Sometimes, a movie just offends you into taking a break from studying for your exams to write a review. I want to establish to you off the bat that Exorcism of Emily Rose is not a scary movie. There are two things directors of scary movies do when they realize their movie isn't scary: 1) they amp up the cacophonous string instruments to generate affected tension; and 2) they use loud sounds to startle you. These gimmicks hit horror afficionados like the rank of adjuncts hit a beerlover; but even those novice to the horror genre will question the combining of macabre spirituality with a full-blown courtroom battle. Imagine explicit depictions of demonic possession transitioning into Perry Mason, and you can grasp the silliness. For what its worth, the courtroom drama was compelling, and the legal-ese dialogue was invigorating. But, ladies and gentlemen, I will do this film no injustice by so obviously aping an opening statement.

The problem with Exorcism of Emily Rose is that it is based on a true story - the exorcism of Anneliese Michel. The "based on a true story" part of any alleged horror movie is always to instill that this-could-happen-to-you fear in its audience. However, because Exorcism is so entwined with the Christian faith, the fear is inaccessible to non-Christians like myself. Are possessions by Lucifer possible? No. With that reaction, it is impossible to escape the corniness of it all: the weird faces, the vocal stunts, the speaking in tongues, and of course the contortions - it borders on comedy. By weaving the Satanic with a protracted trial based on a true story, however, the claim of non-fiction strikes some higher-level nerves.

There are two issues being tackled in Exorcism: the existence of God, and the administration of justice. Risking a non sequiter, director Scott Derrickson shows the existence of God indirectly by showing the existence of the devil - in fact, a quote from the movie is "How can [you] think that [God is dead], if I show [you] the devil." At the emotional heart of this movie is 19 year old Emily Rose (Jennifer Carpenter). As her soul is swallowed by darkness, the sympathy you feel is empty because there is no character development. I will make the obvious reference to Passion of the Christ because I see no God in the pornographic display of suffering, but I do see dollar signs. I know Christians who agree with me in that Christianity has married capitalism and these vacuous onscreen lessons in faith are far removed from true religion. As for Jennifer Carpenter, I get the idea she's a good contortionist and a good shrieker, but I'm still wondering if she can act.

Faith does creep into the courtroom proceedings in Exorcism, and not as the Prince of Darkness exploding out of the judge's bossom. In a solid attempt at cinematic salvation, Exorcism asks, in the context of a secular courtroom, the place of religion. Emily Rose, like Anneliese Michel, dies and her priest, Father Moore (Tom Wilkinson) is charged with negligent homicide. The Father is resolute that telling Emily's story, as it happened, is the only path to absolution. His lawyer, Erin Bruner (Laura Linney) initially insists the Father not to testify, but then changes her mind in her own struggle to find her faith and avoid the same ominous darkness that killed Emily. In the courtroom, we have established actors in familiar roles giving solid performances, and a less extreme treatment of faith. The moral, as Father Moore's verdict is given and the film draws to a conclusion, is almost heartwarming.

There is, however, still a dead girl. The prosecution, led by Ethan Thomas (Campbell Scott), gives sound arguments that condemn exorcisms. The filmmakers put on a facade of allowing an unbiased battle between science and religion, fact and possibility, but its obvious through annoying and incongruous little outbursts, mandatory of a courtroom drama, who the villain is. I am upset by Exorcism because it is justifying exorcisms when "true" demonic possession has occured and I can't help but feel Anneliese Michel is a girl who suffered and died needlessly. Perhaps it is just the proverbial doctor blind beyond my EKG charts budding in me, because there's two ways you can view this movie, and I picked the one different from the director and probably many devout Christians; but admist all this theological thinking, remember we have an obtrusive attempt at a horror movie.

Monkeys can be entertaining. Loveseats can be aesthetic. But When you put a monkey and a loveseat in a wrestling ring, it's a head-scratching mess. Likewise, when you put posessions and a serious discussion on spirituality into a courtroom, you don't get a good movie.

Recommended:
No