LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Bergorks If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

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.

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.

manuelasaez 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.