The Exorcism of Emily Rose

I've got two major gripes with films centered around exorcism themes. Firstly, I'm not a fan of the various religions and churches depicted. Secondly, ever since Max von Sydow tried to dodge streams of pea soup, it seems like filmmakers haven't really come up with anything new (unless we count the use of CGI on the possessed). This particular film wasn't exactly a horror movie, more like a courtroom drama with added exorcism flashbacks, with the courtroom scenes being the saving grace. Unfortunately, the trial concluded with a verdict that seemed like a clever cop-out. So, for me, the film ended halfway through; I was entertained and yet not quite satisfied, and my rating reflects this mixed bag. It wasn't a terrible movie, but it had way too many flaws to leave a lasting impression on me. / Lesson learned: If you have a fit in a deeply religious family, you're in trouble. (30/07/2023)

A tedious battle between science and faith set in a courtroom. It’s a pretty long film – by the end I was looking at my watch – the events in the courtroom are quite boring because they are very predictable (you can figure out exactly how the case will develop and what the verdict will be). What is a little bit better are the flashbacks showing a still alive Emily. The entire film has three mildly scary scenes, very little for an almost two-hour runtime, which is a real shame because they are very effective and intense. Formally speaking, there’s not much to reproach: the actors handle their roles perfectly, the characters don’t do anything stupid and the direction is good enough. 70% (19/01/2008)

Scott Derrickson kicks William Friedkin's ass with the exorcism scene alone, but the positives don't end there. It is true that the courtroom intrigue is routine, but it’s not going to offend the more modest viewer, and thus the film’s main asset is the actual rendezvous with the forces of darkness. It’s filmed so perfectly that the producers of any ghost story remakes should get a little technical training from Derrickson. Derrickson does good work with the camera, music, and sound, meaning that many passages are very pleasantly chilling. Of the actors, the famed Tom Wilkinson clearly carries the film, but it's Jennifer Carpenter's creation that makes my chin drop. It's unfortunate about the cautious approach to the Church itself, more controversy would not have been a bad thing. Although it is a fact that it’s better this way, rather than poser shouting into the dark, as we see elsewhere. The result is a surprisingly clever and skillful film that won't cause you to have sleep problems, it will in a sense please you. (22/07/2008)

This unorthodox horror film is elevated by the decent performances and Christopher Young’s excellent music. A few eerie shots, especially in the first half, successfully try to establish a sense of mounting tension and dread, but as the trial comes into focus, we are no longer watching the ghost story we expected, but an ambitious psychological drama that tries to impress the viewer as much as possible with the fact that this actually happened. But that doesn't change the fact that Scott Derrickson is obviously a very skilled filmmaker who can portray even a trial more than engagingly, and the film, despite its length, passes like water. And I mustn't forget to highlight the performance of Jennifer Carpenter, whose gestures and tortured looks really gave me chills and who managed to increase the momentum and authenticity of this unpolished work. (05/07/2011)

The Exorcism of Emily Rose serves up proper portions of impressive chills, for which – as in The Grudge – composer Christopher Young deserves a lot of credit. However, these very effective elements of modern horror are overshadowed by a courtroom drama that begs to be handled more intelligently and in a more dignified manner. The theme, which elevates the film above the current crowd of mediocre horror movies, is used only superficially by the filmmakers, who thus miss the mark. In comparison with Friedkin’s The Exorcist, this film is merely a skillfully shot diversion based on a mediocre screenplay. (26/10/2005)