(Some spoilers ahead) This movie is different from "The Exorcist" in the same way "King Kong" is different from a movie that seriously postulates that giant apes and dinosaurs exist on a remote island. A movie that simply takes a horror scenario based on old legends and runs with it, is distinguishable than one that argues that the horror scenario can actually happen.
To this day I do not know if either William Blatty or William Freidkin are religious believers. I do know that they created a rattlin' good film back in 1972, one that you do not have to be a religious believer to enjoy. This movie, on the other hand, seems to have been written by a Mel Gibson type Catholic who believes that the Church is all that stands between a skeptical humanity and the unlimited resources of hell, which stand ready to very visibly put the smack down on the planet.
If this movie wanted to be taken seriously, it could address a few questions that any skeptic could compose. What, for instance, is the whole point of demonic possession? If Satan is, as the Bible describes him, a master of deceit, why would he ever want to come out in the open like that? And why on earth would he want to possess a simple, obscure farm girl? Why not take over, say, the President of the U.S.? Or the Pope? Now if I were the Prince of Darkness, that is who I would go for. Billions would be impressed. Some might believe the Pope is too saintly for that, well, so was Emily.
Two problems with courtroom procedure: first, the prosecutor shows a picture of the mutilated Emily in his opening argument. Erin should have objected. Opening statements are when the state tells the jury about the evidence - not when the evidence is actually presented. Erin's summation, too? She states "I know Fr. Moore, and he is not a bad man." She is testifying about the character of the defendant, and the state should have objected. (What she is really saying is, "You, the jury, can't convict a priest." I heavily disagree.)
To this day I do not know if either William Blatty or William Freidkin are religious believers. I do know that they created a rattlin' good film back in 1972, one that you do not have to be a religious believer to enjoy. This movie, on the other hand, seems to have been written by a Mel Gibson type Catholic who believes that the Church is all that stands between a skeptical humanity and the unlimited resources of hell, which stand ready to very visibly put the smack down on the planet.
If this movie wanted to be taken seriously, it could address a few questions that any skeptic could compose. What, for instance, is the whole point of demonic possession? If Satan is, as the Bible describes him, a master of deceit, why would he ever want to come out in the open like that? And why on earth would he want to possess a simple, obscure farm girl? Why not take over, say, the President of the U.S.? Or the Pope? Now if I were the Prince of Darkness, that is who I would go for. Billions would be impressed. Some might believe the Pope is too saintly for that, well, so was Emily.
Two problems with courtroom procedure: first, the prosecutor shows a picture of the mutilated Emily in his opening argument. Erin should have objected. Opening statements are when the state tells the jury about the evidence - not when the evidence is actually presented. Erin's summation, too? She states "I know Fr. Moore, and he is not a bad man." She is testifying about the character of the defendant, and the state should have objected. (What she is really saying is, "You, the jury, can't convict a priest." I heavily disagree.)