Movie Review

There’s a movie called The
Exorcism of Emily Rose
. I never even thought
about seeing it during its theatrical release because it looked like a knock-off
of The Exorcist, which I don’t really care to see.
Recently, though, I came across a Christianity
with the writer
Derrickson. I was surprised to learn that a) he is a Christian, and b) TEoER is
a courtroom drama.

The court case is the prosecution of a priest charged with the negligent homicide
of a girl who died under his care after he attempted to rid her of demons.
The girl’s story is told in flashbacks—sometimes from different, incompatible
points of view—that supply all of the horror-genre scenes. The three main
players in the court case are the priest (Tom
), his lawyer (Laura
), and the prosecutor (Campbell
). The priest, of course, wholly
believes that Emily Rose had been taken over by demons. The prosecutor, a devout
Methodist, believes Emily suffered from a medical condition in which epileptic
seizures led to psychosis. The defense attorney is an agnostic intent on defending
her client, but finds herself questioning her own personal beliefs about the
events leading to Emily’s death.

Mrs. Happy and I have watched this movie twice now. It will not receive
any Oscar nominations, but it’s worth checking out.

3 thoughts on “Movie Review

  1. I’ve been intrigued by what I’ve heard about the film. I don’t think I’ll be watching it since horror really isn’t my thing, but it does sound interesting.

  2. My husband and I just watched it recently and liked it very much (and then I watched it again, and watched the special features on the DVD). Normally I have little patience for courtroom dramas because I’ve had a fair bit of contact with the legal profession in real life, and courtroom dramas never seem to resemble real courts at all, but this one was actually not too egregious in that regard. So all around, a good film!

  3. I strongly dislike horror movies, but this one was excellent. Its a true story, which is perhaps what makes it so intense.

    I’d like to point out that I have seizures. I never hallucinate or go through anything the one doctor on stand was propagating. Also at epilepsy conventions in NYC where I’ve spoken with other epileptics (there are various degrees to quantity). one does not do the things that Emily Rose did. Not one person told me they had seizures with the symptoms atheists claim Emily Rose had. I never met one epileptic, for example, who would bite the walls during a seizure (where motor skills are virtually paralyzed – A seizure is like you are trying to start an old car that won’t quite turn over. You’re midway between blacking out and trying to fight falling, in an alternating oscillating state). You do not bite into things, walls included, and then turn to talk to someone and then turn back to biting the wall. This is absolutely not seizure behaviour. Nor do I know of any epileptics who eat cockroaches, but cannot “regular” foods. Epilepsy does not affect your ability to reason. Only liberals have no reason (had to get that in). When unconscious, one does not recall what other people are doing around them. You black out completely. Also, recollection of events that led up to a seizure are typically absent or only scanty and vague portions are remembered. This girl, Emily, was not having seizures at all.

    I don’t like how the family was portrayed. Their house is cheery and warm and not grey and dark and unwelcoming as it is portrayed. They’re poor, but they’re not slobs.

    Because it’s real, it is rather frightening in certain areas.