In one of the courtroom scenes during \The Exorcism of Emily Rose,"" a lawyer at the proceding tries to object to a witness on the grounds of ""silliness."" It is safe to say that most of the audience should object to the film for the exact same reason.
In reality, ""Emily Rose"" is two movies smashed together, which never really became one movie, but are made to look like a single feature anyway. The film acts as an unskilled jack-of-all-trades, doing everything simply because it cannot do any single thing right. It is a horror movie that has been sandwiched into a courtroom drama, making the film choppy and uneven. The end result is the silliness that occupies the film.
Laura Linney is Erin Bruner, an ambitious lawyer assigned to defend Father Moore (Tom Wilkinson), a priest who, after failing to exorcise a demon from a young girl, is charged with her death. These roles are probably below both leads, but they do a good job lending credibility to the film, especially given the mediocre cast around them. The supporting cast gives every line with dire straightness, as if every sentence is a shocking revelation, and that is simply not the case. The actors take what has to be a serious film almost too seriously.
The movie never hits its stride because it seems all those involved are not really sure what it is supposed to be. In reality, ""Exorcism"" probably could have been two separate movies: one, a courtroom film dealing with the line between faith healing and science and the other, a supernatural horror movie.
The film is constantly moving in two directions, but also manages to find the clich??s of both genres. By the time Father Moore proclaims that ""there are dark, powerful forces"" who have an interest in the trial, it is not dramatic or scary-it's just goofy.
Scott Derrickson, directing his first major release, sets no tone and has no real focus to the film until it's too late. The courtroom part of the movie demands that you take it seriously, but the horror part is too clumsy and fake to be anything but laughable.
Possibly the film's biggest sin is in the cuts between the ""possession"" scenes, recounting Emily's alleged possession by demons, and then a ""scientific"" rationale for the event given immediately after. The art of a supernatural horror movie is in making the audience suspend its disbelief. Not only does ""Exorcism"" fail to suspend disbelief, it actively attacks it as the prosecution makes its case.
If Emily is really possessed, then giving a scientific explanation of an alternative reason for her actions makes the film anti-climactic. If she is really affected by illness, then the film's main theme-the idea of faith without proof-is null and void. And ""Exorcism"" remains on screen too long not to make that catch-22 perfectly clear.
""Emily Rose,"" which is based on a true story, asks a lot of questions-few of which are relevant. Why is Lucifer so interested in this trial? Why doesn't he attack the trial's participants, rather than just scaring them? Most importantly, who thought that combining courtroom suspense and horror was a good idea? ""Exorcism"" is not interested in letting people decide if faith is justified based on what they've been shown; it would rather cram the idea down the viewers' throats by scaring faith into them.
One day, some poor video rental clerk will be given the task of deciding where to put ""The Exorcism of Emily Rose"" on the store's shelves. Is it a horror movie? Is it a courtroom drama? Wherever it lands, it should probably be somewhere near the back.
