accessAtlanta

'The Exorcism of Emily Rose': Worthy of a better movie

By MELINDA ENNIS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Those of us who were scared senseless 30 years ago while watching "The Exorcist" took comfort that it was just a movie. But in what seems to be a bid to spike the fear factor, "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" is promoted as being based on a true story.

Director Scott Derrickson calls it the first "courtroom horror film." But as horror it's not so horrifying, and as a courtroom drama we can see better any night on "Law and Order."

Screen Gems

'The Exorcism of Emily Rose'

The verdict: Hell hath no fury like a woman possessed, or a moviegoer expecting more.

Director: Scott Derrickson
Starring: Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson, Campbell Scott, Colm Feore, Jennifer Carpenter
Run time: 114 minutes
Release date: September 9, 2005
Rating: PG-13 for thematic material including intense/frightening sequences and disturbing images.
See showtimes

On the web
Official movie site
View the trailer
Trailers require Quicktime

Granted, we've become accustomed to seeing dead people, psycho killers, progeny of the devil and demonic possessions in innumerable, increasingly gruesome scenarios. We're harder to frighten these days.

The story of an exorcism performed on college student Emily Rose (Jennifer Carpenter), ending in her death, the movie does have some shocks and spooky bits. Emily's initial possession process and bizarre, demon-inspired contortions are creepy. And if you're ever awake at 3 a.m., the hour will now have a sinister significance. But there's nothing here that will keep you up that late. The film never takes full advantage of its premise's rich possibilities and is shot as unimaginatively as a 1970s made-for-TV movie.

The priest (Tom Wilkinson) 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 (Laura Linney) defends the priest in court.

However, 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.

With performers such as Linney and Wilkinson, you begin the film with high hopes. But Wilkinson ("In the Bedroom") waffles between being overly earnest and sleepwalking through the role. And some of the peripheral actors, such as Emily Rose's boyfriend, are strangely amateurish.

Linney is the movie's bright spot. As a cocky, ambitious attorney who recently defended a murderer she knew was guilty, she attacks the role with her usual class. Her character has more dimension than Emily's.

When she first meets the priest to talk about the defense, she warns him, "I think I'm an agnostic." His reply, "If you're not sure, then you are," is one of the script's better moments.

The priest is less interested in his own acquittal than in proving Emily Rose's story, with the goal of promoting her for beatification. His deep faith and selflessness inspire lawyer Linney to wrestle with her values. The struggle with her own demons is far more interesting than Emily's with the four or five (including Genghis Khan and Hitler) the girl claims are controlling her.

The film does try to probe the moral issues inherent in a story about God and the devil in a world of modern science. Emily Rose's devout Catholic parents and the priest absolutely believed that Emily was possessed, and acted accordingly. The churchgoing Protestant prosecutor (Campbell Scott) and a parade of psychologists blame the girl's affliction on a combination of epilepsy, psychosis and unrestrained religious zeal.

A "Rashomon"-like approach of visualizing the two disparate explanations is inconsistently executed, then discarded altogether at the end. The exploration of unquestioning faith (religious or otherwise) in a world of pop psychology and cynicism is worthy of a far better movie.

In the hands of a William Friedkin ("The Exorcist") or Stanley Kubrick ("The Shining"), it could have been a powerful film, which is probably what attracted such first-rate actors. Since Kubrick is dead, perhaps director Derrickson should have channeled his spirit for some help.