zainsev 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.

Michael Ledo 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.

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.

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.