I have watched a lot of movies of the same type recently, and most of them are similar. Even the famous "The Conjuring" series, although it claims to be based on real events, still cannot escape the framework of haunted houses. I watched the beginning of this film before, and I felt a little boring while watching it while playing the game, and even wanted to delete it. Fortunately, I didn't rush to delete it later, because I vaguely felt that this was a drama film - any horror film with a plot trend is worth watching, what if it is particularly exciting, right?
I looked at it at 1:00 tonight, and unexpectedly found that it actually followed the line of court debate. Reasonable is a very interesting debate, and I dare say that if it were put in any exhibition game now, it would be an excellent debate. This involves the fusion and collision of religious culture and legal culture. It requires a large number of historical examples to build evidence, and more importantly, rational defense lawyers should put aside their own beliefs and try to get in touch with the field of theology. Obviously, this is extremely difficult for the atheist heroine, and yet she does it.
Does the supernatural exist? As the heroine said, it is a matter of opinion. You can doubt, but not deny the possibility. I have always felt that human beings should not be overconfident that they can use science to explain everything in the world - the unknown is not necessarily a bad thing, which allows many "impossible" to have room to deal with, and creates conditions for "possible". Some people may say that this is self-comfort, why not interpret it as self-encouragement? Why do tens of millions of Christians pray on weekends when science is advanced? Isn't this based on that little bit of faith in your heart? Even though we know that God will not come easily and the devil will not do anything reckless, we will still parasitize our hearts in a pure land. With the power of faith, maybe we can rely on that "possible" in everything we do. As I said a while ago, what if it is accidentally realized?
The heroine cleverly used the "possibility", which is completely opposite to the "fact", to make a final statement. With the sincere statement of the priest throughout the whole process, this time she made a big effort to turn the tide. Therefore, based on legal principles, the jury believed that the priest had committed a crime of negligence by not giving the girl medicine and not allowing her to seek medical treatment in time. However, based on reason, none of us can deny the possibility of the gods and demons, the deceased is dead, and with all the evidence we can see that the girl and her family sincerely believe that the exorcism can restore her, and the priest He also tried his best to save her, so what else can be blamed? So our lenient jury believed in the possibility, and our gracious judge took the advice - to spare him the penalty. The jury system of the common law system has once again demonstrated its human charm.
It can be said that exorcism shows two major characteristics of American culture: religious belief and legal belief. When the two are perfectly combined, tell you about it, and finally let the heroine sleep peacefully in the dark night and everything will return to calm, what else can you complain about? Anyway, I am very satisfied with this arrangement, and I give it full marks.
View more about The Exorcism of Emily Rose reviews
