Author: Gene

Three things to start. First, I have not done any research into any factual events that inspired the movie, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, so I’m not speaking to those. Second, I’m not reviewing the movie for it’s entertainment value.  For me the film was tainted heavily by the following complaints, which I intend to keep brief, just because, but someone else might still enjoy the film.  Maybe.  Third, spoilers to follow.

The story of this movie tells is of a trial for a priest accused of negligent homicide because of the death of a young woman after she is put in his care, and after an exorcism is performed.  It does this by showing the events that lead to the death from both the prosecution’s side, and the defenses.  It sprinkles in some stuff hinting that the demons and stuff is really real, but there’s room for interpretation that the characters affected are just getting rattled by the case or whatever.  Overall this film tried to pull the whole “fair and balanced” scheme, to a blatant degree.  Several times in the movie they basically spell out that that’s what they’re doing.

Now, in actuality I’m very in favor of being open minded and deciding for yourself.  However, this movie is a cavalcade of all the abuses of this philosophy.  False dichotomies swarm from the script and no regard is given to prior probability. False assertions are made and unquestioned, straw men show up fairly regularly.  And the icing on the cake, is the argument that any doubt is reasonable doubt.  *rolls eyes*

Still, what they were trying most to do was make a movie that everyone could kinda grab something they agree with and feel good about, and therefore, hopefully like the movie.  They might have succeeded (although probably not for the likes of me, but for, like, 98% of the world) if it hadn’t been for the sentencing.  They took their desire to play both sides evenly too far.

In the end, the priest is found guilty of negligent homicide, but sentenced to time served, meaning he was free to go.  The jury and judge concluded that the priests actions directly resulted in the horrible death of a 19 year old, and also conclude that nothing should be done about it?  And the movie acts like this is a good thing?  Whether you agree with the verdict or not, you have to agree that given a guilty verdict for the crime negligent homicide, there should be some substantial punishment.  In the case of Me v. the judge and jury from this movie, I find the defendant guilty on 13 counts of moral bankruptcy, philosophical inconsistency, and general douchbaggery.

*shakes head*