Nigel P Something that has dogged the prolific horror stable of Andrew Jones is occasional lapses in sound quality. That is an affliction that blights this otherwise enjoyable exorcist tale. Such are the mumblings of actors Lee Bane and Jeff Raggett that you can barely hear what they are saying, and this kind of problem drains many of the scenes of any impact they might have. When the (very) familiar profanities from the demonic influence are similarly obscured, this proves more than an annoyance.Otherwise, writer/director Jones does what always does: turns in a perfectly serviceable slow-burner that dwells on intimate, low-key scenes rather than spectacular theatrics, and puts his own stamp on the 'possession' genre.Tiffany Ceri is excellent as the titular character. An unusual departure for a story dealing with demonic possession is that we only get to see her once she under the influence of evil - even the very long opening credits are interspersed with images of her writhing on a convent bed - so we lose the effective build-up of terror as she goes deeper under the evil spell. But there's a reason for that, and even I won't give away that spoiler. Lee Bane gives one of his better performance here, restrained and reflective, as the uncertain Father Richard Lamont. Jeff Raggett plays the reassuring Father Theo Reisinger with calm authority.All in all, another competent production from Jones' North Bank Entertainment company. Is it frightening? Despite all the wailing and gnashing, no. The enhancements of milky contact lenses and modulating voices to sound like a kazoo go through the motions, rather than effectively scaring us, much like the venture itself. It is 'Andrew Jones does The Exorcist' which is playful and entertaining in an economic way, but doesn't go beyond the familiar.

amalgamoth So, we've had the Exorcism of Emily Rose, the Exorcism of Molly Hartley, and now there's the Exorcism of Anna Ecklund. Next year we'll probably have the Exorcism of Judy Jones and in 2019 we'll have Jenny Smith. For me, the main reason to check out this kind of films is to see whether there is anything new or innovating to be found in the special effects department. Anna Ecklund is definitely not where to find it. It's really *spoiler alert*the same old: Pretty white girl in a white night gown squirming on a bed, all milky-eyed and grinning like a goblin. It's all been done several times before, and to think this is a recent film is hard to believe. It could have been produced like this twenty years ago, and still it wouldn't be that scary. Worse even in my view is the general daftness of the characters, pretty much all of them. The priests exchange dialogue in an near-whisper in order to appear deeply earnest and profound, whereas the content of said dialogue has little substance or something remotely intriguing. The nuns are the epitome of stupidity, often just standing around sheepishly, as mere easy targets for the subject. They're just there to suggest a monastery setting, but apart from being dressed in habits they're pretty much useless, looking scared and paralysed like a hare in a car's headlights. As for the main subject: She's more entertaining as a faint Regan derivative (Regan being 7 times scarier though), but once healed from her possessive state she is in turn taken over by her own dull, bland and childish personality. To be honest, she's sexier with a demon inside (with some gratuitous dirty talk). I think I'll leave it at that, but within a few days after writing this I'll probably have forgotten I've seen "Anna Ecklund". I think "Emily Rose" was better. In order to keep this genre somewhat interesting, one has to either venture into new territory (script-wise), or look again at what was right about The Exorcist and what was wrong about its follow-ups.

Edward Oropeza I have seen This Movies with eye catching labels, based on the true story. But beforehand, I had read and clearly have a precise background of this event that happen in Earling, Iowa sometime in 1928. I expect how thrilling and hair-lifting the movies will be. The real story in Earling is a scariest one. But this movie seems to deprive the real event, with poor amateurish acting, daunting effects is a low budget film. The director must realize that the center of the character is Anna, and not to the priest. Perhaps the remake of this film can be good if all the scariest events is included in the making, like 3 weeks of performing rituals with exchange of dialogue between the priest and the devil. The levitation and transformation of Anna into horrible ogre, notice that Anna's lip is closed while doing a conversation, the accident of the priest, and the pest that rampage in Earling opting to the pronouncement of the villagers to move the rituals to the other place, the revelation of the devil how Anna became possessed, and lastly, the appearance of Lucifer and Belzebuub in the corner after successful exorcism, and the conversation of the priest and Lucifer as ending chapter. This 2016 version of Anna is not based on the true story, it does not happen that the devil moved to the priest and the nuns after exorcism. Sadly, the making is crap and need a remake that really based on the real story, not to the depicted one.

James Hogan Most exorcism films have the same things in them that have been pretty over done so I'm not going to complain about the not so original plot points. Studios have been making films like this for ages and they all have similar stuff. I didn't go into this with any great expectations and I found it to be better than I thought it would be. The acting is really good from the possessed girl and the story for the most part kept me interested especially from the exorcism scene on. The best part for me is the final 15 minutes of the film where they add more action. The film won't be for everyone but personally I found it entertaining and even enjoyable. exorcism and demon nuns are enough to make a film entertaining in my book.