IMDb > The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Exorcism of Emily Rose
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Exorcism of Emily Rose More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 5 of 53: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]
Index 526 reviews in total 

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Quality film that may lose interest to some audiences based on its poor marketing.

6/10
Author: The_Angry_Critic from Kunsan, South Korea
17 September 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Like just about everyone else on this site, I went to this film with my hardcore cheezy horror flick buddy expecting another Japanese remake or another teen-scream job filled with cheap scare tactics and bad CGI featuring the usual creepy kid. Well, I got neither. Instead, the "Exorcism of Emily Rose" is more of a courtroom base drama, which tactically uses every single scary shot that are in the film in the trailers with the attempt to bring in a target audience, which may have disappointed some viewers.

As mentioned before "Rose", is really a courtroom drama that centers around the trial of Father Moore (Wilkinson) who is on trial for his role in the death of Emily Rose (Carpenter) defended by an agnostic lawyer, Erin Bruner, played pleasantly by Laura Linney. The death of Emily Rose is in question: was she possessed or was she suffering from severe psychosis and epilepsy? After all medical tactics and tests had been exhausted and unresolved, Father Moore is brought in to cure her of her possession which unfortunately takes a wrong turn. It's during this trial where you see both sides of the court as Emily's recollections are revisited and where the creepiness comes in.

Truthfully, I really wasn't disappointed with the fact that film was marketed incorrectly as I'm not really a big fan of horror flicks. I'm more annoyed with the fact that film, which was supposed to be based on a true story, was nothing close to what the actual story. The real case was set in Germany, involved 2 priests both which were on trial along with parents. Also, according to various information, the conference of German bishops agreed that she was NOT possessed. Quite an important piece of information since the film leaves it up the viewer to decides whether or not she was really possessed.

Not only I was not scared, since they wasted all the creepy parts in the trailers, I was completely bored. The movie starts in the courtroom and ends in the courtroom and its filled with every courtroom cliché known to man. Rude and abrasive prosecutor? Check. Charismatic and underdog defense lawyer? Check. Surprise evidence? Check. Key witness dying or disappearing? Check. Surprise verdict? Check. After awhile I though this movie was based on another John Grisham novel.

The acting was pretty good and dialog and the storyline is enough to keep you interested. The film also does a good job at reliving the events leading up to her death, shows both theories on what happened to her both with convincing tales. This is what really builds the film and holds it together. And, regardless of the tons of clichés, the film is still somewhat original with the rest of crap that's in the theater. Overall this is quality film that may lose some audiences due to the fact it isn't directed by Wes Craven and the acting is quite good. But, in the end I'd suggest Googling "Emily Rose" instead of watching the movie if you really want facts concerning her exorcism.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

lost in the court

5/10
Author: nobbytatoes from Australia
4 November 2005

Emily Rose has died. She believed to be possessed by demons and sought out help from father Moore. After her death he is charged with criminal negligence. Taking up Moore's case is Erin Bruner; know for winning hard to win cases. She isn't really religious, but starts to feel an unknown presence when she takes the case. During the court room and through conversation with people, we are taken back to see what happened to Emily and how it came to her death.

When making a film about exorcism, it is a hard subject to tackle. Not many movies have really succeeded with the area well. When in concept you think of adding a court room drama into the horror style nature of the subject of exorcism, it becomes quite interesting. Though when it plays out, it doesn't really make it any better. When we are in the court room, it the down point of the movie, as it detracts from the main idea, what really happened to Emily. Though in the flash backs we see what did happened, but it needed more to it. They should have focused more upon Emily and her tragedy, the fight against God and the Devil, not the fight between lawyers.

There are some good intense moments. When Emily is first attacked in her room and when Erin experiences a similar event are very well done. The demonic faces that Emily see are disturbing, and Emily's body contorts are equally disturbing, but they are kept to a minimum. They needed more of these scenes to keep the suspense up. The exorcism is done good to, it initially seemed flat as the court room, but picks up when they are in the barn, it really gets going then. But its short lived, should have been a lot more to it.

Though it doesn't reach the level of horror or drama it was wanting, its still an interesting watch. It's about time they left the topic of exorcism alone.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Science vs. Religion

8/10
Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
22 September 2006

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")

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Gorgeous but Boring

1/10
Author: blacklightvortex from United States
28 December 2005

I kept waiting for it to get scary. I thought perhaps I selected the unscary option on the menu. No such luck. Not frightening at all - just boring. Like twiddling your thumbs boring. We've seen the exorcism stuff before and the story moved like a catholic mass on a Tuesday morning. However, every frame of this movie is a work of pure visual art - the director and his team had a master's eye no doubt and the sound design is superb. For those reasons I'll keep my "unrated version" DVD but that's it. Scary? No.

With the director's commentary enabled, the director recalls some advice from Clint Eastwood where too much "analysis is paralysis". This movie turned out to be a quadriplegic. The director should have kept those words in mind while making the movie instead of recalling it for the commentary.

Beautiful to look at but nearly impossible to sit through without laughing at how 'serious' it's supposed to be.

Was the above review useful to you?

Yet another of those movies... bring coffee to stay awake.

2/10
Author: Marcus James from United States
20 July 2017

I don't understand why these exorcism movies keep getting remade with the same exact story every time. There is nothing new here. Just look up the exorcism in any fantasy dictionary and you will know the plot. There is no suspense and I wouldn't call this movie horror. The ending was obvious and they didn't even try to do anything imaginative or new. It is a drama told in flashbacks about a failed exorcism. The priest goes to trial where they presented creepy evidence and the jury is presented creepy evidence and told about odd circumstances. You can guess how it ends. All in all, I don't know why this movie was made. It had no point. The movie followed the most obvious path and ended in the most obvious way. It was boring.

Was the above review useful to you?

It's better to rely on modern meds.

9/10
Author: muvi-fan-73 from India
2 June 2017

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In the movie, it's shown that, Emily was instructed by God to leave human realm or let it stay the way it was so that other people would know about spiritual realm.

In today's world many mental diseases come as if they have got a hand of God in them. I believe that to be true. I also believe that more than procedures like exorcism; modern medical science can provide better relief. The only tough part is the time required to become well under guidance of these medicines, it's as if one goes through hell. One thinks it's better without medical treatment.

The incidence of timing 3:00 happened in my case. The watch stopped. The only difference was it was day. I was feeling supernaturally special, but it was not real. Whatever I have experienced has let me known that parallel realms exist.

Was the above review useful to you?

Interesting possession film

6/10
Author: GL84 from Los Angeles, Ca
11 March 2017

During the trial for his events, a lawyer tries to help her client, a priest, seek the truth about what happened to the young woman who died under his care while performing an exorcism to cure her of a demonic possession and eventually lets the truth about it be known.

This wasn't anywhere as bad as it could've been. The film is really split into two halves here with this one being basically helped greatly by its really good possession and shock scenes. The opening scene that sets her up to becoming possessed is one of it's best sequences, as the long hallway and the unearthly voices floating around give it an unearthly feel while the first scene in the classroom where she sees a demonic face appearing in the window through a cloud of mist and turns around to see a student's face turn into a distorted demon's face giving off an unearthly roar makes it quite shocking. Running out into the rain and seeing more demonic faces give off the same unearthly roar is a bit clichéd, but it still helps to sell the mood while the finale in the church giving this a quite creepy conclusion. The different manners of how she's become afflicted are quite memorable moments with the frenzied bug-eating, speaking in tongues or just contorting her body into such impossible positions that it really becomes obvious something is wrong with her, and the long, suspenseful and chilling exorcism is the film's selling point, coming off with any number of creepy ideas and scenes in such a drawn-out style is one of the best scenes in the film. Otherwise, beyond the shocks and the exorcism, there isn't much else to like about it. Therefore, everything else in it doesn't really work which is only relegated to the courtroom battle drama. It's marketed as being a supernatural possession film, and the best moments come from those scenes, but the fact that the majority of the film is a courtroom battle with the supernatural elements coming in the form of flashbacks is a real misstep and is likely to confuse those coming in expecting the other kind of film. It's not that they're boring or anything, it's just that it's out of nowhere that it becomes that way, and it can be a disappointment. The fact that these are slow and really long don't help matters, extending this out far longer than it should. This could've easily been an hour and a half, or maybe a little longer, but the two hours running time forces it to keep the courtroom antics going for no reason other than to extend the running time. A few extraneous scenes could've been snipped as well, including the introductory scenes at the bar that repeat information we already know and also keep the running time going, and most of the time simply elicit a feeling of wanting to move along and get to the good scenes. These really harm the film.

Rated PG-13: Language, Mild Violence and intense demonic and spiritual themes.

Was the above review useful to you?

A horror film made under an unusual perspective.

7/10
Author: Filipe Neto from Portugal
24 August 2016

This film, loosely based on a real case occurred in Germany, tells the story of a Catholic priest, tried and charged with negligent homicide after an exorcism gone wrong. Directed by Scott Derrickson, which also provides the screenplay with Paul Harris Boardman, the film stars Laura Linney.

This is a film made in an original way: based on the traditional formula of exorcisms movies, it innovates basing on the consequences of the exorcism. Its not for all audiences, contains some shocking scenes for sensitive people, but is much lighter (visually) than other similar films. Terror is more psychological than visual, although Jennifer Carpenter, who plays Emily, be excellent in the production of frightening scowls and grimaces. The film manages a very open attitude towards the exorcism, as the court exposing arguments for and against what happened. The film doesn't assume that the devil exists, although its understood throughout the film.

The interpretation of Jennifer Carpenter is regular, only highlights in the horror scenes, contrasting with the good interpretation of Laura Linney (who plays Erin, a skeptical defense lawyer confronted with something beyond her understanding) and Tom Wilkinson, who gave life to a priest visibly guided by faith rather than reason. Unfortunately, almost all the other characters are mere props, never deserve more development. Another major flaw of this film are the special and visual effects. In certain scenes, they result very well and can scare enough but, at other times, they are so weird, so poorly made that seem ridiculous, especially when we see it a second time. The soundtrack sought to accompany the film, but its not different from what we hear in hundreds of other horror movies.

Was the above review useful to you?

One of the freshest possession movies out there - B-movie producers take note!

7/10
Author: Leofwine_draca from United Kingdom
9 July 2016

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Not what it seems... but that's not a bad thing.

7/10
Author: ConsistentlyFalconer from United Kingdom
10 May 2016

Looks like a horror film from the marketing, but it's actually a pretty effective courtroom drama - thanks to strong performances from Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson and especially the understated Campbell Scott.

Meanwhile, the exorcism flashback scenes are made disturbing not by CGI or jump scares, but by a turned-up-to-11 performance by the bizarrely underrated Jennifer Carpenter. Honestly can't understand why she hasn't been featured in more.

I liked it, despite the eyeroll-inducing ending, but if you're looking for a scary, exorcism-based horror, though, this isn't it.

yetanotherfilmreviewblog.tumblr.com

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 5 of 53: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history