Audrey Rose (1977)

A different way of telling a story

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Not a patch on the novel I wish they'd do remake as the book is so in depth, and the next book for the love of Audrey rose is very readable too please give this a chance it's very dated but look beyond the acting and see the emotional turmoil they were going through in the story.

"Audrey Rose" started well as a thriller in the mold of "The Exorcist." A child is possibly "inhabited" by another child named Audrey Rose, who died in a tragic auto crash wherein she was trapped in the car. The lost soul has now taken on a new life in haunting little Ivy Templeton.A good cast (Marsha Mason, John Beck, Anthony Hopkins) keeps the suspense going until the film falters by turning the case into a courtroom drama. It is when lawyers get involved and try to "prove" the existence of reincarnation that the film has a major meltdown.The second half of film also includes far too much pretentious dialogue about how the soul must be mended and this incident is but "one act in a cosmic drama of many lifetimes." Please! The early portion of the film was on stronger dramatic ground when Anthony Hopkins' character was comforting the child by saying, "Dada is here." The pretentious excerpt from the Bhagavad Gita ("the soul is eternal, ever-existing, undying, and primeval") appearing on the screen at the end gave the impression that the filmmakers were engaged in a documentary, not a horror film.The excellent performers, especially Mason as the vulnerable mother, was wasted in the film's conclusion that took the form of a long hypnosis session of little Ivy/Audrey. In the end, the filmmakers wanted this film to be a provocative learning experience about world religions, but the result was only disturbing and unpleasant.

Holy annoying little girl that screams nonsense a lot through out the whole movie. How is anyone able to compare this to The Exorcist? Nothing alike. There is no exorcism at all. It is just boring and nothing hardly at all except the girl screaming all the time.I am only watching because just nothing on television but crap most of the time, and this channel Comet shows a lot of interesting movies, except this one. This is just really bad of the bad movies out there and to see it with a over 5 rating is disgusting.Nothing creepy or scary about this film or even remotely interesting, except to just waste a lot time, which it does very well or very badly with the screaming. I rather listen to my metalcore music over the girls screaming. This should be one of the worst films made.

A stranger (Anthony Hopkins) attempts to convince a happily married couple that their daughter (Susan Swift) is actually his daughter reincarnated.The film mixes horror and religion, but the typical Catholic religion of the horror tradition. Here it is Hinduism, with all the good and bad that can come of reincarnation. The movie even uses a quotation from the Bhagavad-Gita: "There is no end. For the soul there is never birth nor death. Nor, having once been, does it ever cease to be. It is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval." This very much sums up the tone of the film.The film has been called a ripoff of "The Exorcist", and given it is the story of a girl in the 1970s who may have the spirit / soul of another inside her, that may be a fair assessment. New York Times critic Vincent Canby went through every effort to draw parallels between the two.In contrast, English professor Adrian Schober wrote that the film "is more a reaction to and reworking of The Exorcist than a 'rip-off', minus the sensationalism, special effects and vulgarity." This is more fair, because for those not watching the film in the 1970s, it may not be obvious how much this film could be compared to the "Exorcist".Comparisons aside, we get some good acting from Susan Swift, especially in the third act. This was her debut performance, and she has only acted sporadically since. Horror fans may know her from "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers", where she played Mary. Mark Hasan writes that the film "remains a fine example of horror conveyed through emotion, circumstance and atmosphere instead of visual and aural pyrotechnics."Unfortunately, the best home release available right now (2015) is from Twilight Time. Their Blu-ray is limited to only 3000 copies, which has the side effect of driving the price way up. Good luck finding one new for under $40, which is out of the price range for most fans (especially when it can be seen for free on Netflix).