The Exorcism of Anna Ecklund (2016)

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

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.

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.

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.

I try, I really do, to give these movies the benefit of the doubt. Even despite some amateurish direction, some downright sophomoric cinematography, and some horrendous acting, I try to give these movies some credit. But when you fall on the same overused, clichéd, asinine tropes found in all demonic possession films, you have to ask yourself, why do these people bother? This movie does not even attempt to do anything even remotely clever with the premise, and from the onset, you can already see what the entirety of the movie will cover. Girl is possessed, priests get "clearance" to perform exorcism, demon possesses the priests, rinse and repeat. I mean, I has been done AD NAUSEUM, to the point were I wonder what this creative team was trying to accomplish, and I have several questions; 1. Why is it always a Catholic priest that is called in? There are other religious denominations that perform exorcisms, and don't need permission to do so. At this point, it's imperative that this trope is removed, as it adds nothing to genre that The Exorcist didn't already accomplish. 2. Second, why are the special effects so shoddily done? Did you not allocate the proper funds to create believable effects? When you make a movie that requires a good use of SFX, make sure that the budget is there before you even start filming. Do not skimp out on them in order to pay your cast. 3. Lastly, why didn't anyone ask themselves, "What is this movie doing that every demonic possession film before it has not already done?" If your answer is, "nothing", as I'm sure it was, you have to re-evaluate the use of your creativity. Stop wasting your time making these films that don't enhance or further the sub-genre. At this point, it's just embarrassing. I have no faith in the sub-genre anymore, and it's due to movies like this. To the people responsible, your efforts are worthless and do not deserve to be seen by anyone. A complete and utter failure in every sense of the word.