 The Exorcism of Emily Rose is "based on a true story," its audience is told -- words, says the New York Times' A.O. Scott, that are "guaranteed to scare most movie critics." Scott is not among them, however. The movie, he says, "ranges from OK to god-awful." However, he remarks, it represents "a fascinating cultural document in the age of intelligent design. Its point of view suggests an improbable alliance of postmodern relativism and absolute religious faith against the supposed tyranny of scientific empiricism, which is depicted as narrow and dogmatic." Similarly David Gilmour writes in the Toronto Globe & Mail that the movie is likely to "find a sympathetic home among doctrinaire Catholics and among those many people who were moved by Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ." Few other critics even bother to take the film seriously. Michael Sragow in the Baltimore Sun observes: "The selling point of this piece of "serious" horror is that it's rooted in fact. Unfortunately, nothing in it rings with the faintest tinkle of truth." Jami Bernard in the New York Daily News calls it "the dullest exorcist movie ever made." Likewise, Philip Wuntch in the Dallas Morning News describes it as "a largely ho-hum experience." On the other hand, Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times is one of the few critics to give the film a thumbs-up, calling it "intriguing and perplexing." |
