The Exorcism of Anna Ecklund (2016)

Better Late Then Never

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

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.

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.

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.

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.