One Last Post On Emily Rose...
...only because I'm still astounded that this movie wasn't better reviewed. For confirmation that the A. O. Scott review was representative of movie critics in general, the Rotten Tomatoes rating for Emily Rose was 44%. I really think the explanation for this is that certain of the reviewers just can't stomach a movie that even suggests that demons, and by implication God, might be real.
I wrote this post to tie up a couple of loose ends, as well. First, here is a good review from the National Review website. It's not political, so don't get all worked up if NRO isn't your bag. I found this reviewer's take much more interesting and even-handed than that other guy's review. Second, I wanted to relate a piece of external evidence that should help show that it wasn't just me liking this movie inordinately.
As you may or may not know, Emily Rose is rated PG-13. I didn't realize that going into the theater, and it was an unpleasant surprise to encounter the theater full of screaming, laughing, and cursing high schoolers geeked up on a Friday night. My wife and I saw The Ring in a similar theater, and it was not an optimal experience. The noise in the theater was deafening, especially when Samara crawled out of the tv near the end. So we expected the worst for this movie. The shouting and general yowling during the previews made me even more worried, and I seriously considered walking out and asking for a refund. However, I decided to stay the course, and by about 15 to 20 minutes in, you could have heard a mouse sneeze in the theater during the quiet parts of the movie. I've never been in a theater that went from chaos in the beginning to attentive, dead silence (punctuated by a few well-deserved screams at pop-out frights) like that one did.
My point is this: if that theater full of teenagers hopped up on caffeine and hormones can sit still on a Friday night through this allegedly "too talky" horror movie, what does that say about movie critics who thought it was boring? I think it says a lot about what little there is to some of them.
I wrote this post to tie up a couple of loose ends, as well. First, here is a good review from the National Review website. It's not political, so don't get all worked up if NRO isn't your bag. I found this reviewer's take much more interesting and even-handed than that other guy's review. Second, I wanted to relate a piece of external evidence that should help show that it wasn't just me liking this movie inordinately.
As you may or may not know, Emily Rose is rated PG-13. I didn't realize that going into the theater, and it was an unpleasant surprise to encounter the theater full of screaming, laughing, and cursing high schoolers geeked up on a Friday night. My wife and I saw The Ring in a similar theater, and it was not an optimal experience. The noise in the theater was deafening, especially when Samara crawled out of the tv near the end. So we expected the worst for this movie. The shouting and general yowling during the previews made me even more worried, and I seriously considered walking out and asking for a refund. However, I decided to stay the course, and by about 15 to 20 minutes in, you could have heard a mouse sneeze in the theater during the quiet parts of the movie. I've never been in a theater that went from chaos in the beginning to attentive, dead silence (punctuated by a few well-deserved screams at pop-out frights) like that one did.
My point is this: if that theater full of teenagers hopped up on caffeine and hormones can sit still on a Friday night through this allegedly "too talky" horror movie, what does that say about movie critics who thought it was boring? I think it says a lot about what little there is to some of them.
posted by Unknown at 7:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home