|
|
The Exorcism of Emily
Rose (2005)
By: Trist Jones on March 23, 2006. 
Share
 Comments (0) |
 |
|
| Sony (Australia). Region 2, 4, & 5, PAL. 2.35:1 (16:9 enhanced). English DD 5.1, Italian DD 5.1. English, Italian, Dutch, Hindi Subtitles. 117 minutes |
| The Movie |
| Cover Art |
 |
| Credits |
Director: Scott Derrickson
Starring: Laura Linney,
Tom Wilkinson, Campbell Scott, Jennifer Carpenter
Colm Feore, JR Bourne
Screenplay: Paul Harris
Boardman, Scott Derrickson
Country: USA |
I remember being slightly dubious about this one
when Sony began spinning it's promo wheel.
It looked as though it was heading towards the same
territory as that terrible Timothy Dalton Exorcist rip-off went. Then I saw the first trailer…
and I was interested. But then I saw the film…
The Exorcism of Emily Rose tells
the 'loosely-based-on-true-events'
story of Emily Rose, a 19 year old from a fairly
low-income family who gets offered a scholarship
to a major state college. After settling in, she
is tormented by a variety of manifestations, and
the audience is prompted to question whether it's
all in her head, or if something far more sinister
is going on?
Now, any horror fan that hasn't seen this
one yet really does need to take heed of the warnings.
This is a court room drama. There are horror sequences
sprinkled throughout that really are masterfully
executed (aside from one in a barn that pushes
the evil button a few too many times), but the
majority of the film is centred on the court case
that follows Emily's untimely death. And
don't be fooled by the uncut labelling (or
unrated in the US)! Often times this will imply
that the film has had the scary bits made even
scarier, or the gory bits gorier, but this is
not the case here. With this one, Sony has very
cleverly placed this tag on hoping to lure more
horror fans, but actually, the uncut/unrated sequences
were three minutes more of court hearings, and
because they were never submitted for the American
ratings, it effectively makes that release 'unrated'
(even though it would get exactly the same rating).
The biggest problem with the film being a court
room drama is that the dialogue is so melodramatic.
If the dialogue weren't so poor, this film
really could have been something great. The film
has a great cast, Laura Linney (The Mothman
Prophecies), Tom Wilkinson (Batman
Begins), Campbell Scott (The
Spanish Prisoner) and Jennifer Carpenter,
but the dialogue feels like something straight
out of book, and far too dramatic. In the same
stead, Linney's performance is really lazy
in this one. Whether she is actually just being
lazy or it's the script I can't be
sure, but her performance in this is a far cry
from her best. Wilkinson on the other hand can
rest easy though, as his dialogue really is as
clunky and as theatrical as it comes (especially
in and around the court case). Jennifer Carpenter
on the other hand is absolutely fantastic. All
you have to do is see the 'possession'
scenes and the 'medical' scenes (some
of which she manages to make more disturbing than
the demonic ones). She clearly has incredible
control over her entire body to be able to do
what she does in some of the flashbacks.
Another concern I had with the overall film was
it's ambiguous stance on the whole religion/science
situation. There are a lot of moments that are
intended to have the viewer question their own
beliefs, but then goes back on itself by saying
"Yes, God exists!", and then goes
into this cycle of "God exists, God doesn't
exist", when for it to be truly effective,
it should have stuck with one point of view band
presented the arguments either side. |
| Video |
| The image is as crisp as you'd expect from
a Sony moneymaker (yes, it was, believe it or not).
There's not a single blemish to be seen, but
I found that the clarity in the picture on the DVD
slightly robbed the film of its impact when the
horror sequences came about. In the cinema, these
sequences were all balanced perfectly in terms of
brightness and contrast, and the projected image
hid the obvious CGI work. It's almost like
watching a Harryhausen film on an old VHS, and then
seeing it on DVD. The effects blend so much better
on the older, less clean image, and it's the
same with the trip out scenes in this. That's
not to say that they don't look good, they
just looked a lot better and less obvious in the
cinema. |
| Audio |
| The soundtrack, like the image, is about as good
as it gets on DVD these days. It's Dolby 5.1,
but it doesn't exactly exhaust your surround
set-up. The score and soundscape are nowhere near
as creepy as the film it will undoubtedly live in
the constant shadow of (that film being the Exorcist).
The audio commentary is actually worth a listening
to if you can come to sitting through the film again. |
| Extra Features |
| The cover makes out like it has more than it really
does. You get three ho-hum featurettes looking at
the story itself, the casting and visual design
of the film. They're okay for what they are
(simple talking head pieces) but a huge number of
lesser films have put together better. You get a
deleted scene, that's right, just one, which
the director pulled basically because of an awful
shot involving a corridor through a peephole. It's
good to hear through the commentary on it that he
wasn't afraid to admit to poor shot choices,
though. |
| The Verdict |
In the end, it's going to be a divider.
Genre enthusiasts are likely to shunt this one,
shrugging it off as a bit of a snore-fest with a
couple of good bits here and there, but the mainstream
seem to have taken a liking to it, accepting it
as a courtroom drama with some scary bits here and
there. There're so many traps in the cover
design and marketing for this one that it's
likely to lure in the mainstreamers and genre lovers
alike, but the genre lovers are going to come off
second best. The "Scary as Hell" review
on the front of the DVD leaves me wondering exactly
what the reviewers idea of Hell is. I personally
didn't mind it the first time I saw it in
the cinemas, but that was with my expectation levels
right down low. Now, having seen the DVD, I found
the film to be boring and insanely amateurish on
a script writing level. The horror scenes don't
deliver the same punch they do in a darkened cinema,
but I suppose those who missed it at the theatre
won't really be affected by this. As a DVD,
it's pretty poor, and a very clever exercise
in marketing, but as a film, it's worth a
look in, but don't expect the Exorcist,
because you'll be sorely, sorely disappointed.
Comment Script
|
Got something else to say? Spill your guts on the
Digital Retribution Message Forum! |
|
|
 |
|
|
Be the first to comment on this item!