The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) User Reviews

Not without its flaws, but a cut above most horror films

[pyrocitor · 8/10 · 20 September 2005]

For the most part, films which were intended to frighten the viewing audience usually succeed in instead producing involuntary laughs. So it was nice to see a 'horror' film that not only has a brain for a change, but actually succeeds in being frightening. It may help that the film is allegedly based on true events, which gives credibility to the storyline, and prevents the movie from having those annoyingly gaping plot holes. And indeed, the heading "Based on a true story" doesn't come off as a glaring lie. There are indeed events happening in the film which are questionable as to whether they actually occurred in real life, but the beauty of 'Emily Rose' is that most of the film is retold by various characters, so the events described are as the character perceived them. In this way, the film doesn't distance its audience by declaring that "well, demons were in the film which was 'based on a true story', so demons must actually exist".

But in many ways, 'Emily Rose' is different from almost every past horror movie in the sense that it doesn't make really obvious attempts to frighten its audience. Instead, director/co-screenwriter Scott Derickson seems content to make us think. There are several questions raised in the film regarding religious beliefs and the public's general perception of them, but these are all handled in an objective and impartial manner. And as for the scare factor, since the filmmakers aren't overly obvious in trying to scare the audience, the film actually is frightening at several points - again, unusual for a horror film. The frightening events regarding Emily Rose's exorcism are all the more frightening as they don't seem horribly staged and predictable. (although the cheesy demonic animation, as shown in the trailer, could have been done far better) It's true that composer Christopher Young seems unable to resist the horror movie cliché of having horribly over-dramatic music which builds to a climax at the most frightening moment, but for the most part the movie is able to surpass the usual horror clichés.

It helps of course that the cast all deliver quality performances, the obvious standout being Jennifer Carpenter as Emily. Her possession scenes are nothing short of incredible, the sheer torment she seems capable of portraying is utterly captivating. Laura Linney also shines in the lead, giving a powerful and affecting performance as the attorney of the convicted priest who performed Emily Rose's exorcism. As said priest, Tom Wilkinson also manages to impress, delivering a quietly effective and very human performance. My only complaint is that the characters of Campbell Scott and Colm Feore were really badly written, coming off as the typical antagonistic figures, and nothing more. Both give satisfying performances, despite their one dimensional characters, especially Feore, who has always been talented at taking terribly written characters, and giving them life and personality nonetheless.

So The Exorcism of Emily Rose may not quite be the very best of its genre, but it certainly proves to be one of the more intelligently made ones. The director seems to have for once taken that extra step, and put aside the endless thrills and shocks in favor of making us think a bit. There are some cheesy effects, such as the demonic visions, but there are some genuinely frightening parts, especially the actual exorcism scene, mainly due to the chilling and captivating performance from Jennifer Carpenter as the title character. The principle cast members, Laura Linney and Tom Wilkinson also give strong performances, bringing many layers to their characters. Quite the quality piece overall, and one worth seeing.

-8/10

Very thrilling, but the ending leaves you longing for more

[Superunknovvn · 8/10 · 10 December 2005]

Yes, I know, we've seen too many mediocre horror movies in the past few years. Yes, I'm fed up with horror stories that are "based on true events", too, but don't write this movie off too soon. If you ignore the assertion that this has all happened in reality and just accept that you're in for a supernatural movie, you'll have a gay ol' time with "The Exorcism Of The Emily Rose".

The first thing to mention is that there has never been a combination of horror movie and courtroom drama before, and while some reviewers have stated that the two genres don't go together well, I have to disagree. The courtroom setting added a lot of suspense to the story and horror movies always work best when there is suspense added to the spooky and creepy elements. And boy, does this movie have some creepy scenes.

The four main actors do a fine job and the restrained direction is pretty atmospheric too, except for some minor fashionable shots that are probably not going to age very well (for example, one time Scott Derrickson reverts to Darren Aronofsky-cam, which is already getting old). Anyway, the main attraction is the story itself, and as I've said, it's fast paced and exciting - at least until the third act. Up until that point it's hard to watch the screen at times because Derrickson uses his shock scenes so effectively and steers clear of any jump-clichés. Then a certain climax is reached, the movie reduces its supernatural elements and relies maybe a bit too much on the courtroom drama aspect. On the plus side Derrickson avoids going over the top like so many other horror movies do including embarrassing CGI-orgies in their showdowns. On the other hand, it is exactly that relatively quiet ending that prevents "The Exorcism Of Emily Rose" from becoming a real classic. One just has the feeling that the priest and the trial made a whole lot of fuss about nothing, because there's no real solution in the end.

"The Exorcism Of Emily Rose" has enough chilling moments not to be overshadowed by "The Exorcist", the big Kahuna of the exorcism genre, but it's not going to be remembered as a cornerstone of the horror genre. In 2005 you couldn't find a lot of spooky movies that were better than this one, though.

Excellent on so many levels; a lesson in mainstream film-making

[Potty-Man · 8/10 · 26 September 2005]

Wonderful, wonderful movie. A lesson in film-making. I know a lot of people won't be able to see it for what it is because of the supernatural/horror elements (which are usually a turn-off for film snobs), but the movie is just extremely well-made.

Consider the fact that Linney's character's true conflict is not winning the trial, but a satisfyingly complex internal struggle which I will not name so as not to spoil the movie. Or the plethora of food for thought that the movie offers, regarding existentialist issues of perception vs. objective truth, and social issues of liability and responsibility.

Some very interesting scenes that find ways to express things in subtle and creative ways without spelling them out. And an incredible and ballsy performance by Jennifer Carpenter, which takes Linda Blair's possession to a whole new level. Also, notice how a key dramatic monologue is presented, contrary to what we might expect, with no sentimental music in the background. The cinematography is also great. I was reminded of Dario Argento's vivid colors in Suspiria on more than one occasion.

Although it's not the focus of the film, the movie also offers a few very cool scare moments, and seeing Emily possessed is terrifying.

This is my favorite "underdog" movie of the year so far.

Excellent and intelligent..close to the book.

[Karyn324 · 12 September 2005]

With the exception of the title, " Emily Rose" vs "Anneliese Michel", this was an excellent adaptation of the book. Actually, one of the consultants was Felicitas Goodman, the author and anthropologist who studied this case and I believe, owns the audiotapes of the ritual.

It is actually more of a court room drama. However, there is no sparing of pure psychological terror. All and all an excellent movie. Other posters have observed that believing in Christianity or the lack thereof, is not shoved down the viewer's throats. It allows one to form their own opinion.

My only concern; the PG-13 rating. Way too intense for viewers 10-13 years old or younger.

Worth Watching

[CosmicCharlie · 7/10 · 9 September 2005]

This is an interesting film. While it's not terribly frightening, the film's juxtaposition of court room drama, and the exorcism scenes are intriguing. I found it to be less of your stereotypical demonic possession movie (ie: The Exorcist), and more of a film that leaves you pondering the possibilities and questioning our more modern perspectives and scientific rationales for things that sometimes can't be adequately explained through these means. The fact that it's based on the reported possession of Anneliese Michel (circa 1970, Germany) does make the film more unnerving. The actor's performances, while not exceptional, are at least engaging. The special effects are rather limited, but well done. All in all, It's a film that 's certainly worth watching.

excellent horror movie

[alviansendy · 7/10 · 12 March 2013]

First of all this was a good movie.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose is based upon a true story, the events that lead up to the death of Emily Rose. The real person who inspired this movie was Anneliese Michel. Emily Rose was a young college student, who believed she was possessed. Her family and her pastor did everything they could to save her. The story wasn't overly predictable. It was a look back on what exactly happened when Emily Rose got possessed and how it ended. the Priest, Father Moore was help by an agnostic lawyer, Erin Bruner and her trying to not only get ahead in her career but convince a journey that medical science could not determine. Emily Rose had a medical condition but a demonic possession. But the prosecutor, Ethan Thomas was a devout catholic and against the priest, Father Moore. The dynamics between the key characters is interesting and well thought out.

Court-horror!

[Coventry · 8/10 · 14 November 2005]

Ironically enough, "The Excorcism of Emily Rose" got released in my country (Belgium) synchronously with another similar, real-life lawsuit. A self-acclaimed exorcist has to justify the death of a young girl after performing inhuman rituals and fatal exorcism tricks. It's weird having seen this movie and then follow the lawsuit on TV and in newspapers. It's so easy to deny the existence of demonic possession and to brush aside exorcism as quackery, but then – as this film shows – you're also questioning people's beliefs and family values. Emily Rose is the sympathetic daughter of a poor but deeply religious rural family. Shortly after her long-anticipated start at the university, her body becomes the host of no less than 6 different demons. The priest of the little town where she lives, father Moore, is doing everything he can to purify Emily's body but the demons are too strong and she doesn't survive the exorcism. What makes this film different than the obvious 70's classic "The Exorcist" (which also entirely revolves on the possession of an innocent girl) is that the story takes place after the actual exorcism and in the courtroom where father Moore is on trial for negligent homicide. His ambitious lawyer Erin Bruner goes straight for the acquittal of her client, but father Moore only cares for telling Emily's story, despite the fact that this can cost him his career as a priest. The screenplay of this film was based on a true story and director Scott Derrickson does a great job in making the extended courtroom sequences interesting and compelling. The flashbacks, showing Emily's horrible decrepit, are very atmospheric and contain multiple shock-moments. The acting is sublime, with a powerful Tom Wilkinson as the devoted priest and an enchanting Jennifer Carpenter as the poor Emily Rose. This is not a full-blooded horror film, but definitely one of the most unsettling, disturbing and thought-provoking dramas of the last few years. Highly recommended!

Above average and highly intelligent possession flick.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 7/10 · 4 November 2005]

Emily Rose is a devout Catholic who undergoes a shocking and unexpected transformation while at college.Her family asks Father Moore to perform an exorcism.When Emily dies,Moore is charged with criminally negligent homicide.Laura Linney plays Erin Bruner,the lawyer hired to defend Moore."The Exorcism of Emily Rose" is based on a true facts.This is a highly ambitious horror flick that has its share of suspense and scares.It mixes elements of courtroom drama with possession flick in the vein of "The Exorcist".Laura Linney,Tom Wilkinson and Campbell Scott are all great,as is Jennifer Carpenter as Emily Rose.There are a few good scares with director Scott Derrickson using awkward pauses of silence mixed with a few furious demonic scenes to build and keep steady tension.Unfortunately the film is occasionally quite dull during its courtroom segments,however it surely asks a lot of important questions about our faith or beliefs.So if you enjoyed "The Exorcist" or "Omen" you may give this one a look.Fans of sleaze/gore will be disappointed.7 out of 10.

Wonderful ... What's Not to Like?

[cdelacroix1 · 8/10 · 9 September 2005]

I just saw this movie today and thought it was wonderful.

The acting was excellent, from one end to the other. The scenes, the flashbacks, the drama, the horror, the faith vs doubt theme ... all were entwined in a back-and-forth web that maintained constant focus on the strongest feature of all: the Story itself.

And what a Story! I won't give it away except to say that the plots and subplots and intrigue and characterizations were all woven together to spin a simply riveting, terrifying, provocative, endearing, challenging Story.

I really liked the multiple depictions of What Happens and How the Characters React. You see Something Happen; and then feel Fear; and then watch the Face of the Character on hand experience Fear; and then perhaps the order is slightly changed: you see the Face of the Character experience Fear as the Character gazes in terror over the viewer's shoulder. Then you see What the Character is looking at. And experience Fear.

I also really liked the legal conflict ... and the way the Story honored both sides. There's no doubt, ever, where our sympathies lie: with the Laura Linney character. Yet, the prosecutor is not at all a "straw man." He is give a great opening, and is effective and believable throughout. This enhanced greatly the Doubt vs Faith conflict that reinforced the Story throughout.

And through all this, the Priest's insistence that the Story should be told, is what really drove the action above all. This gave a feeling of authenticity to the Story that both made it appealing, and frightening.

A wonderful, wonderful, movie ... !

Exciting and thrilling court drama with horror and exorcism

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 8 November 2006]

This is a thriller based on true and little known deeds referred to a narration of Ameliese Michael . A nineteen years young girl called Emily Rose(Jennifer Carpenter,¨the White chick¨)) dies later being submitted to an exorcism carried on by a parish priest(Tom Wilkinson).She was an ordinary girl until began the terrible demonic possessions and a harmful spirit which tortured her. Father Moore is charged with negligent homicide but he advised to interrupt the use of medications for the paranoia and epilepsy and he makes exorcism to save her.A famous and driven lawyer called Erin Bruner(Laura Linney)is hired to defend him and a successful,ambitious prosecutor(Campbell Scott)is assigned for the accusation ,besides of a resolute judge(Mary Beth Hurt).In the public hearing trial declare various doctors(Kenneth Welsh,Duncan Fraser) who explain their diverse point of view.It's a court film adding terror and thriller.This is a startling and terrifying story about possession with usual poltergeist phenomenon caused by demon.The events took place in 1976 but the excessive and prohibited cost decided make it in contemporary scenarios.

The film provides great lots of grisly events,screams,eerie atmosphere that becomes pretty sinister when the supernatural possession happen.Flash-backs during trial from different perspectives of the exorcism stories create to spectator his own opinion about if it happened.The picture turns out to be very intense and exciting, concerning about the human fragility and human spirit that challenges the ordinary people ,developing a confrontation among faith and science.Casting is frankly well,Laura Linney(nominated to Oscar in 2000 by ¨You can count on me¨)is excellent;Tom Wilkinson(nominated to Oscar in 2001 by ¨In the room¨)is magnificent. Production design by David Brisbin and cinematography by Tom Stern based on Francis Bacon paintings such color as atmosphere,the colors are divided in several zones ,the orange represents the terror,the maroon the anger and the white the hope. The motion picture is well directed by Scott Derrickson making one the highest earning terror movie of the last years.

As Emily predicted,her story has affected many people.Emily's gravesite has become an unofficial holy shrine which continues to draw visitors from all over the world.After the trial ,father Moore went into seclusion.Refusion to appeal his guilty conviction and stating :¨This is a matter for God : worldly courts cannot pass any judgement on it¨. Erin Brener shared her case files with an expert in medical research and anthropology whose further research and published work about the life and death of Emily Rose inspired this film.

Obscene, exploitative propaganda piece

[Satria · 1/10 · 10 November 2005]

First of all "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" is not a well crafted film. The hollow plot devices and dialogues are laughably stale, cinematography and editing are lacking any style and the scares simply fall flat. A cast of usually brilliant performers delivers uninspired, phone-in performances. Of course, I could dismiss this flick as a dumb, misguided, scare-free piece of drivel. Unfortunately, it's much worse than that.

Like most pictures dealing with the subject, this film actually treats demonic possession as real and thus depicts the practice of exorcism not only as viable but as a necessary tool against the forces of evil. This generally makes exorcism pictures propaganda material for a rather medieval method still covered by today's catholic doctrine. Now, it's not that I generally oppose the catholic faith, but this particular practice is despicable. While most pictures of this horror sub-genre go more for simple scares than philosophical discussion, this film takes a stance for exorcism by putting the conflict in a court room.

The filmmakers make a big deal out of the fact that the film is based on a true story, suggesting that the case of "Emily Rose" substantiates the existence of demonic possession and that all the people involved were in fact not unscrupulous religious fanatics, but upright men of faith. If you are familiar with the true case, which took place in Germany in the late 1970s, this depiction will strike you as disgusting and cynical spin doctoring. An obscene, exploitative propaganda piece void of any integrity or empathy for authentic human suffering. Anneliese Michel (the "real" Emily) and her grueling fate are not treated with the proper respect.

In short, Michel was a deeply religious, though psychologically disturbed young woman, who was basically tortured to death by a her parents and some priest, because everyone involved agreed that her epileptic convulsions and tourette-like rantings were clear signs of demonic possessions. Severely beaten up, with her front teeth knocked out(all supposedly by the demon inside her) she died of starvation after days of exorcism. The practice of exorcism had been made fairly popular in catholic circles through the smash hit success of Willam Friedkin's The Exorcist a few years earlier, so it was a small leap of faith for Michel, her family and that priest to believe exorcism was a viable option. After Michel's death copies of an audio taping of her exorcism became a very popular device to promote the catholic cause in church groups - basically making Michel a poster child for exorcism. Two years after Michel's death, her parents and her exorcist were convicted, but came off with ridiculously short jail sentences.

Treated with the proper respect and integrity and with some actual brains behind the project this film could have made some powerful statements about fanaticism and homicidal tendencies, if it only had stayed true to it's source material. The true story of Anneliese Michel is a haunting testament to the cruelty of men. It could make for a very intense, grueling drama. "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" is quite the opposite. It's an unwilling farce, exploiting the sad, cruel fate of Michel, using cheap shock effects and cheesy story-lining.

It is beyond me why such brilliant actors as Laura Linney, Campbell Scott (two of my absolute favorite actors) and Tom Wilkinson would have participated in this horribly, ill-conceived borefest. After all, they have been known to usually star in intelligent, independent-minded films. This is just a clumsy exploitation flick pandering to the religious right (who made this cheap movie a box office-success). It saddens me to think they did it for the money, but it saddens me even more to think that they actually believed this film to be a project of integrity.

The torture of psychologically disturbed Anneliese is turned into the saintly martyrdom of Emily, who decides upon meeting Mother Mary halfway into the exorcism, that she would rather have some more fatal demonic torture than being let into heaven right away - because that is the true way of showing Satan and his pals who's boss (beats me how that works). All of this is being told through some corny letter from Emily that the exorcist reads out aloud while in the witness stand. The jury then decides, that even though he is clearly guilty, he should not be put in prison, because he's not a homicidal fanatic, but rather a nice old man who stands by his faith. The judge agrees and let's good old Tom Wilkinson go. Of course, by this time (close to the end credits) the film has already established that the priest actually is right - since we can see the demon doing all sorts of shenanigans: harassing Laura Linney's lawyer lady and stopping her watch at 3am (the demonic witching hour, we learn - by the way, the only demonic thing going on at that time around where I live is Larry King interviewing Dr.Phil and other phonies), yanking poor Emily around, widening her pupils to give her what can only be described as Demonovision, making her play piano and letting her speak Aramaic, Latin and of course, the ever evil German (so the demon is musical and multilingual - neat, eh?). To make the whole thing a fair and balanced experience for the audience, Campbell Scott's disgruntled prosecutor gets to show his cynical debunked view of events, but it's clearly established through light switches moving by themselves, some kooky doctor witness mysteriously getting run over by a car, a lame version of aforementioned audio tape (the true recording is terrifying, by the way) and some silly locket with the defender's initials, that there are definitely divine and hellish forces battling it out here.

So in the end this film cheesily gives a thumbs up to exorcism, while using the horrific true story of a victim of that very practice as a basis. It's sickening.

Devishly Delightful

[Addie-2 · 10/10 · 10 September 2005]

I think one of the biggest problems with today's movie industry is that in teasers and trailers most, if not all, of the action/special effects are shown. Then you go see a movie because the trailer looks great only to find out that you've basically seen all the good stuff. Thankfully, I have learned that this is how many trailers work, but I still go see a movie praying that I'm not wasting my hard-earned money on a really expensive and really long commercial; let me savor something! I was pleasantly surprised at The Exorcism of Emily Rose; going knowing that it's not only about her exorcism, but also about the trial that follows.This movie is also about alternatives,what ifs, and perceptions. A good movie for psychology majors--as am I--who are trying to learn about mental illness, diagnosis, and the DSM-IV.

You don't need to know much about Emily, science, exorcism, or the Bible to be able to follow this movie; but, if you do, it'll definitely make you raise questions about your own faith, beliefs, and what you've learned throughout life about yourself.

Will you like this movie? Think "Primal Fear" meets "The Exorcist" meets the TV Show "Fact or Fiction".

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

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 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.

Disgusting

[fuelrod · 1/10 · 28 November 2006]

This is properly one the most disgusting films ever made.

In the mid-70th a German girl was killed by a Catholic priest and her deeply religious parents. The murder took place in the form of an exorcism performed because of the girl's epilepsy and borderline personality.

I could have accepted the concept of plain horror movie based on that story, but to turn this sad event into a defence for cold religious fanatics that killed in the name of God - and for two of them even their own daughter - makes me wanna p***.

Taking into consideration the fact, that more and more innocent people are being killed directly and indirectly by religious fanatics of various kinds through wars and acts of terrorism, just makes the purpose of this film even more disgusting.

If you want to see a horror movie about exorcism go see an "The Exorcist" movie - if you want to see the true story about the case this movie claims to be based on go see the German movie "Requim" (2006).

The Sacrifice Of Emily Rose

[Chrysanthepop · 15 August 2008]

Scott Derricksen's well-executed multi-layered film works both as a psychological horror and a gripping courtroom drama. He was so inspired by the novel and intrigued by the issues presented that he ended up making this movie. It shows that he has done extensive research.

What I liked about the horror element is that even though there are a few jumps, it does not derail into ridicule. The director doesn't overdo any violence, blood, scary faces and whatever. Derricksen uses a lot of silence which leaves the viewer in a heightened state of suspense desperately wondering what will break the silence. His use of colour is clever and it sets a chilling atmosphere. You can see hints of Dario Argento and Gaspar Noé. For example the red lit corridor in Emily's dorm looks eerily like that underground subway passage in 'Irréversible'. The exorcism scenes are quite chilling (unlike the unintentionally funny ones in 'The Exorcist'). The courtroom sequences raise some interesting questions about scientific reasoning versus the unknown and unexplained. I was impressed that it didn't become one of those God versus Science movies but the Shohreh Agdashloo track left a lot to be desired.

In addition to being a well crafted film, the performances are among the highlights. Tom Wilkinson gives a phenomenal subtle performance. A ravishing Laura Linney is equally electrifying from the yuppie ambitious lawyer to one whose internal conflict makes her doubtful. Jennifer Carpenter delivers an astonishing performance. It couldn't have been an easy part to pull off and would have been easier to mess up but she does a solid job. It definitely makes Linda Blair's bad performance (in the 'Exorcist') look miserable.

I'm not much of a horror movie fan, mostly because they tend to be ridiculous and end up being funny or boring rather than having the intended effect. It will be wrong to lable 'The Exorcism of Emily Rose' is much more than just another horror flick because it does raise questions and tackles some issues without coming to a definitive conclusion (as there are simply no answers to some things that happen).

This is far from a classic but it is a worthwhile possession movie and addition to the horror genre

[kevin_robbins · 7/10 · 21 July 2022]

The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) is a movie I recently watched on HBOMAX. The storyline follows a lawyer who takes a case where she represents a priest accused of murder of a young lady who was going through the exorcism process. The lawyer will need to prove that the exorcism was real and that the priest did everything he could to save her.

This movie is directed by Scott Derrickson (Doctor Strange) and stars Laura Linney (Mystic River), Tom Wilkinson (Michael Clayton), Jennifer Carpenter (Dexter), Colm Feore (Thor), Joshua Close (Fargo) and Kenneth Welsh (The Day After Tomorrow).

This film has a lot going for it. The cast is absolutely amazing top to bottom. Linney and Carpenter deliver perfect performances. The storyline has a fantastic setup and does a great job of establishing the characters and circumstances. The cinematography is very good as are the settings to set the mood. The exorcism scenes are solid as are the possession sequences. Unfortunately, the court scenes are just okay and the ending is a bit cheesy, but still worth watching.

Overall, this is far from a classic but it is a worthwhile possession movie and addition to the horror genre. I would score this a 6.5/10 and recommend seeing it once.

This movie surprised me

[DJ2_Freeman · 7/10 · 5 November 2022]

Well I definitely wasn't expecting anything good from this movie going into it after having it in my movie dvd collection for 7 years. I wasn't expecting much and I came out of it entertained. This movie definitely isn't that scary but it has its creepy and disgusting moments. But one takeaway from it is that the CGI is really bad especially in todays standards so it slightly takes away from the scary scenes in my opinion. The story is about the death of Emily Rose who mysteriously dies and father Richard Moore is the main suspect in her death. So he is taken to court where he's being tried with negligent homicide. Erin burner a lawyer defends him against a famous prosecutor Ethan thomas. And In my opinion the best part about the film is the court battles, arguments and points the sides make. They were entertaining and very interesting to watch since I wasn't expecting anything deep or something that had a good story like this. Erin bruner argues her death was due to a possession and father moore not being able to save her due to medication she was on, and Ethan Thomas says it's because she wasn't taking medication for conditions that she wasn't diagnosed with such as epilepsy, anorexia or schizophrenia. I think some of the points and arguments Ethan Thomas makes are understandable if you are looking at the situation from someone who doesn't think demons are real/and from a realistic standpoint. I really like both Laura Linney and Campbell Scott's performances in this movie, I think that's why it held up and remained interesting. I definitely recommend this one for the story. There's definitely some disturbing and creepy parts in this movie but I wouldn't say it's downright scary. It's a good 7/10 and I may re watch this movie in the future one day.

Good Movie

[angelalyn14612 · 8/10 · 10 September 2005]

First of all this was a good movie. I wouldn't necessarily consider it a horror movie like Friday The 13th but it was suspenseful like The Ring. I had to look away sometimes because being a suspenseful movie watcher all my life I knew by the sound of the chilling music something was gonna happen that would freak me out and boy did it do its job.

It wasn't overly predictable. It was a look back on what exactly happened when Emily Rose got possessed and how it ended. It wasn't a "push the catholic belief down everyones throat" because defending the Priest was an agnostic lawyer trying to not only get ahead in her career but convince a journey that medical science could not determine she had a medical condition but a demonic possession. Cant tell you anymore than that.

The movie had a "dark" look and was cozy it kept me on the edge of my seat and the way she got possessed and how she looked was way freaky. Good movie and worth to own on DVD!

Demonic possession or mental and physical ailment?

[tolchocker · 6/10 · 26 August 2005]

Scott Derrickson does many things right in this little "courtroom horror" picture. His possession scenes are top notch, with most of the chills coming from jarring camera work and generally only subtle special effects. Rarely is a special effect in this film more than a digitally altered scary face or subtly enhanced human ability (as often seen in The X-Files). The rest is done through editing, lighting, and scoring. I believe that Derrickson did this for a very specific reason - to add credibility to both sides of the courtroom argument. Was Emily possessed by demons or mentally/physically ill? Emily's feats of strength, obscene bodily contortions, and other frightening abilities can all be explained by both science and religion. For some of the more supernatural moments that Emily experiences, Derrickson lets us observe from two perspectives: demonic influence and objective science. Since this is of course a horror picture, there are noticeably more scenes of the former. This is a good thing because Derrickson unfortunately does not handle drama very consistently in this picture. Several key moments in the film, including a fervent assertion made by the district attorney, that should have resonated with the audience instead made everyone in the theater laugh at the scene's ridiculousness. Still, the scares are top notch (particularly a long exorcism scene which begins like Friedkin's Exorcist but then takes some surprisingly different turns) and presenting both religious and scientific explanations for the possessions (which was never an option for the head-spinning, levitating Reagan) will satisfy both believers and skeptics. Worth seeing.

A modest masterpiece !

[benign_man · 10/10 · 24 September 2005]

When one reads here the opinions of a lot of fellow cinema lovers on this film they will realise that there are a lot of creditable variables by which one perceives the ''right'' course this film should have taken.

To my mind though,technicalities and possible directorial ''irregularities'' are not what's most important about this film.This film shows strong ,excellent performances by all the main actors and the director has managed to make this seem like a real story that could have happened to just anybody.

We don't see the horrible violence of ''The Exorcist'' nor are the images and scenes shown as scary.What we see, lays emphasis on the drama and suffering of a girl and touches on the human side of things.I think that the perspective of this film is to a have more a social impact,not so much to be a horror film.

It conveys a lot of messages and stresses how important it is to have integrity how sometimes you have to sacrifice your ambitions ,to do what your heart tells you.How some life experiences change us,our personality,and give us a true,deeper wisdom and understanding of life.How they can make us revise some views that previously we thought were unshakeable.

Finally,the film provides an explanation why sometimes God allows some horrible things to take place and some people to become martyrs.

I do agree though that for a materialistic,atheistic person this film might be less ''thrilling'' than he would have expected it to be.I have called it a ''modest masterpiece'' because in a simple,humane,full of strong performances way,it touches our hearts and strengthens our beliefs in justice,moral values,and for those of us who believe,in God and His mercy.

Entertaining, but not insightful

[jeev7882 · 6/10 · 18 September 2005]

Grade: C (6 stars) I have mixed feelings about this movie. One one hand, it's well acted, relatively well written and directed, and overall it's entertaining. On the other hand, I rolled my eyes about a dozen times because the movie failed to convince me that Emily Rose was anything but a psychotic schizophrenic country girl whose condition could only be interpreted as spiritual by the Roman Catholic Church.

No offense to Catholicism in general (especially to my Catholic and Christian friends), but I often find that events involving God or the devil on Earth are never looked upon rationally by Catholic religious leaders. That being said, I found it strange that Father Moore was tried for negligent homicide and not Emily's parents. Father Moore's intentions seemed to be noble even if he was mistaken. Emily's parents were the ones who didn't just take her to the hospital to be cared for. They agreed to cease her being fed. They watched their daughter deteriorate in their own home and they did nothing about it except entrust her care to a priest whose only real solution was to attempt an exorcism which then failed.

As you can tell, I had somewhat of a bias towards this subject going into the film. I'm not saying that I do not believe in demonic possession, but I think with our knowledge of psychological disorders these days it is very hard to justify such a claim. There are a million and one question marks surrounding the validity of a demonic possession claim such as Emily Rose's. Let's apply Ockham's Razor (in a nutshell: when faced with two equally valid alternatives, choose the simpler) to her situation as presented in the movie. The evil all powerful devil decided to possess a basically useless 19 year old country bumpkin, or she was schizophrenic? The Virgin Mary (don't even get me started on that one either) visited this girl and gave her a choice to go to heaven or stay on Earth so people would believe in the spiritual realm, or, again, poor Emily was hallucinating due to her deteriorating psychological condition? Movies like this usually have trouble balancing science and faith. Emily Rose is heavy on the relevant scientific testimony in the courtroom, but easy on the spiritual testimony. The movie clearly wants us to believe Emily's story, but all the spiritual elements are treated very lightly. Dr. Adani, a defense witness who was supposed to create a relevant link between the scientific and spiritual worlds, gives a ridiculous and over the top testimony that would have been appropriate for a stoner hippie in some low brow comedy.

In the end, I did say that this movie is entertaining. It's a little long, and some of the scenes should have been cut shorter, but the flow and structure are tight. We always know where the movie is leading us. Emily Rose is predictable, but it knows where it wants to go, which, these days, is very refreshing. Laura Linney fills her shoes well as the confident attorney (though she seems to be the same person in every movie she is in) and Tom Wilkinson is the rock of the movie. It made more sense to me for Father Moore to be the main character because he had a stronger tie to Emily, and he had a more believable character arc as well.

In the end, I'd say if you have to see it, at least wait for DVD. After all, an evening show movie ticket costs about $10 these days. Factor in the gas money and the quality of a movie (especially for a "dinner and a movie" date) is increasingly important.

A poor film

[peterhall049 · 1/10 · 25 March 2006]

The film "Exorcism of Emily Rose" is blatant propaganda, all but unwatchable for its cringe-inducing transparency. Its first purpose is not to tell a story but is instead to persuade viewer that exorcism - and therefore the Devil and God - are real entities.

The story centres on a courtroom, used as a vehicle to "prove" the case of the film makers. The courtroom drama is interposed with cuts of the "posssesion" which are designed to add verisimilitude to their case, but which I find disingenuous.

The use of an "anthropologist" as a "scientific" witness to back their case yet further is appalling, especially when contrasted with the frailty of the medical evidence given in support of the prosecution (that is, in opposition to the film makers views).

I concluded this film is really about "science versus religion", and that its maker believes such a debate exists to be won; a proposition that surely is most unwelcome.

Science vs. Religion

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 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")

Do you believe in Horror?

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 10 July 2007]

Horror movies that is ... because the movie is based on the same story that the German movie "Requiem" is based on (same main person), but opts to go a different way, than the German movie did. Where the German movie opted for intellectual drama and a psychological study of a person (resulting in a movie that is very well acted and directed, but does not give you the option of a) being scared and b) make your mind up what you want to believe) ...

Yes this movie here is a horror movie, with a judicially part, and so it will have a few (cheap?) scares. And yes it will have other flaws to. But instead of "Requiem" this one opts to entertain you, rather than give a cold analytical explanation of what might have happened. I know that although this sometimes does have a TV-movie of the week feeling, it does achieve what it aims for (kudos have to go out to the actors, making this believable) -> entertain! Nothing more, nothing less!

awful

[jahwomble · 1/10 · 11 June 2010]

The exorcism of Emily Rose,really is an average to pretty mediocre courtroom drama, made worse by the constant and heavy handed introduction of blatant Christian propaganda permeating pretty much every scene. It's one redeeming factor was Jennifer Carpenter's superb performance,her scenes unfortunately were few and far between though, she really worked for her fee here. It felt to me from quite early on that the message about the agnostic lawyer eventually accepting the existence of a god was just really obviously and the whole point of the film. So unless you really want to sit through what feels like hours of pro Christian cinema, don't bother.