This is a bit heavy. Purely from the movie itself, I think this is a good movie. It can combine exorcism horror stories with tit-for-tat court scenes so well, and the final ending actually takes into account the spirit of law and religious beliefs. It can be seen that The United States is a country that is good at achieving a balance among various diverse values.
This method of achieving balance and redemption in conflicting values is the magic weapon for so-called mainstream commercial films to truly gain universality and long-term vitality, right? Think about how the opposition between nature and civilization in a western movie is unified in a cowboy. Think about how a superhero hero and an ordinary little character in a superhero movie unify the identity of a superhero. Think about Frank. How Capra’s crazy comedy perfectly solves the struggle between the little people and the big city. Hollywood is so beloved.
But showing off the power of the devil is really the best way to promote the existence of the realm of gods? The reason for this movie as a sensational orgasm in the end is really unacceptable.
If God and demons really exist, and if exorcism really exists, people will inevitably ask, why would God allow demons to cruel such an innocent and kind girl like this, while standing by and watching? Some people may cite the example of the Old Testament "The Book of Job", but please don't forget that at the end of the Book of Job, God doubled the compensation to Job and dedicated himself to answer Job's questions.
At the end of the film, the director replied through the mouth of the Virgin Mary (he dare not say that it was Jesus), because God wants to show the existence of God's realm through the suffering of girls.
I personally think that the director described God as a bit dark-bellied. In the Old Testament story, God wanted to show his existence and power. He rescued his believers from the Egyptians and brought terrible disasters to Egypt. He led his believers through the wilderness and fed in the wilderness. After forty years, they led the Jews to defeat all enemies and obtain a land flowing with milk and honey.
Is there an example of God showing himself by letting an innocent and holy person suffer and sacrifice?
Of course there is, that is Jesus Christ.
The resurrection of Jesus from the dead will be the last miracle and the greatest miracle God has shown to mankind. Because servants cannot be higher than their masters, after this, all so-called miracles should be cautious, because the miracles shown by the miracles may not be the power of God, perhaps the antichrist.
So I think that all Hollywood horror films that exaggerate the power of demons, as a form of commercial film, I can understand, but under the guise of propagating faith, it is really a liar.
Then instantly transformed into a legal identity.
I think the so-called possibility that the female lawyer emphasized at the end is nonsense in the actual trial. In the U.S. judicial system, the emphasis on criminal litigation is "beyond reasonable doubt."
To exclude reasonable doubt is not to exclude all possibilities. In fact, no police or prosecutor can rule out all possibilities. Even if I stabbed a person to death with a knife in the public, it proved that I had no mental problems, but I said that I was possessed by a demon at that moment. Can this possibility be said at all?
So what the prosecutor has to do is to eliminate all reasonable doubts. The so-called reasonable, of course, conforms to modern scientific common sense and legal common sense.
In fact, the real dispute between the defense lawyer and the prosecutor should be whether the priest was at fault for the girl’s death? Of course, the cause of the girl’s death, whether it was epilepsy or possessed by a demon, has a great influence on whether the priest is responsible. But this is only one of the points of confrontation. What is more arguable and beneficial to the defense is that the pastor does not need to be responsible for the girl's failure to go to the hospital.
Because as the pastor said, the pastor never advised the girl not to go to the hospital for treatment, but only advised the girl to stop taking the drug, and the efficacy of that drug did not show any effect in the early stage. As long as it is proved that the girl’s refusal to go to the hospital is entirely voluntary, and the priest is only doing what he can to take care of the girl under this premise, then he is certainly not at fault for the girl’s death. In order to perform an operation on a patient, the hospital still needs to obtain the signature of the patient or the patient’s relatives. Is it because the patient does not sign and the hospital cannot perform the operation and the patient died, so the hospital doctor still has to bear the crime of negligence causing death?
In the end, the circumstances of the jury's suggestion that the judge sent the sentence were not in line with reality. The sentencing of the judge should not be influenced by any private or group, even if it is suggested.
View more about The Exorcism of Emily Rose reviews
