exorcism of emily rose

shredmaster · #1 09-10-2005, 02:43 PM

saw it last night and it was good....i thought. after an hour after it sinks in. it's a thinking movie since most of it takes place in the courtroom. battle between the law and the church; exorcism vs. drugs to help with the psychotic epileptic episodes...or was it demons? it's up to you to decide. the trailer is really nothing like the movie, as i said, most of it is in the courtroom. it's not like the exorcist where it relies on images and hollywood to try and scare you. it relies on your mind and creepy situations to freak you out. it was interesting to me since i have done tons of research on this stuff and am familiar with the actual story that the movie was based on.
To me, the film doesn't really take full advantage of its premise's rich possibilities.

The priest who conducted the exorcism at Emily's parents' rural farm in what looks like the present day Midwest is charged with neglectful homicide. We see Emily's possession and exorcism in flashbacks as a hotshot lawyer defends the priest in court.

The "true" story actually took place in Germany 30 years ago, with the exorcism performed on a girl whose family has been called religious extremists by some. Coincidentally, the actual exorcism and trial occurred about the time that hype surrounding the original release of "The Exorcist" was rampant.

It did have its creepy moments which i thought were good. Not too many FX, which is good...just enough to give you a taste of the film's flow and storyline.

jay ratkowski · #2 09-10-2005, 10:58 PM

The true story is pretty interesting... as long as the movie doesn't have any CG demons or subplot love story I'll netflix it.

It seems like the real life "Emily Rose" (I forgot what her real name was) was just terribly depressed.

shredmaster · #3 09-11-2005, 11:15 AM

there were no CG demons other than what was in the trailer. they did a good job and left you wanting more.

Anneliese Michel's story was terrible and tragic. you might think it was more than depression if you research her entire story. very odd indeed. The movie only touched on a small part of the story...exorcism - wise.

gemm012 · #4 09-11-2005, 02:52 PM

Sounds neat. But, I just don't see the appeal of paying $14 to go see a movie that'll scare the hell outta me. I want to get to sleep. Maybe I'm just a sissy.

Galen

gunkungfu · #5 09-11-2005, 05:27 PM

if it's more scary than the Exorcist I'm there

YaYoGakk · #6 09-12-2005, 12:21 PM

We'll likely go see it this week. Sounds good.

**elcid** · #7 09-12-2005, 12:24 PM

I don't see how a PG-13 movie can be that scary.

Jeff · #8 09-12-2005, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elcid

I don't see how a PG-13 movie can be that scary.

I thought this for a long time, since there has been a trend lately of releasing PG-13 horror flicks. However, what I've noticed is that the scare in these movies comes a lot more from dialogue/situations than blood & gore/visual effects. A much better approach IMO.

**elcid** · #9 09-12-2005, 07:12 PM

I'm not saying you need blood and gore, but if the movie is made so it's appropriate for a 13 year old, I won't plan on being scared, I mean if "The Ring" is going to be the benchmark for horror, then I won't be going to see any horror movies anytime soon. Of course if Hollywood is going to continue to just rehash old movies and continue on the crap-a-thon they've been putting out I won't be going to any movies, but that's another thread entirely.

Jeff · #10 09-12-2005, 07:30 PM

I don't really think the movie was made "so it's appropriate for a 13 year old." I think the movie was made, and the MPAA or whoever handles ratings watched it and deemed no content in it unsuitable for people 13 years old or older. Ratings are somewhat of an indication of a movie's target audience, but this is not always the case. I think "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" is a much more mature film intended for viewers above 13.

**elcid** · #11 09-12-2005, 09:14 PM

So it wasn't made to be appropriate for 13 year olds, it was made so that no material in it would be inappropriate for 13 year olds?

davester1234 · #12 09-12-2005, 10:47 PM

haha.

There are certain things that the board must issue certain ratings for. It has nothing to do with how appropriate it is for 13 year olds. That is simply an indication - a reference point if you will - so parents can guage on a basic level what to expect. Whether something is appropriate or not is value based, and depends on the child. There is a list of things that are checked for. blood and gore are one, sexual content and strong language is another.

They're not trying to tell you this movie is dumbed down for kids. Its simply telling you that the criteria for an R rating - blood guts and sex and drugs - were absent to the boards satisfaction.

And as for scare....a plot with no violence, gore, or sexual obscenity can be very scary, and often more believable...no stunts or hollywood twist, just real people dealing with extraordinarily bad circumstances. and because flicks like that lack red flags the censor board has to report, it won't get an R rating, or a pg suggested etc... Legally, the censor board has to rate it for its actual content and not simply what they 'think' might scare a kid, or how scared they were when they screened it.

shredmaster · #13 09-13-2005, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff

what I've noticed is that the scare in these movies comes a lot more from dialogue/situations than blood & gore/visual effects. A much better approach IMO.

it is a much better approach imo and that is what this film is. most of it takes place in the courtroom. someone into the traditional "horror flick" may not like it. anyone under 19 may not like it. it is creepy in the right parts but not from hollywood's CG approach. i was so glad they didn't use the old.....HEY I JUST GOT A NEW PC WITH 3D STUDIO MAX...LOOK WHAT I CAN DO! if they wanted to build on this flick

this movie creeped me out more than the exorcist did. hey, don't get too excited.....the exorcist movie never scared me...i actually thought it more funny than anything.

whatshisname · #14 09-13-2005, 04:04 PM

This might be a movie I'd like to see, then. I HATE... no I DESPISE how all of these new "scary" movies need to spell everything out in computer animated blood. If I ever see another jerky motion ghost, or "creepy" little girl again, I just might have to do myself in.

IMO, the best horror movies are the ones that leave things to your imagination. The things I can picture in my mind are far more terrifying than anything some computer geek can program.

shredmaster · #15 09-15-2005, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatshisname

I DESPISE how all of these new "scary" movies need to spell everything out in computer animated blood. If I ever see another jerky motion ghost, or "creepy" little girl again, I just might have to do myself in.

Amen. once again, someone wrote the scripting of what they think we "want" to see and everyone jumps on the bandwagon. that stuff really pisses me off and i find it insulting. just like these damn car and truck commercials. don't even get me started on that crap....beyond insulting. i'm sure you know what i mean. i hate them all. how many of us climb a mountain of rocks or speed through a wet mountainside? how stupid. i'm stopping before i write a novel.