The Exorcism of Emily Rose: An "A" in the B-Genre

Horror flicks have a reputation as cheap B-movies. In fact, many horror fans love their cult B-status. But reputations are generally earned for a reason, and having seen most of the existing horror movies, I can’t say that this stigma is entirely undeserved. Plenty of horror pictures are not worth the precious hour and a half of your life that they will waste. But there are always exceptions. 

Scott Derrickson’s “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” is one of those cases. 

If you’re trying to decide whether to see this film, here’s my advice: If you’re looking for an action-packed, thrill-a-minute heart-stopper, you will probably be bored. If you’re looking for amazing special effects, grotesque makeup, and “I can’t look!” gore, you will probably be disappointed. But if you want a horror movie with an actual storyline, one that isn’t loaded with cheap thrills and nevertheless creeps you out and keeps you up at night, then check your On-Demand listings at once. 

This movie generated very little buzz. Most people I know haven’t seen it. It wasn’t all over the magazines; it didn’t make any headlines. Based solely on its title and its assumed content, it seems to be trapped in the shadow of the well-known classic “The Exorcist.” When I mentioned seeing “Emily Rose” to my friends, their responses ranged from “Oh, I already saw the first one,” to “I bet it’s even better than the original!” Even I went in expecting it to at least be similar to the 1973 hit. But this highly unique film has to get out and make its own impact on the public eye.