Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 70% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now

Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 26 September 2006
An excellent film, scary, creepy, subtle with no shocks really. I watched this alone in the living room, with all the lights off. I did not feel scared at all. Until, that is the film finished at 0230am. Lights on, was that someone looking through the window, who's shadow passed quickly over the wall. What was that noise. I'll never get to sleep, I wonder if the dog wants to share my bed tonight. All these thoughts and emotions, do I now believe in demons YEP!!!!! I DO !!!!!

Watch this film, watch it late and in the dark I DARE YOU!!!!!!
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 26 January 2015
the fact its based on true story, not exactly accurate in term of everything but if you look up Anneliese Michel - its mind-blowing.

Be warned, if you watch it, you will be haunted for days after. even if you've watch it b4. that is exactly why i brought this dvd LOL cos i love being haunted and have sleepless nights afterward.

One of best films on Exorcism. Not many exorcism films is as good as this film except The Exorcist.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 30 October 2014
A film that has personally registered with myself and several friends. This was purchased as a replacement for a friend who had only the original short copy. A rather scary outing but one that does not capitalise on blood and gore. Scary on first viewing but does not pale with repeated viewing. I still find myself waking wevery night at 3.00 am!!!!
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
VINE VOICEon 6 February 2008
This is a masterpiece of actual and psychological terror, certainly. But it is also a profound meditation on suffering with an incredibly thought-provoking ending/resolution. Needless to say that the performances are brilliant throughout. Laura Linney and Tom Wilkinson are, as you'd expect, superior. But Jennifer Carpenter is a real revelation. This is not shock-tactic horror cinema. It's far more subtle than that. And the ultimate explanation for what has happened to Emily during the course of the film is far more interesting than merely demons having a party in a vulnerable girl's soul. The vast majority of critics savagely laid into this film. When it comes to ANY paranormal subject matter, the vast majority of critics tend to lose their faculties. To me, this is the best horror film since The Exorcist itself. And, acknowledging the fact that Friedkin's classic was unprecedented and unique, in some ways, The Exorcism of Emily Rose improves on its predecessor. And its spiritual message is far more nuanced.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 10 September 2007
I really enjoyed this film as it allows the viewer to make their own mind up about demonic posession.
It is, as the director says in the commentary, a curious mix of courtroom drama and horror. I found myself really rooting for the man of God (played by Tom Wilkinson) and I really wanted to believe in him.
The horror is subtle, no gore or green vomit a la Exorcist but it is effective in portraying poor emily's descent into madness/posession. If you can remember the trailers for the film, they contained what was the scariest part of the movie for me. Again, I could not help but feel sorry for the EMily character. Perhaps the main weakness about the film is that neither the drama of the courtroom or the horror is sustained as the story necessarily keeps switching between the two. Don't bother if you like non-stop visceral thrills.
So, an enjoyable couple of hours that credits the viewer with some intelligence and certainly made me want to find out about the real case that inspired the film.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 30 June 2012
I needn't recap the story in detail here; its basically a courtroom drama of Science Vs Faith in trying to determine the cause of death of a young girl. The priest on trial and the family of Emily Rose believe she was posessed by demons, while the prosecution maintains that Emily died of neglect, with regards to her pyschosis and epilepsy.

The court case is very intriguing, and deals with the scientific explanations of "posession", while trying to set a precedent of proving that the supernatural is real. The horror aspect comes in flashbacks to the exorcism and posession; all very well done, superbly acted, and quite eerie. Also, the main players in the trial begin to experience supernatural events of their own, with sudden unexpected deaths in witnesses and strange co-incidences and 3AM hauntings.

THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE is a top-notch horror thriller, a clever mix of the courtroom and supernatural drama genres.

A few interesting featurettes, about the casting, story and visuals are also on the DVD [about 45 minutes], a directors commentary, and a deleted scene.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 29 May 2006
This movie is an example of how a horror movie can be as good as any other film. It was original, specially in the fusion between the court room and emily rose's story, intelligent (it really makes you think and question yourself and your beliefs) and at the same time, very creepy. Really, I found myself hoping I wouldn't wake up at 3 AM (fortunately, it didn't happen)!!!

Cheers to Jennifer Carpenter for being what makes this movie so good!

It's not as scary (or maybe gory, I guess...)than The Exorcist(the comparison is inevitable..) but from my point of view it's much better for its inteligence and ambiguity.

5 stars indeed.
0Comment| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 19 September 2006
A very good film. I am not that used to horrors, except you can't say that, as it's based on a true story. I would recommend it highly, very well done. I thought it was gripping and interesting and you can't beleive it happened.
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
"The Exorcism of Emily Rose" is based on a true story, which would be the exorcism and death of in 1976 of Anneliese Michel, a young German girl. The "Klingenberg Case" unfolded in the wake of the release of William Friedkin's "The Exorcist" and two years later prosecutors brought Anneliese's parents and the two exorcists to trial on charges of negligent homicides. What Scott Derrickson takes from that true story are not so much the details of the young woman's possession and the attempted exorcism, but the drama of a trial in which the state seeks to convict a priest for believing in faith rather than facts. Consequentially, this 2005 is a rather unique blend of a trial film with a horror movie, and with regards to both parts of the equation it is both provocative and effective.
Our vantage point in the story is that of Erin Bruner (Laura Linney), a criminal lawyer who has achieved notoriety for successfully defending a murderer. The head of her firm (Colm Feore) dangles a partnership in front of her for taking the case of Father Moore (Tom Wilkinson), who has been charged with negligent homicide in the death of Emily Rose (Jennifer Carpenter). Diagnosed as having epilepsy, the Father convinced Emily that she was a victim of demon possession and got her to stop taking her medication. An exorcism was performed, but it was unsuccessful, and Emily starved to death. Prosecuting the case if Ethan Thomas (Campbell Scott), a man of faith who believes in facts. Bruner is an agnostic, which makes for an obvious irony as she defends the priest whose only concern is that he be allowed to testify and tell Emily's story. Towards that end he has refused a plea agreement pushed by the archdiocese.
Emily's story emerges in flashbacks during the trial, which puts the prosecution's case at a disadvantage from our perspective. Thomas' alternative explanations for things like how Emily comes to know so many ancient languages ring hollow compared to what we have seen and heard in the flashbacks. It is key that Thomas is a man of faith, that he is a believer whereas Bruner is not, but when he dismisses Moore's beliefs as archaic superstitions is he merely being a Protestant or is he drawing a line in the theological sand elsewhere? To the point, does he believe in God but not Satan? In both but not in possession? More to the point, when faith and facts collide, why does he obviously side with the latter? These questions matter to me because by focusing on the trial the story here is about what religious beliefs the law allows. What is the difference between the religious exemption that allows Native Americans to smoke peyote and allowing Christian Scientists to refuse medical treatment, and the right of the Catholic Church to perform the "Ritulae Romanum" of the Great Exorcism?
Emily's position is succinctly put in her own words: "People say that God is dead, but how can they believe that when I show them the Devil?" When "The Exorcist" came out I remember a poll where more people believed in Satan than in God, which seemed to me to be backwards from the standpoint of logic because Emily is right: the existence of Satan prove that of God, but believing in God does not necessarily mandate a believe in the devil. Maybe that is where Thomas makes his stand. But Derrickson has stacked the deck here: those who authorized the exorcism are off the hook, as are the parents, and the earnest Moore faces martyrdom essentially alone.
What this film has going for it above anything else is an exceptionally strong cast. Linney is an actress who exudes intelligence in everything she does, Scott shows measured disdain with just about every sentence he utters, and Wilkinson brings a remarkable sense of reasonableness to a priest in his position. But special credit goes to Carpenter, who manifests most of Emily's possession through the use of her voice and body (the special features indicate the exceptions in this regard). The fact that for the most part Linney is in the trial film rather than the horror movie helps her so much that in those few scenes where we are supposed to believe the demons are after her actually work against the movie because it works better if her perspective is no different from that of the jury.
In the end I am bothered more by the film's resolution than by its implicit rhetorical questions. I appreciate the importance of amibugity in such a film, that for it to really work both Moore and Thomas must be right at face value, but it really is skewed towards the "turth" of the possession and having it both ways in the end is too much of a cop out for me. Even the characters do not try to come to grips with what it all means given the battle that has been waged in the courtroom, which is why I round down on this one.
0Comment| 7 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 19 May 2006
What makes 'Emily Rose' intrigueing and unlike the average horror film is that it mixes two genres together - drama vs horror. Some critics describe it as a 'court-room horror' and this is indeed true, ultimately it is also what makes this film stand out a bit more from the rest.

The film does not rely on mere unpredictable, 'scary' scenes that make people jump but the feelings we are to express, throughout the film, for Emily. Carpenter illuminates the character of Emily to such a succesful extent, that she deserves the MTV Movie nomination for 'Best Breakthrough Acting'. As the film progresses, the viewer is invited to feel the pain and torment that Emily is going through, once possessed, and it is that which scares us the most - what she is going through and how she must be feeling.

Quality actors such as Laura Linney, Campbell Scott and Tom Wilkinson also further the quality of the film, steering it away from average horror films which are, most often than not, crap.

This is my personal opinion about the film and I admit, that I refused for some time to watch it. However, once my friends managed to sit me down in front of the television, I was engrossed in the film. Have a go with it and although the film is horrific in content, it is satisfying in quality.
0Comment| 7 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)