Catholic film critic Steven Greydanus said of this film in his review that "I am a believer, but I confess I'm left with more doubts than certainties about Emily's case". Elsewhere in his review he echoes my thoughts in summarising: "Although Emily Rose is more grounded in the real world than The Exorcist, both films are ultimately about failed exorcisms... neither encourages much confidence in the authority the Church is supposed to have over the powers of hell" and also "Doubtless, God’s ways are often inscrutable, yet I can’t help wondering why He might prefer possible evidence of demonic influence to trump evidence of the Church’s God-given authority to help and heal those suffering from demonic power".

I thought The Exorcism of Emily Rose was an interesting film, but ultimately, as inferred in Steven's latter comment, there's a big something, or rather someone, missing from the film, and that big someone is Jesus. The film throws up far too many questions for me that make me doubt the integrity of the filmmakers, and indeed Emily's case. One of the biggest questions I have is: why wasn't the Virgin Mary shown in her full glory? There are few if any apparitions or visions of the Mary in which the person hasn't commented on her absolute and pure beauty. Why wasn't this shown if the filmmakers really wanted people to ask themselves some real questions about the spiritual realm? Why such a focus on the dark side? Also, though I've heard of people suffering through sickness and persecution, has God ever premitted suffering through posession? I'm not sure that fits in with Christian doctrine.

Along those lines, I'm always sceptical when filmmakers and actors claim "we're really trying to make something that forces you to ask questions and ask what you believe" (Scott Derrickson) and "this movie is not trying to tell anybody what to believe or what to think. It is asking questions, but it is certainly not giving answers - nor would I want it to!" (Laura Linney). If a film's primary objective is to prompt people to ask certain questions, then it implies the filmmakers have asked themselves those questions already and therefore should have a good idea of where they stand with respect to the issue at hand - in this case, the existence of a spiritual realm. And whether they have answered that question explicitly or not, implicitly they certainly will have done so, and that implicit answer cannot help but communicate itself through the work they produce. And if that answer is either a 'no' or a 'maybe' (as appears to be the case here) that's simply not compatible with Christian teaching, if anything it's putting a stumbling block in front of people's search for the truth. If however the answer is 'yes', why would you not want to give other people that answer? In fact, if you come out with the answer of 'yes' to the existence of the spiritual realm (and by deafault to the existence of God), Christianity teaches that you should proclaim that answer from the rooftops.

So all in all I have reservations about this film, which is a shame because the original case sounded like an interesting one, but probably one that could've benefitted from a more respectful (a young girl died after all) and true-to-the-facts documentary, as opposed to a dramatisation. According to the USCCB's review the events "took place in Germany in 1976 involving a young epileptic, Anneliese Michel, who died of starvation after several exorcism sessions, and led to criminal charges being filed against the priests involved", "two priests stood trial, as did the girl's parents".