Exorcism too factual to frighten
When this film begins, an incredible silence fills the screen as we are slowly brought into an old-fashioned farm house surrounded by gray, chilly mist. To an unsuspecting audience, it seems like the perfect setting for a horror film but sooner or later comes the realization that we have been deceived. Horror and fear only play a small part in this film while we are carefully urged to succumb to the reality (or at least the possibility) of supernatural forces of evil.
Laura Linney (“P.S.”) plays the successful lawyer, Erin Bruner who’s assigned to represent a Catholic priest in a highly publicized case of negligent murder. Father Moore is the priest in question (Tom Wilkinson, “Batman Begins”) who fervently claims he was not responsible for the death; it was the devil. As the trial proceeds, we learn about the demonic possession of Emily Rose, a college student, and how her devout priest failed to expel the wicked spirits from her body, ultimately causing her death.
The trial serves as the frame for the story and we are constantly shown flashbacks explaining the events of Emily’s possession and exorcism. These flashbacks are told through the eyes of different witnesses as they each take the stand. Some of the flashbacks are effectively frightening for a few moments as we witness Emily tiptoeing down dark hallways, uncontrollably contorting her body and watching objects move about by themselves (including Emily’s bedspread sliding off of her). These scenes are sure to make some viewers shiver, but it isn’t long before we are taken back to the present plotline in the courtroom, keeping us in the realm of rationality.
Because we are being taken back and forth from the eerie scenes of Emily’s struggle to Bruner’s meticulous investigation of the case, the film seems choppy and slow. This leaves the audience asking for more and wondering if they’ll ever get it. Jennifer Carpenter (“White Chicks”) plays Emily and actually portrays sufficient realism during her demonic encounters. But none of these encounters are really that terrifying simply because they are so short lived (even though the plethora of twelve-year-olds in the theater thought otherwise).
Although the controversial subjects of this film seem over the top, it is presented in a surprisingly believable manner. Seamless editing and a subtly sustained atmosphere are commendable elements which make the movie mysterious. Sadly though, the story remains bleak and minimal which patiently leads us along to a bleak and minimal conclusion. There is never any eruption which serves as the shocking climax. And because it is so logically driven by the courtroom drama, we don’t invest our emotions with any of the characters and we don’t get scared.
This is where the movie loses momentum.
Logical accounts of the facts aren’t going to scare people; it’s the absence of them that makes us afraid. The whole tale remains somewhat disturbing but the lack of emotion, intensity and bloodcurdling content causes it to be only a semi-dramatic basis of a true story.
Casey T. Allen is a movie critic for the Utah Statesman. Comments and questions can be sent to
caseyal@cc.usu.edu.