The Exorcist: Believer (2023)

[Sage00]

Good point about Hereditary. The VVitch also worked for me. Both films are of that "ilk" but do it their own way. No doubt though that Hollywood has used and abused the exorcism genre to the point of absurdity.

I will say that The Exorcism of Emily Rose was a step above and I like that too. Great performances.

I don’t remember anyone getting possessed in the VVitch, did I miss something?

[Prog5000]

Don’t touch the exorcist!

[KManX89]

Originally Posted by Prog5000

Don’t touch the exorcist!

With this and RoboCop, the horror of Die Hard one day getting a remake is looking more and more like an actual possibility.

[Member-244966]

Originally Posted by KManX89

With this and RoboCop, the horror of Die Hard one day getting a remake is looking more and more like an actual possibility.

Wasn't there talks of a prequel at one point? Now that was a terrible idea.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Originally Posted by KManX89

With this and RoboCop, the horror of Die Hard one day getting a remake is looking more and more like an actual possibility.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Sage00

I don’t remember anyone getting possessed in the VVitch, did I miss something?

The Witch | Caleb Possession | Official Clip HD | A24 - YouTube

[FragnitoM]

Originally Posted by Sage00

I don’t remember anyone getting possessed in the VVitch, did I miss something?

You could have just fallen asleep in the theater like i did...

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Sage00

I don’t remember anyone getting possessed in the VVitch, did I miss something?

Technically two people got possessed in that film. Thats OK if you didnt like it or got bored with it. Maybe ya passed out?

[The Fallen Deity]

I'd rather they have another crack at the first encounter between Merrin and Pazuzu in Africa.

There's been three different attempts and they still haven't got it right.

Maybe as a mini series or something?

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

I'd rather they have another crack at the first encounter between Merrin and Pazuzu in Africa.

There's been three different attempts and they still haven't got it right.

Maybe as a mini series or something?

Yeah, that'd be OK. Anything but this horrible remake idea.

[EvaDK]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

I will say that The Exorcism of Emily Rose was a step above and I like that too. Great performances.

I like it better than its German counterpart 'Requiem' (both films based on the same real life person), which is much more a drama and character study than it is a horror film.

I am confused however on what grounds the priest is charged in a court of law, considering that Emily is 19 in the film and therefore legally an adult and responsible for her own actions and convictions.

[Sage00]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Technically two people got possessed in that film. Thats OK if you didnt like it or got bored with it. Maybe ya passed out?

Oh no, I love that movie. It’s great that there is zero mystery about whether there is a witch or not. It’s all about the family tearing itself apart with uncertainty. It’s one of the best horror movies of the last decade.

[Brightstar]

The Exorcist movies are cursed dont make any more !

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

The Exorcist movies are cursed dont make any more !

The Mummy Returns - This Place is Cursed! - YouTube

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Aclea

Well, when you've lost money on all three of your previous Exorcist movies, you might as well go for a fourth. I believe Einstein had a theory about that kind of behavior defining something or other...

It's the well known scientific axiom of "Try, try, try again ... you may get different results?"

[EvaDK]

I was thinking more in the direction of one of the most referenced definitions of insanity...

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by EvaDK

I like it better than its German counterpart 'Requiem' (both films based on the same real life person), which is much more a drama and character study than it is a horror film.

I am confused however on what grounds the priest is charged in a court of law, considering that Emily is 19 in the film and therefore legally an adult and responsible for her own actions and convictions.

I think Requiem is an incredible movie, while I found Emily Rose rather exploitative. Both are based on the Anneliese Michel case, which was a big news story when I was a kid and it took place not far from where I grew up.

The case was one of negligent homicide, which still gets you a manslaughter conviction even if the victim agreed to an exorcism. In the real life case, which was more accurately reflected in Requiem, the young woman had physical and mental health issues and wasn't able to make rational decisions for herself. The real Anneliese Michel eventually died from malnutrition, dehydration and multiple serious injuries from an exorcism regime which lasted a year. She was a vulnerable woman who was tortured to death by those who should have gotten her the proper medical attention, instead of giving in to superstition. Her parents and the two priests got shockingly light sentences at the time, the catholic church got them the best lawyers money can buy. In Emily Rose the demonic possession is given credibility, which is kind of tasteless as it implies that those who killed her were not responsible, letting them off lightly again in a fictional setting.

The reason why there was a trial in the film was the same. Unless you believe in demonic possession, the responsibility for her death was with those who should have gotten her medical and psychiatric care rather than an exorcism. Emily Rose downplayed the real life horror of the Anneliese Michel case considerably in favour of cheap scares and pro-catholic propaganda. Requiem is the only film I know which gives a rational explanation as to why exorcisms still take place, stopping short before the actually exorcism.

Jennifer Carpenter was very good in what is essentially a supporting role, but Sandra Hüller in Requiem gave one of my favourite performances of the 21st century, I found her heartbreaking.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I think Requiem is an incredible movie, while I found Emily Rose rather exploitative. Both are based on the Anneliese Michel case, which was a big news story when I was a kid and it took place not far from where I grew up.

The case was one of negligent homicide, which still gets you a manslaughter conviction even if the victim agreed to an exorcism. In the real life case, which was more accurately reflected in Requiem, the young woman had physical and mental health issues and wasn't able to make rational decisions for herself. The real Anneliese Michel eventually died from malnutrition, dehydration and multiple serious injuries from an exorcism regime which lasted a year. She was a vulnerable woman who was tortured to death by those who should have gotten her the proper medical attention, instead of giving in to superstition. Her parents and the two priests got shockingly light sentences at the time, the catholic church got them the best lawyers money can buy. In Emily Rose the demonic possession is given credibility, which is kind of tasteless as it implies that those who killed her were not responsible, letting them off lightly again in a fictional setting.

The reason why there was a trial in the film was the same. Unless you believe in demonic possession, the responsibility for her death was with those who should have gotten her medical and psychiatric care rather than an exorcism. Emily Rose downplayed the real life horror of the Anneliese Michel case considerably in favour of cheap scares and pro-catholic propaganda. Requiem is the only film I know which gives a rational explanation as to why exorcisms still take place, stopping short before the actually exorcism.

Jennifer Carpenter was very good in what is essentially a supporting role, but Sandra Hüller in Requiem gave one of my favourite performances of the 21st century, I found her heartbreaking.

I wouldnt say ER used cheap scares, really. It was pretty character centric and the performances were excellent. I didnt get a pro-catholic vibe either. Yes that side got its say but it had to as its part of the narrative. I think its a well made drama movie with horror and supernatural elements. I really felt for the protagonist and thats the job of the movie! I also cared for the Priest.

I havent seen Requiem so I cant comment on that movie.

[EvaDK]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I think Requiem is an incredible movie, while I found Emily Rose rather exploitative. Both are based on the Anneliese Michel case, which was a big news story when I was a kid and it took place not far from where I grew up.

I agree with what you say (Requiem is by no means a bad film); I just happen to personally prefer Emily Rose of the two. Both Sandra Hüller and Jennifer Carpenter gave great performances.

The case was one of negligent homicide, which still gets you a manslaughter conviction even if the victim agreed to an exorcism. In the real life case, which was more accurately reflected in Requiem, the young woman had physical and mental health issues and wasn't able to make rational decisions for herself. The real Anneliese Michel eventually died from malnutrition, dehydration and multiple serious injuries from an exorcism regime which lasted a year...

I get that. Anneliese Michel was 16, which means she was legally a minor and therefore her parents were responsible for her wellbeing in the eyes of the legal system. It therefore makes sense that they and the priests were charged, which is carried over in Requiem.

It's Emily Rose that seems strange to me. It's my understanding that you - as an adult in the US - are entirely free to reject medical treatment, be it life saving or not, also based on your personal religious beliefs. Christian Science is a thing in the US and there are many other examples.

Well, they changed her age to 19 in this film and I seem to remember that a case is made for her agreeing to the exorcism herself (what the prosecutor called 'religious treatment') and in her final letter, which the accused priest reads aloud on the stand, she takes responsibility for her own choice to endure the suffering, believing that her suffering served a higher purpose.

With that in mind, it troubles me how a jury can agree on a guilty verdict, which the presiding judge accepts. But it's a film and I understand that it creates for better drama, it elevates the theme and rises the stakes. It makes us more invested in the characters.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by EvaDK

I was thinking more in the direction of one of the most referenced definitions of insanity...

That is Einstein's definition (or at least attributed to him).