CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
- This topic has 11 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I didn’t like it at all. Thinking back… nope, not even a little bit entertained by it. My wife didn’t like it, either.
Nice effort. Poor film.
It was a pathetic, exaggerated, yet amusingly entertaining piece of poop. Could have been so much better.
I’d be interested to hear why from both of you.
I liked it, recognizing that it’s an entirely different animal than The Exorcist. Also, it looked like it belonged on some CSI show or Lifetime, instead of the big screen.
I plan on reading The Exorcism of Annelise Michel (the true story this was based upon) in order to see what the missed opportunities were.
What is mostly missing from the movie is the brain and psychological research in Felicitas Goodman’s book. Goodman explores the relationship between possesseion and shamanic ecstasy in terms of brain states. She also points out the extremely chauvanistic, “local” nature of Anneliese’s “demons” – they are hearty, Germanic peasants who use the slang and colloquialisms of that class of people.
From most of my readings on possession, Emily Rose is actually a more accurate portrait of real possession than The Exorcist.
I write this as I dodge all of the tomatoes that are being thrown at me!
I agree – Blatty’s creative license allowed him to invent a truly “authentic” supernatural intelligence for his demon. Whereas “real” demons in possession cases show no signs of supernatural malevolent intelligence. That is, they are no more intelligent than their victims. Occasional esp, occasional telekinesis – sure, I don’t have a metaphysical problem with that. But paranormal phenomena alone do not a supernatural intervention make! For a really demonic personality, a Blattyesque demon is called for. Unfortunately, none of the cases I’ve read about reveal anything close to a supernatural discarnate malevolent personality. Reality doesn’t match up to Blatty’s wonderful, scary fiction. If Anneliese Michel’s “demons” had been as preternaturally sophisticated and wise as Blatty’s Pazuzu, a case could be made that Anneliese’s demons were authentic. But as Goodman shows, they are nothing but trash-talking German peasants – personalities Anneliese was quite capable of creating, albeit probably unconsciously.
I lmao the first time I saw it, but then I watched it again a few days later and it was still amusing, but not bad. I’ve seen it like 6 times so far and I still don’t find it boring…maybe because it’s stupid and funny? idk, but it’s really entertaining.
And also.. I think people [who has seen Exorcist] should stop comparing every movie that’s about possession to Exorcist – coz they won’t like it obviously.
I really liked the movie. Ofcourse it can’t be compared to the grandeur of the Excorcist, but I agree on the previous posters and I think this movie is in many ways much more “realistic”
I found it “watchable” but the courtroom drama bored me. In the end I didn’t care about the story or characters at all. Total panty waste.
I didnt like it at all, no deaths {apart from Emily}, no extreme graphic violence, no sense of true evil and sickness, nothing. A boring courtroom drama movie.
Any thoughts?
It obviously doesn’t offer the same visceral horror that The Exorcist does, but we have some interesting themes of faith nonetheless.
This film bored me to tears. The courtroom drama was dull.
The horror scenes are pretty poor. I mean am I the only person to notice that nearly all the horror scenes have someone walking down a hall or corridor? There’s about half a dozen scenes like that.
It didn’t help that Emily barely says anything for about 40mins, so I was unable to emphasize with her.
The German film “Requiem” which also deals with the true story is much much better. Even though it’s not a horror film.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.