The Exorcism of Emily Rose
09-19-05, 07:20 AM
#26
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Philly, PA
Posts: 1,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I liked it, but I wasn't expecting a courtroom drama. I guess they had to advertise it as a horror film to get people to go. The first hour or so kinda sucked though, but that's because of the 13 year old giggling cheerleader squad that snuck in, and left when their cellphones all started ringing. Everyone in the theater clapped when they left.
I thought it was slow, but kept me interested still. I liked seeing the cheif from Battlestar Galactica in it, but I didn't like how he only had 2 lines and the rest of the movie all he was allowed to do was give blank stares.
I'd give it a B .. it was decent, and I'd see it again. I'll buy the DVD if there's a lot of extras maybe even about the real girl and stuff, if not I'll just wait for HBO.
I thought it was slow, but kept me interested still. I liked seeing the cheif from Battlestar Galactica in it, but I didn't like how he only had 2 lines and the rest of the movie all he was allowed to do was give blank stares.
I'd give it a B .. it was decent, and I'd see it again. I'll buy the DVD if there's a lot of extras maybe even about the real girl and stuff, if not I'll just wait for HBO.
12-29-05, 07:30 PM
#27
DVD Talk Limited Edition
It was a decent flick, worth watching once. Jennifer Carpenter (I think that's her name) did an excellent job as Emily.
12-29-05, 07:44 PM
#28
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just my opinion. I was expecting to be scared. Not some crappy courtroom boring drama. Not that I have any problems with it. Just that the movie sucked. It even had that great actor from Priest. Who the hell let this crap be made? It's a load of shite. I have to say it. I can't believe anyone like this crap with horrible acting and worse direction. Just my thoughts.
G
G
12-29-05, 08:03 PM
#29
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I really enjoyed. It wasn't a masterpiece or anything - but I did find it was enjoyable, well acted and made a couple of good points about both religion and psychiatry/psychology... The main problem with the movie is like people said before me - it should never have been advertised as a horror movie, it should have been advertised as a courtroom drama with a "different" type of crime thing...
01-03-06, 01:09 PM
#30
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally saw this (on DVD). It's not hard to smell a bad film, and I can usually avoid them... this one arrived with a stench, but I suffered through it. Worst film I saw all year. Positively moronic. And a sad attempt to exploit a real tragedy while upholding the archaic superstitions that allowed it to occur.
I see that someone has already posted links to the "true events" upon which this film is ostensibly based. In most instances, it's easy to reject the "based on true events" piffle as marketing - which it certainly is here. But let's not forget that some poor kid really was killed as a result of nothing more than the bad luck to be born of parents who subscribe to a medieval view of the universe. A universe as inhabited by spirits and demons and whatever other projections of the specific superstitions they might harbor. Today, this family is either suffering under an avalanche of the deepest sort of regret and pain, or remain sadly deluded. Either way, it was a horrible and unnecessary death, and the gravity of the crime committed against this girl would seem enough to to inure a sense of responsibility in the filmmakers towards the deceased.
Of course, one would be wrong in presuming anything remotely so honorable. Unlike what really happened in response to this crime - a trial found the two priests guilty of negligent manslaughter, a Commission of the German Bishops Conference declared she was not possessed, her death being rather the result of "naive practices" committed by her family and the priests, all of which lead to a major reform of the 1614 exorcism rite that the German Bishops wanted abolished altogether - no, instead of a true retelling of these events, the film shades the historical record in order to exploit a credulous audience by presenting the events as plausibly the result of supernatural forces. That is, instead of acknowledging and dramatizing the real result of this case and the opinion of every authority from the local prosecutor to the Catholic Church that this poor girl died as the result of starvation and lack of medical care after her "treatment" at the hands of these morons, however well-intentioned, the film resurrects the question of whether there really was a demonic infestation, and even shades its sympathies toward the superstitious explanation.
And, what's more abominable that that, the film purports to be a "just-the-facts-ma'am" recreation that strives for the effect of documentary realism. You know, so you-can-make-up-your-own-damn-mind. But what was dismissed as superstition in "the real world" (and by that I mean the actual world in which you and I live) here becomes a matter of reasonable doubt. Meanwhile, the wind howls demonically, clocks stop supernaturally, and all manner of special effects done better in "The Exorcist" encourage one to not disbelieve one's own eyes.
Since viewing the DVD, I've discovered the the director and co-writer of this film - surprise! - are believers in such medieval bunkum and all their previous films are along the same lines of subject matter. They are not, in a word, objective. And, as should be obvious to anyone who's seen it, neither is the film.
Not a big deal? Just another in a long-line of moronic Hollywood panderfests to the gullible and deluded? Well, yes. And no. My ire toward the filmmakers arises from the heavy stench of exploitation that hangs about this film. Unlike other films about demonic possession - say "Evil Dead II" or "The Beyond" - this one happens to traffic in a real victim whose real tragedy is being played for all its worth to sell this film as a "real story". And this one shades the truth not merely to give credence to the lie, but ultimately a preference for the lie. As Slate.com's film critic, David Edelstein put it "if you choose to ignore the social implications of a movie like The Exorcism of Emily Rose (hands-down the worst picture of the year), in which we're told that the exorcism failed because the young woman was given anti-seizure medication that interfered with her soul's ability to expel demons, then you're self-lobotomized."
I see that someone has already posted links to the "true events" upon which this film is ostensibly based. In most instances, it's easy to reject the "based on true events" piffle as marketing - which it certainly is here. But let's not forget that some poor kid really was killed as a result of nothing more than the bad luck to be born of parents who subscribe to a medieval view of the universe. A universe as inhabited by spirits and demons and whatever other projections of the specific superstitions they might harbor. Today, this family is either suffering under an avalanche of the deepest sort of regret and pain, or remain sadly deluded. Either way, it was a horrible and unnecessary death, and the gravity of the crime committed against this girl would seem enough to to inure a sense of responsibility in the filmmakers towards the deceased.
Of course, one would be wrong in presuming anything remotely so honorable. Unlike what really happened in response to this crime - a trial found the two priests guilty of negligent manslaughter, a Commission of the German Bishops Conference declared she was not possessed, her death being rather the result of "naive practices" committed by her family and the priests, all of which lead to a major reform of the 1614 exorcism rite that the German Bishops wanted abolished altogether - no, instead of a true retelling of these events, the film shades the historical record in order to exploit a credulous audience by presenting the events as plausibly the result of supernatural forces. That is, instead of acknowledging and dramatizing the real result of this case and the opinion of every authority from the local prosecutor to the Catholic Church that this poor girl died as the result of starvation and lack of medical care after her "treatment" at the hands of these morons, however well-intentioned, the film resurrects the question of whether there really was a demonic infestation, and even shades its sympathies toward the superstitious explanation.
And, what's more abominable that that, the film purports to be a "just-the-facts-ma'am" recreation that strives for the effect of documentary realism. You know, so you-can-make-up-your-own-damn-mind. But what was dismissed as superstition in "the real world" (and by that I mean the actual world in which you and I live) here becomes a matter of reasonable doubt. Meanwhile, the wind howls demonically, clocks stop supernaturally, and all manner of special effects done better in "The Exorcist" encourage one to not disbelieve one's own eyes.
Since viewing the DVD, I've discovered the the director and co-writer of this film - surprise! - are believers in such medieval bunkum and all their previous films are along the same lines of subject matter. They are not, in a word, objective. And, as should be obvious to anyone who's seen it, neither is the film.
Not a big deal? Just another in a long-line of moronic Hollywood panderfests to the gullible and deluded? Well, yes. And no. My ire toward the filmmakers arises from the heavy stench of exploitation that hangs about this film. Unlike other films about demonic possession - say "Evil Dead II" or "The Beyond" - this one happens to traffic in a real victim whose real tragedy is being played for all its worth to sell this film as a "real story". And this one shades the truth not merely to give credence to the lie, but ultimately a preference for the lie. As Slate.com's film critic, David Edelstein put it "if you choose to ignore the social implications of a movie like The Exorcism of Emily Rose (hands-down the worst picture of the year), in which we're told that the exorcism failed because the young woman was given anti-seizure medication that interfered with her soul's ability to expel demons, then you're self-lobotomized."
01-03-06, 01:16 PM
#31
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My wife and I watched it over the weekend and we liked it. I knew going into the flick that it wasn't even close to the real events so I put that out of my mind. Moronic? Eh, maybe but I still liked it, nice creep factor.
01-03-06, 01:36 PM
#32
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 7,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Richard Malloy
the film resurrects the question of whether there really was a demonic infestation, and even shades its sympathies toward the superstitious explanation.
01-23-06, 12:54 AM
#33
Cool New Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Richard Malloy
As Slate.com's film critic, David Edelstein put it "if you choose to ignore the social implications of a movie like The Exorcism of Emily Rose (hands-down the worst picture of the year), in which we're told that the exorcism failed because the young woman was given anti-seizure medication that interfered with her soul's ability to expel demons, then you're self-lobotomized."
Everyone all over the net was saying how good the movie was and how it wasn't a 'horror' movie, it was a drama that made you decide what you believe the truth was...
I thought the whole movie was unintentionally funny. The priests speech about demonic forces was hard to take serioiusly, I was waiting for him to bust out and say, "IM JUST MESSING WITH YOU!!!"
And when the girl was possessed, "1234 trick or treat I have a treat for you!"
Damn, scary stuff.
I also like how the lawyer says, "this case isn't about facts, it's about possibilities!"
01-23-06, 09:58 AM
#34
DVD Talk Hero
As Slate.com's film critic, David Edelstein put it "if you choose to ignore the social implications of a movie like The Exorcism of Emily Rose (hands-down the worst picture of the year), in which we're told that the exorcism failed because the young woman was given anti-seizure medication that interfered with her soul's ability to expel demons, then you're self-lobotomized."
01-23-06, 09:31 PM
#35
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally Posted by RogerSC
Finally someone else who thought the movie was crap.
Everyone all over the net was saying how good the movie was and how it wasn't a 'horror' movie, it was a drama that made you decide what you believe the truth was...
Everyone all over the net was saying how good the movie was and how it wasn't a 'horror' movie, it was a drama that made you decide what you believe the truth was...
01-24-06, 09:39 AM
#36
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by eXcentris
Social implications? Like what? A huge spike in possessions and exorcisms? Give me a break...
Perhaps the worst one can say is that pop culture detritis like this flick allows the easily-deluded to maintain whatever Manichaean fantasies may provide drama if not meaning to their lives. A world of ghosts, demons, devils to explain away the harsh realities of life and to deal with the question of evil. But even if this film narrowly affects only a very small percentage of society, the effects can be devastatingly severe.
And exhibit no. 1 would the case of Anneliese Michel, that is, to the real story of Anneliese Michel, the young Bavarian girl whose life and tragic death "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" is based upon.
Short time before these events (the "exorcism"), William Friedkin’s "The Exorcist" is released into cinemas in Germany (1974), and starts a paranormal hysteria all over the land. Psychiatrist all over Europe, reported of an increase of obsessive ideas at their patients. For the Prosecutors, the factual situation is more than bizarre. And it took almost 2 years, until the "Klingenberg Case" was brought to court. Anneliese’s parents and the 2 Exorcists were accused of negligent homicide.
The psychiatrists, who have been ordered by the court, talked about "Doctrinaire Induction." Saying, that the priests have offered Anneliese the contents of her psychotic behavior. Consequentially she later accepted the behavior of a demon possessed person.
All of the accused were sentenced to 6 months jail and probation, because of manslaughter resulting from negligence and omitted first aid. The accused should have helped by taking care of the medical treatment the girl needed. But instead of doing so they aggravated the bad constitution, by using naive practices.
A Commission of the German Bishop-Conference later declared, that Anneliese Michel was not possessed. Anneliese’s body didn’t even find peace after the girls’ death. Because of some believe in miracles, it was said that her body doesn’t decay, her corpse gets exhumed 1 1/2 year after the burial. With the final result, that the body decays, as every other dead body. Till now her grave is a place of pilgrimage, for rosary-praying pilgrims, who still think, that Anneliese Michel had defeated the Devil. http://horror-movies.ca/horror_1253.html
The psychiatrists, who have been ordered by the court, talked about "Doctrinaire Induction." Saying, that the priests have offered Anneliese the contents of her psychotic behavior. Consequentially she later accepted the behavior of a demon possessed person.
All of the accused were sentenced to 6 months jail and probation, because of manslaughter resulting from negligence and omitted first aid. The accused should have helped by taking care of the medical treatment the girl needed. But instead of doing so they aggravated the bad constitution, by using naive practices.
A Commission of the German Bishop-Conference later declared, that Anneliese Michel was not possessed. Anneliese’s body didn’t even find peace after the girls’ death. Because of some believe in miracles, it was said that her body doesn’t decay, her corpse gets exhumed 1 1/2 year after the burial. With the final result, that the body decays, as every other dead body. Till now her grave is a place of pilgrimage, for rosary-praying pilgrims, who still think, that Anneliese Michel had defeated the Devil. http://horror-movies.ca/horror_1253.html
Also, the demonopath is far from being a historical relic. The case of Anneliese Michel deserves mention, if for no other reason than to demonstrate historical continuity of religio-cultural images. This 22-year-old woman was a student at the University of Würzburg and in the 1970s exhibited symptoms — including spasms, writhing, speaking in devilish tongues — construed by her devout Catholic family as diabolic possession. The archbishop of Würzburg concurred with their diagnosis and entrusted two priests to perform the Exorcism from the 17th-century Rituale Romanum. To the embarrassment of the church, the victim died of starvation during the procedures. Insult was added to embarrassment when the district attorney's investigation and a trial found the two priests guilty of negligent manslaughter.
There are at least two conditions that intensify the aggressiveness of mythomanes in general and demonopaths in specific: Group reinforcement (they often enact their roles collectively) and an accepting audience. In fact, there are no such things as private demonopaths; they perform only when they are able to captivate an audience. The case of Anneliese Michel revealed the full complement of a performance of possession: Star (herself), manager (priests), and audience (family, relatives, neighbors).
There are at least two conditions that intensify the aggressiveness of mythomanes in general and demonopaths in specific: Group reinforcement (they often enact their roles collectively) and an accepting audience. In fact, there are no such things as private demonopaths; they perform only when they are able to captivate an audience. The case of Anneliese Michel revealed the full complement of a performance of possession: Star (herself), manager (priests), and audience (family, relatives, neighbors).
01-24-06, 10:59 AM
#37
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by Richard Malloy
Isn't that worth discussing?
Last edited by eXcentris; 01-24-06 at 11:30 AM.
01-24-06, 04:03 PM
#38
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly, I'm surprised and taken aback by your post, eXcentris. I wasn't trying to insult you or call you out or cut-off intelligent discussion or anything else you have suggested. I've participated in many threads with you, and I certainly didn't mean to engender any ill-will in this one.
01-24-06, 04:49 PM
#39
DVD Talk Hero
I'm not insulted, I'm an atheist. But your posts sound like you were possessed by baracine's spirit when you wrote them. 
Don't take it personnally, but I's pretty apparent that in this specific case you have an agenda to push. And from experience, this never leads to intelligent discussion. Maybe I'm dumb or maybe I don't have a Bible Belt to tick me off, but in regards to this film I really don't see what the big deal is. Neither I, nor most people I know (and we're not religious) who have seen this film have noted any specific agenda being pushed. The Linney character experiencing "forces" and then doubt annoyed me a little bit but that's about it. And this was somewhat balanced by the fact the the DA is a religious man. To me, the basic point is the one I noted in my above post that the judicial system is ill equiped to rule on matters of faith vs science (and here again there are loonies on both sides and psychiatry in the 70's was far from an exact science and some of the methods used to "treat" patients can make you cringe) and that regardless of the credibility of the witnesses, the jury members would render a decision based on their own faith (or lack of). I really have nothing further to add but I still think you're making way too big a deal out of this.
So, sorry for sounding harsh (had to take my mon to the ER at 2:00 AM and got very little sleep) but I'll see you in a discussion about another film.
Don't take it personnally, but I's pretty apparent that in this specific case you have an agenda to push. And from experience, this never leads to intelligent discussion. Maybe I'm dumb or maybe I don't have a Bible Belt to tick me off, but in regards to this film I really don't see what the big deal is. Neither I, nor most people I know (and we're not religious) who have seen this film have noted any specific agenda being pushed. The Linney character experiencing "forces" and then doubt annoyed me a little bit but that's about it. And this was somewhat balanced by the fact the the DA is a religious man. To me, the basic point is the one I noted in my above post that the judicial system is ill equiped to rule on matters of faith vs science (and here again there are loonies on both sides and psychiatry in the 70's was far from an exact science and some of the methods used to "treat" patients can make you cringe) and that regardless of the credibility of the witnesses, the jury members would render a decision based on their own faith (or lack of). I really have nothing further to add but I still think you're making way too big a deal out of this.So, sorry for sounding harsh (had to take my mon to the ER at 2:00 AM and got very little sleep) but I'll see you in a discussion about another film.
