A courtroom drama with a horror twist, The Exorcism of Emily Rose takes on the tricky issue of religion versus science. Based on a true story, the film details the trial of Father Moore (Tom Wilkinson), a priest who is accused of negligent homicide after Emily Rose (Jennifer Carpenter) - a young girl who is believed to be possessed by demons - dies shortly after an exorcism ritual. Laura Linney plays Erin Bruner, a lawyer who defends Father Moore to boost her fame and income. Bruner initially proclaims herself an agnostic, but a series of mysterious incidents, including the sudden death of a key witness, leads her to believe that demons do exist and it is her destiny to present the truth to the public. This is juicy horror material, and director Scott Derrickson knows how to work up a good scare with clever visuals and haunting sound effects. Borrowing tricks from The Exorcist as well as the works of Italian horror master Dario Argento, the scenes that detail the suffering of Emily Rose - who munches bugs, twitches her limbs and screams out profanities in foreign languages on stormy nights - will give you the creeps. But as a courtroom drama, the film is deeply flawed because it fails to present the facts from both sides. It is obvious that the filmmakers side with Father Moore and Bruner. Emily Rose's suffering and the process of her exorcism are told entirely from the point of view of Father Moore. By highlighting the good intentions and faith of the priest, the film puts the prosecutor, doctors and scientists, who uphold that the death of Emily was a direct result of negligence, in an unwelcome position. So do demons really exist and is demonic possession possible? The film suggests the answer is yes. It is ironic that while Bruner urges the jury to be open-minded, The Exorcism of Emily Rose denies all scientific possibilities to celebrate faith over reason and religion over science. The film opens today