You won't be disappointed!

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

The acting in this movie is really good.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

This is the most unconvincing horror movie I've ever seen. Worst of it is that you had to wait for 10 agonizing minutes of opening credits with the supposed Anna DANCING like an insane crackhead trying to imitate a real demonic possession. What also gave it away was the embarrassing lines like "You want to f**k me, don't you?" "F**k you, you c********r." "Bitch." "F**k me, f**k me, f**k me." and many I don't really care to mention. It was like a 7 year old who just learned all the curse words was trying to be edgy and make a movie. It had potentials but sadly, the acting was horrible, the plot was weak, and if this was really based on true events, I feel really bad for the actual people involved in the event. I'm not religious but this is downright insulting.

Contains plot spoilers, although for some strange reason exorcism movies all have the same plot.In the opening we are explained Passover, as read, and are then subjected to seven minutes of credits with church organ music as Anna (Tiffany Ceri) makes slow motion snarly faces at the camera. Knowing this is the scene the director wanted, I dared to watch on as we discover Anna was once possessed at 14 (what kid isn't) and this is a repossession (minus Linda Blair), with a demon seven times that of a normal immortal demon.Anna of course is Catholic, the favorite of Mr. "S" himself and is going to be exorcised by Father Richard (Lee Bane) an atheist priest with his own "demons" sort of speak. During this time we get the Cliffs Note version of the theology of both "The Exorcist I and II." Every time Anna moves her neck from side to side we hear bones crack as if moving your head from left to right is somehow unnatural. Perhaps the worst aspect of the film was the soundtrack at the end during the various closing possession scenes as we hear what sounds like a muffled lawn mower getting louder and softer. Granted Ave Satani has been overdone, but it always works.Tiffany Ceri has not mastered the sinister possessed laugh. It was funny to watch her do it. Her friend Laura (Melissa Bayern) was given terrible lines that neither she nor the director knew what to do with them.Anna does the whole potty mouth scene but stops short at sex or nudity. Heck, not even a decent up skirt.

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.

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.