(Originally posted in November, 2006)
Or is that psychological ways? In a smart move, the audience gets to decide. Emily's story is also told via the courtroom. A Methodist Lawyer is prosecuting a catholic priest. The catholic priest is being defended by an Agnostic. It is a tantalizing conflict of ideologies that lends itself to a great premise for a film. The prosecutors allege that Emily experiences epileptic seizures, and as a lack of using her prescribed medications (as was encouraged by her priest) she loses her life. The defense claims that she lost her life because of demonic forces. The Director does his best to let the audience be the jury.
Were the movie to be held strictly in the courtroom, it would be a strictly objective one. However, we also follow the life a female defense lawyer who experiences mild coincidental manifestations throughout the trial. This becomes rather spooky and unsettling in certain scenes and it smartly keeps the pace of the film tense and mysterious. It also points to a direction that the filmmakers are going in, namely the implication that the supernatural is at work.
Overall, this is a great movie. Aside from a personal bias (The writer/director Scott Derrickson and I went to the same undergraduate college), it succeeds in delivering a fantastic story with interesting characters. Emily Rose is really likeable, and we care about her and hate to see her experience such inexplicable torment. The cinematography is frequently excellent, capped by an exhilarating exorcism scene towards the end. I found very little to fault the movie with, and found it to be creative and surprisingly different. The marketing sets up the movie for something like "The Ring" or "The Grudge," but "Exorcism's different direction really throws the audience off. It culminates into an exciting, thought provoking, and ultimately discussion causing experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment