief that she was possessed. It seemed there was no other explanation for the appearance of devilish visions during her prayers. Voices also began following her, saying Anneliese will "stew in hell". She mentioned the "demons" to the doctors only once, explaining that they have started to give her orders. The doctors seem unable to help, and Anneliese lost hope that medicine was going to be able to cure her.

In the summer of 1973, her parents visited different pastors to request an exorcism. Their requests were rejected and they were given recommendations that the now 20 year old Anneliese should continue with medication and treatment. It was explained that the process by which the Church proves a possession (Infestatio) is strictly defined, and until all the criterium is met, a Bishop can not approve an exorcism. The requirements, to name a few, include an aversion to religious objects, speaking in a language the person has never learned, and supernatural powers.

In 1974, after supervising Anneliese for some time, Pastor Ernst Alt requested a permit to perform the exorcism from the Bishop of Wurzburg. The request was rejected, and a recommendation soon followed saying that Anneliese should live even more of a religious lifestyle in order to find peace. The attacks did not diminish, and her behavior become more irratic. At her parents house in Klingenberg, she insulted, beat, and began biting the other members of her family. She refused to eat because the demons would not allow it. Anneliese slept on the stone floor, ate spiders, flies, and coal, and even began drinking her own urine. She could be heard screaming throughout the house for hours while breaking crucifixes, destroying paintings of Jesus, and pulling apart rosaries. Anneliese began committing acts of self-mutilation at this time, and the act of tearing off her clothes and urinating on the floor became commonplace.

After making an exact verification of the possession in September 1975, the Bishop of Wurzburg, Josef Stangl, assigned Father Arnold Renz and Pastor Ernst Alt with the order to perform "The Great Exorcism" on Anneliese Michel. The basis for this ritual was the "Rituale Romanum", which was still, at the time, a valid Cannon Law from the 17th century. It was determined that Anneliese must be saved from the possession by several demons, including Lucifer, Judas Iscariot, Nero, Cain, Hitler, and Fleischmann, a disgraced Frankish Priest from the 16th century, and some other damned souls which had manifested through her. From September '75 until July '76, one or two exorcism sessions were held each week. Anneliese's attacks were sometimes so strong that she would have to be held down by 3 men, or even chained up. During this time, Anneliese found her life somewhat return to normal as she could again go to school, take final examinations at the Pedagogic Academy in Wurzburg, and go to church.

The attacks, however, did not stop. In fact, she would more often find herself paralyzed and falling unconscious than before. The exorcism continued over many months, always with the same prayers and incantations. Sometimes family members and visitors, like one married couple that claims to have "discovered" Anneliese, would be present during the rituals. For several weeks, Anneliese denied all food. Her knees ruptured due to the 600 genuflections she performed obsessively during the daily exorcism. Over 40 audio tapes record the process, in order to preserve the details.

The last day of the Exorcism Rite was on June 30th, 1976, and Anneliese was suffering at this point from Pneumonia. She was also totally emaciated, and running a high fever. Exhausted and unable to physically perform the genuflections herself, her parents stood in and helped carry her through the motions. "Beg for Absolution" is the last statement Anneliese made to the exorcists. To her mother, she said, "Mother, I'm afraid." Anna Michel recorded the death of her daughter on the following day, July 1st, 1976, and at noon, Pastor Ernst Alt informed the authorities in Aschaffenburg. The senior prosecutor began investigating immediately.

A short time before these final events unfolded, William Friedkin's "The Exorcist" (1974) came to the cinemas in Germany, bringing with it a wave of paranormal hysteria that flooded the nation. Psychiatrists all over Europe reported an increase of obsessive ideas among their patients. Prosecutors took more than 2 years to to take Annaliese's case to court, using that time to sort through the bizarre facts. Anneliese's parents and the two exorcists were accused of negligent homocide. The "Klingenberg Case" would be decided upon two questions: What caused the death of Anneliese Michel, and who was responsible?

According the forensic evidence, "Anneliese starved to death". Specialists claimed that if the accused would have begun with forced feeding one week before her death, Anneliese's life would have been saved. One sister told the court that Anneliese did not want to go to a mental home where she would be sedated and forced to eat. The exorcists tried to prove the presence of the demons, playing taped recordings of strange dialogues like that of two demons arguing about which one of them would have to leave Anneliese's body first. One of the demons called himself Hitler, and spoke with a Frankish accent (Hitler was born in Austria). Not one of those present during the exorcism ever had a doubt about the authenticity of the presence of these demons.

The psychiatrists, whom had been ordered to testify by the court, spoke about the "Doctrinaire Induction". They said that the priests had provided Anneliese with the contents of her psychotic behavior. Consequentially, they claimed, she later accepted her behavior as a form of demonic possession. They also offered that Anneliese's unsettled sexual development, along with her diagnosed Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, had influenced the psychosis.

The verdict was considered by many as not as harsh as they expected. Anneliese's parents, as well as the exorcists, were found guilty of manslaughter resulting from negligence and omitting first aid. They were sentenced to 6 months in jail and probation. The verdict included the opinion of the court that the accused should have helped by taking care of the medical treatment that the girl needed, but instead, their use of naive practices aggrivated Anneliese's already poor constitution.

A commission of the German Bishop-Conference later declared that Anneliese Michel was not possessed, however, this did not keep believers from supporting her struggles, and it was because so many believed in her that Anneliese's body did not find peace with death. Her corpse was exhumed eleven and a half years after her burial, only to confirm that it had decayed as would have been expected under normal circumstances. Today, her grave remains a place of pilgrimage for rosary-praying and for those who believe that Anneliese Michel bravely fought the devil.

Picture:

[JumpCutz]

I'd hit it.

[scott shelton]

Originally Posted by JumpCutz

I'd hit it.

It would hit back.

[SPiRAL]

I saw it today, and was glad I read that it was a courtroom drama. I would have been pissed if I went just by the tv spots. All in all, I thought it was good. Nice acting and some really decent posession scenes. My theater was about 70% full, there were some sighs and seat-shifting durring the court scenes, but most people seemed to enjoy it. I give it a B-.

[RonBoster]

The film brought in 30+ million for the weekend! That really surprises me. I have to believe most were unaware that it is a courtroom drama and not a straight ahead horror film. Once word of mouth takes over, it should drop like a rock. Especially since a slasher film it's theaters this week (cry wolf?). That should take the teen crowd away from Emily Rose.

Ron

[Charlie Goose]

I really liked the possession scenes. No levitation or pea soup or head spinning, just incredibly violent fits that could've been exactly what the prosecution said, epilepsy and mental illness. Some of it was pretty chilling, especially when the boyfriend wakes up and sees Emily staring demonically at him while in an unnatural body twist. I didn't even recognize Campbell Scott. I felt sorry for the actress playing Emily, not much dialogue but a lot of physical spasms. The Devil must be a real wussy, all he can do is twist up a young girl and open doors.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by xrzn

Also, going to the movies is getting worse and worse. Why do people think they should comment on every trailer after it ends? Why do people feel like they should laugh after screaming from getting scared? Why do people answer their cell phones in the middle of a movie? The next generation of moviegoers are retarded.

If I hadn't been annoyed by the two rows of stupid loud obnoxious adolescents behind me, I might have enjoyed the movie a little more.

[auto]

Originally Posted by Giles

If I hadn't been annoyed by the two rows of stupid loud obnoxious adolescents behind me, I might have enjoyed the movie a little more.

We must have been in the same theater.

[Chad]

At her parents house in Klingenberg, she insulted, beat, and began biting the other members of her family. She refused to eat because the demons would not allow it. Anneliese slept on the stone floor, ate spiders, flies, and coal, and even began drinking her own urine. She could be heard screaming throughout the house for hours while breaking crucifixes, destroying paintings of Jesus, and pulling apart rosaries. Anneliese began committing acts of self-mutilation at this time, and the act of tearing off her clothes and urinating on the floor became commonplace.

OK, that's further proof that this movie is just a sanitized Hollywood version of a film that doesn't tell the real story or cater to its intended audience. I'm willing to bet, and correct me if I'm wrong, that none of the above was in the movie. That's R-rated material and you sure as hell won't see that shit in a PG-13 film.

[SPiRAL]

Originally Posted by Chad

OK, that's further proof that this movie is just a sanitized Hollywood version of a film that doesn't tell the real story or cater to its intended audience. I'm willing to bet, and correct me if I'm wrong, that none of the above was in the movie. That's R-rated material and you sure as hell won't see that shit in a PG-13 film.

Yup, most of that wasn't in the film. She did eat a spider and scream alot.

[devilshalo]

Originally Posted by RonBoster

The film brought in 30+ million for the weekend! That really surprises me. I have to believe most were unaware that it is a courtroom drama and not a straight ahead horror film. Once word of mouth takes over, it should drop like a rock. Especially since a slasher film it's theaters this week (cry wolf?). That should take the teen crowd away from Emily Rose.

Ron

I'm not so sure. I know it's a somber tale, but there's an underlying theme about belief. Word of mouth might actually trigger people to see this movie and give it some legs. While it's no Passion of the Christ, I think there's a possibility of it attracting that same audience. And now that it's known that it's not some horror pic, those same people may take a look.

[RonBoster]

Originally Posted by devilshalo

I'm not so sure. I know it's a somber tale, but there's an underlying theme about belief. Word of mouth might actually trigger people to see this movie and give it some legs. While it's no Passion of the Christ, I think there's a possibility of it attracting that same audience. And now that it's known that it's not some horror pic, those same people may take a look.

That certainly would be an audience that would derive from word of mouth and not be attracted to the marketing approach. My guess is the 30 mil was made up of a lot of teens and tweens who were attracted to the marketing horror movie ploy.

One aspect that plays into your POV is recent specials on Bravo (I think) and A&E on exorcism. Bob Larson was featured on both shows. He definetly has an evangelical (SP?) following that would be attracted to the subject matter.

It will be interesting. Really no adult feature releases this weekend that may take away from the box office.

Ron

[maingon]

i loved the movie, i thought it was one of the best movies this year. I thought it was very creepy and some parts did make me jump. The court room stuff was excellent also. the acting was very good also. overall very creepy and I loved the stuff about "3:00".
A-

[vhgong]

I think this is the best movie i've seen in years. Simply not a dull moment for me. Love it!!!

[monkeyboy]

I knew about the courtroom stuff in advance, so I was prepared. I thought it was actually pretty intense for a PG-13. I was expecting less. There were some genuinly chilling moments that will probably stick in my head for awhile. One was mentioned above and the other took place in the church. The theater was about half full of teenagers and I was surprised they stayed quiet for the whole film. The only distraction were 2 small children brought in by their parents(I assume) who were allowed to run around the theater for the length of the film.

[GoldenJCJ]

I saw it last night, and have to agree with a lot of the previous posts. The Emily Rose scenes were fantastic, they actually gave me chills on occasion. The courtroom scenes were a little on the boring side. I would get on the edge of my seat, filled with tension, and then it would all disappear as soon as we entered the courtroom.

Overall though, I would give this film a solid B.

[vhgong]

Originally Posted by monkeyboy

I knew about the courtroom stuff in advance, so I was prepared. I thought it was actually pretty intense for a PG-13. I was expecting less. There were some genuinly chilling moments that will probably stick in my head for awhile. One was mentioned above and the other took place in the church. The theater was about half full of teenagers and I was surprised they stayed quiet for the whole film. The only distraction were 2 small children brought in by their parents(I assume) who were allowed to run around the theater for the length of the film.

Yup....that scene was creepy....

[harpo787]

I saw this about a week ago and enjoyed...I too was aware that it was more courtroom drama than anything else...one review snip referreing to it as a drawn out Law & Order episode (which was a positive comment in my mind). I liked the question of is the priest responsible for her death, or are the drugs used by the doctors responsible? Well, since it's been declared multiple times on here that "Ebert has officially (or was it finally?)lost it!", I'd like to say that Ebert has finally gotten it back! I agree with his personal opinion of what went wrong:

Spoiler:

"You didn't ask, but in my opinion she had psychotic epileptic disorder, but it could have been successfully treated by the psychosomatic effect of exorcism if those drugs hadn't blocked the process."