Austin Motel
'The Exorcism of Emily Rose' a Great Horror Movie
RECEIVED Wed., Sept. 21, 2005
Dear Editor,
I find I often agree with Marc Savlov's movie reviews, but when I do not, I heartily disagree. In my opinion, The Exorcism of Emily Rose [Film Listings, Sept. 16] is that rarest of 21st-century horror films: genuinely horrifying in places (I gasped out loud at the title character's shocking, yet believable, contortions), and charged throughout with a pervading sense of knuckle-biting menace, while at the same time wrestling with issues of faith and the supernatural and questioning the reality of the very events we are witnessing on screen. Despite what Marc says, the film's flashback sequences are utterly enthralling; we see the nightmare world of demons as the victim herself (of psychosis? Of actual spiritual possession?) would have experienced them, a pulse-quickening, first-person approach that even the Friedkin/Blatty mother-of-all exorcism movies does not provide. As highly as I regard The Exorcist, I found the titular ritual here to be more dynamic and powerful than in the rather slow-moving climax of that 1973 film. As to the matter of belief, that the lawyer played by Laura Linney enters and exits the case with a healthy degree of skepticism to me simply suggests the all-too-human inclination to doubt with the mind that of which the heart has long been certain. While I'm not suggesting that seeing this film will make believers of us all, it does provoke thought and discussion, and as a bonus, it's goddamn scary.
I find I often agree with Marc Savlov's movie reviews, but when I do not, I heartily disagree. In my opinion, The Exorcism of Emily Rose [Film Listings, Sept. 16] is that rarest of 21st-century horror films: genuinely horrifying in places (I gasped out loud at the title character's shocking, yet believable, contortions), and charged throughout with a pervading sense of knuckle-biting menace, while at the same time wrestling with issues of faith and the supernatural and questioning the reality of the very events we are witnessing on screen. Despite what Marc says, the film's flashback sequences are utterly enthralling; we see the nightmare world of demons as the victim herself (of psychosis? Of actual spiritual possession?) would have experienced them, a pulse-quickening, first-person approach that even the Friedkin/Blatty mother-of-all exorcism movies does not provide. As highly as I regard The Exorcist, I found the titular ritual here to be more dynamic and powerful than in the rather slow-moving climax of that 1973 film. As to the matter of belief, that the lawyer played by Laura Linney enters and exits the case with a healthy degree of skepticism to me simply suggests the all-too-human inclination to doubt with the mind that of which the heart has long been certain. While I'm not suggesting that seeing this film will make believers of us all, it does provoke thought and discussion, and as a bonus, it's goddamn scary.
Noah D. Henson
