The Exorcism of Emily Rose

Said By Alexie Di Onie

It doesnt have to be rated R to be scary, rated R just means there is a lot of bad language and gore, and lots of sex. That doesnt translate to scary to me, that is just retarded.

Said By Alexie Di Onie

rated R just means there is a lot of bad language and gore, and lots of sex.

Said By areamike

Said By Alexie Di Onie

It doesnt have to be rated R to be scary, rated R just means there is a lot of bad language and gore, and lots of sex. That doesnt translate to scary to me, that is just retarded.

Retarded-reshmarded!

Said By Alexie Di Onie

rated R just means there is a lot of bad language and gore, and lots of sex.

that's just as retarded as my statement IMO.

I hate that word....retarded. Sheesh!

Said By Alexi Di Onie

How is that retarded? Me making a valuable statement about ratings and the horror factor of a movie is retarded?

Said By Alexi Di Onie

That doesnt translate to scary to me, that is just retarded.

Said By Alexie Di Onie

How is that retarded? Me making a valuable statement about ratings and the horror factor of a movie is retarded?

Quote

HOWEVER, any Horror/Scarey movie rated PG-13 is NOT going to be all THAT scarey!

Quote

It doesnt have to be rated R to be scary, rated R just means there is a lot of bad language and gore, and lots of sex. That doesnt translate to scary to me, that is just retarded.

Said By Alexie Di Onie

If the best thing that can come out of your head is how my statment is false when it clearly makes sense then why bother to talk.

Said By Alexie Di Onie

Hahaha

Autistic people make me laugh.

And you are a real idiot you know that?

You dont actually care about what I said obviously, so why the hell do you bother to post?
If the best thing that can come out of your head is how my statment is false when it clearly makes sense then why bother to talk.

Said By Alexie Di Onie

Hahaha

Autistic people make me laugh.

And you are a real idiot you know that?

Said By The Wolf Prince

Anyway, I just watched the movie yesterday and I thought it was pretty good. It is a bit more trial based but it still goes thru what happend to emily. As scary as one would think that movie would be tho, me and my friends laughed thru some parts that we found funny and at the people in the back screaming.

Said By Angra Manyu

Said By Alexie Di Onie

Hahaha

Autistic people make me laugh.

And you are a real idiot you know that?

If your parents got divorced would they still be brother and sister?

Wise man said: There is no truth, there is only perception.

e.g. my perception: That you an unintelligent pudding head and are inspiration for the use of condoms and are what makes incestuous sex notorious.

Quote

What have we learned from recent "thriller" film history? Well, for one thing, we've learned that the trailer is not necessarily indicative at all of the quality of the film it represents. In fact, that most often is not the case. We've learned that from "The Village." We've also learned that from "Boogeyman." We've learned that film studios will take all the most interesting parts of a film and cram them into a trailer/commercial to entice us to see the movie. And we've ultimately learned that this leads to tragedy.

If you've seen the previews/commercials for this film, you'll know what I'm talking about when I mention the cool effects of people's faces turning into live-action Edward Munch paintings. What you won't know, unless you've seen the film, is that that is precisely ALL this film has to offer in terms of fright. And, because we've seen it all in the previews/commercials, it has zero effect.

The rest of the film is a downright bore. It takes place primarily in the courtroom, with us listening to horribly written arguments from lawyers regarding the cause of death of Emily Rose. The filmmakers chose to represent the side of the law as bad, heartless people, while the defense was depicted as holy - above the law - and compassionate. For some reason, the writer(s) conveniently neglected to bring up the fact that the law does not recognize the existence of supernatural powers, and defense arguments based on these concepts is not allowed. So I was very upset to see the defense basing their entire argument on what they called the "fact" that Emily Rose was indeed possessed. It just... doesn't work.

The acting is subpar all around. How they roped Tom Wilkinson into this film, I will never know. Maybe he owed someone a favor. But even he doesn't try to do anything with his role. Laura Linney is perhaps the worst performer overall, as she plays the defense attorney, Erin Ber... whatever her last name was, it wasn't important enough for me to care. A scene where she questions her agnosticism plays off more as humorous than anything else. She apparently also has a drinking problem. Woop dee doo.

Which leads me to my next point. Perhaps it's not the cast's fault for such bad acting. I suppose the blame could really lie with the writers. The dialogue is the absolute lowest of tripe. Characters regularly spout such ridiculous lines as "Until I met Emily, I was dead inside" and "Of all the people to find this locket, why me? It must be a sign" and let's not forget Emily's possessors saying to the priest "Think you can kick me out? I dare you to try!" sounds like nothing more than playground bickering.

One more thing I had a gross problem with is the overal effort of this film. At a later part, it's revealed in a letter written by Emily that she hopes, through her story, that more people will come to believe in the supernatural and believe in God. If you hadn't already picked it up, it's painfully obvious at that moment that that is exactly what the goal of this film is. It's religious brainwashing, and, in the wake of the lunacy that's occured in Kansas of late, leaves a very nasty taste in my mouth.

In all, this is one of the worst films I've ever seen. To sum, take one part Jimmy Lee Farnsworth, one part Exorcist, one part Law and Order and one heavy dose of uniterested screenwriters, and you have the pile of crap that is this movie. I urge you to not see this.

Said By Alexie Di Onie

NOw this is under the assumption that i care whether they like me or not.

In my first statement i was not calling the person retarded, i was calling the reasons for rating a movie R for features that dont translate into fear retarded because gore doesnt scare me, nor should it scare anyone really. Fear in movies should come from proper suspense and not from what you do see but what you THINK you saw. That is how true horror movies are made.

Said By Alexie Di Onie

Now a movie can only be rated R for bad language if they say Fuck more than one time. I have found many horror movies, or thrillers (which are sometimes scarier than horrors) to be rated PG13 and yet scarier than most horrors. Movies like The Sixth Sense prove my point.

Said By areamike

Said By Alexie Di Onie

Now a movie can only be rated R for bad language if they say Fuck more than one time. I have found many horror movies, or thrillers (which are sometimes scarier than horrors) to be rated PG13 and yet scarier than most horrors. Movies like The Sixth Sense prove my point.

Your concept of why a movie is rated R or PG-13 or whatever seems to be pretty narrow.
Maybe you need to read up on how movies are rated.
http://www.filmratings.com/questions.htm

The Dukes of Hazzard is a perfect example of a movie, I think should have been rated R and wasn't.

I quote from a Dukes of Hazzard movie review.
"A muttered f-word makes its way into the main script; several more are partially muted during outtakes. The s-word gets a workout (it's voiced nearly 20 times; many times it's linked to "holy.") Jesus' name is forcefully abused a handful of times; God's name is combined with "d--n" about 10 times. A woman makes an obscene gesture. Add in milder profanities, and the average tops one a minute for the film's nearly two-hour duration"
And even with all the sexual content it was still rated PG-13..I wish I would have known how bad it was going to be before I took my two young boys to see it. They hated it.