HMRWS - Starring Emily Rose!

[Seil]

Been lagging on these lately, due to having no time or means for horror flicks. Aside from The Exorcism Of Emily Rose, I've been lamenting the my movie collection being a three hour drive away. Oh well, it'll be here in a week or two. (And yes, I know it came out half a decade ago.)

Let me begin by asking you guys about movie etiquette. I'm guilty of this too, but I've said in the past that I hate when people talk through movies. Now, if there's a movie that I've seen before, I won't hesitate to turn to my friends and make a quick quip, but if it's a movie I'm interested in seeing, and everyone sits down to see it, I don't want to hear "She's a good actress." "If that happened to me, I'd be scared." "Would you like to hear the essay I wrote entitled 'Neo-Conservatism And Its Effect On The Western Trade And Economic Fronts?'" It's not like I'm taping your mouths shut here, I'm just saying I want to watch my frakking movie. (Battlestar reference. Boo yeah.)

I know this movie is old, but it's what I've got here, so let's go with that. Maybe next week I'll do Martyrs. The Exorcist remains one of my favorite horror films of all time, and as such I was interested in seeing it but kept my distance for much the same reasoning that I kept my distance from things like Rosemary's Baby, a film borrowing heavily from The Omen, but not nearly as interesting, featuring a cult of aging Satanists who all get naked at some point. Anyways, back to the story.

Anyways, lets get on with Ms. Rose - or, as she prefers to be known, Ms. Annaliese Michel. The slightly more North American woman is possessed by evil. The movie is set after Emily Rose's death, where the minister who performed the exorcism, Richard Moore, standing trial for "negligent homicide." It centers around the trial where witness' testimony dissolve into flashbacks which, while clearly creepy with intense religious overtones, is clearly the amplified version of what happened to Ms. Michel. Okay, okay, okay. I know it's a Hollywood horror film, which means that they do largely have to add gimmicks or skew original events, but much like the Amityville Horror homeowners, it's just pretty obvious that they're making a bit of stuff up.

I guess it's a sore spot, but when they say "Based On A True Story," I... I know. It's Hollywood. I'll shut it.

Anyways, the trial quickly shifts from Erin Bruner, Fr. Moores lawyer, trying to defend him to trying to prove in the existence of the spiritual and that possession is possible. Bruner and Moore are played by Laura Linney and Tom Wilkinson, respectively, and while on the whole, their performances are good, a lot of the time it's just phoned in. Jennifer Carpenter, who plays Emily, pulls the whole movie along. The horror is largely centered around a possessed person, which means that they're the horror. If they don't work, the movie turns from a supernatural scare to a courtroom drama.

But boy does Carpenter make it work. She's both scared and scary as a victim of possession and the demons possessing - the scares get bigger as the film goes on, but in the beginning Emily is shown as a terrified college girl, suddenly seeing and hearing demonic forces. This is where the liberties are taken from the original case, as the movie is clearly designed to support the possession argument and dispute the "Epileptic/Psychosis" argument. But, I guess if it makes for good cinema, creative license is justified. (And if it's not, it's not. I'm looking at you, Boll.)

Wilkinson, Linney and Carpenter and the main players in the film, and aside from a two or three others, everyone shuffles along, only speaking when they're called to the witness stand and then standing to the side. Carpenter, as I've said, makes the film work - but it's not just because of her acting ability, (which is great) but because of her flexibility. If you'll remember, there was one scene in The Exorcist amiably named The Spiderwalk Scene. The contortionist hired, Linda Hagger, did a pretty good job. However - and I'm sad to say this - her work is nothing compared the spined bending Carpenter does throughout the film. While I will admit that it's most likely CG, it looks pretty impressive.

On a whole, the film works well - because I like courtroom drama, like the movie Fracture, and I like supernatural horror, like The Exorcist. There's a little philosophy thrown in there, too, arguing about the existence of the supernatural in a court of law. So the film works, it's relatively scary at parts, but as those parts are mixed in with the courtroom scenes, it gives your heart time to start beating again. It's alright with friends, providing they don't talk, probably scarier when viewed alone, but I'd probably slip my copy of The Exorcist into the DVD player over this.

[phil_]

All I remember about this film is that, when I watched it, the projector had a flat lens instead of the stereoscope lens it should have had. This had the effect of squashing the film horizontally and stretching it vertically. Those scenes with the subtitled Latin and stuff? No subs for me. I could hardly see what was going on during the scenes where the possession got really real. I would recommend watching with just the center of the screen viewable; it was pretty intense.