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.

paulrainwater Decent film and worth a look, especially if you read something about the true story. I think a lot of comments condemning the film are overly critical, it is what it is, a lower budget film but not without some good qualities. Not every film is going to win awards and be another 'Citizen Kane'. This was a decent effort and I get tired of reading scathing reviews from arm chair wanta be directors who think they're the next Alfred Hitchcock...Not all of the following is in the film but most of it is, these are some excerpts from this terrifying true story, some of the more intense paranormal phenomena that occurred during this 23 day long exorcism were: Anna exhibited inhuman strength, required sometimes up to six "athletic" nuns to hold her down. Anna levitated, completely off the ground, on more than one occasion. Anna leapt from her bed in the 'lying down'position, ONTO the wall above the door, where she held on, and maintained her position of crouching, apparently defying gravity, while holding on to the side of a wall. While Anna was unconscious, voices would talk, blaspheme, and verbally assault everyone present, but not through Anna's mouth, they came from her throat, but her lips never moved. She vomited, spit, drooled, urinated and defecated inhuman amounts/quantities of solids and fluids. It was reported that Anna was urinating buckets worth of liquid, and this is at a time where she was not eating hardly anything at all daily.

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.