What could have been a derivative version of THE EXORCIST turns into something special in the hands of Hollywood director Robert Wise. AUDREY ROSE is a story dealing with reincarnation, a topic that doesn't get tackled too often in Hollywood. As such it feels fairly fresh and interesting, especially in the first half of the movie. The picture is blessed with a strong cast, none stronger than the great Anthony Hopkins whose character treads a fine line between creepiness and being sympathetic. He plays a grieving father convinced that a couple's daughter is the reincarnation of his own deceased child. I found that the film falls apart a little in the second half, turning into an EXORCIST clone at times, and failing to really do much with the premise; the ending is emotional but also a little hollow. But it's still beautifully made and far more intelligent than you'd expect given the genre.
Add a Review
-
Leofwine_draca11 May 2018
-
cyberxime31 August 2004I've recently seen this movie again after at least 15 years. The first time it scared me a lot, probably for the weird look in Ivy's eyes and the screaming scenes...
Keep in mind that reincarnation was not a very common subject at the time, and I took it just as many other people, as a poor Exorcist copy. Now, knowing a lot more on the subject, I think it was not too bad given the time it was filmed. The hipnotic regression scene is well done, even though the ending probably can't happen in real life after a regression to a past life.
It was great also watching a young Anthony Hopkins in such role. As always, he convinces you of what he is feeling, and the movie, not being excellent, keeps you interested.
I gave it a 6, considering the good original screenplay (for 1977), and the performances of Anthony Hopkins and Marsha Mason. I must say she seems a little "too dramatic", but that was her style.
If you like Anthony Hopkins and you want to watch a good old thriller, you must see "Magic" too. -
mark.waltz19 September 2019There is a misconception that this is a horror film. Certainly, it has many elements of horror and can easily be compared to other films that deal with either reincarnation or possession. It is a complex film that some audience members will consider to be convoluted. Certainly it is perplexing that there is no actress credited to be playing Audrey Rose, the young girl killed in a horrific car crash in the opening seen, possibly possessing the young Ivy Templeton (Susan Swift), daughter of Marsha Mason and John Beck, and the subject of the stalking Anthony Hopkins. Why is he following them around, being seen in the oddest of places at the strangest times? Why does he wait until he shaves his beard until he contacts them? Why would he think that he has any right to become involved in Ivy's life simply because he believes that Ivy is a reincarnation of his late daughter? These perplexing questions will have you thinking about a lot of legal and spiritual issues by the time they face off in court and especially when Ivy is hypnotized to discover what is at the root of her behavioral problems.
It's a strange film for Robert Wise, the director of "West Side Story" and "The Sound of Music", but considering that he started off as a film editor for Orson Welles and later directed some Val Lewton horror films, it seems more appropriate that he would return to an avant garde subject. Anthony Hopkins, then simply a respected British stage and film actor, hadn't become a major star, but with the films "Magic" and "Silence of the Lambs" ahead of him, he seems like the perfect choice to play a character who is initially creepy but wins over sympathy when the elements of his grief and reasons for his actions come out. The audience gets a glimpse at first of the happy life of Mason, Beck and Swift as they begin their new life in New York (filled with some glorious vintage location footage all over Manhattan), but it changes quickly to the point where Mason grabs husband Beck's whiskey for a sip when she learns why Hopkins has been following them.
Certainly in a legal sense, Hopkins has no right in stalking them, let alone revealing his creepy beliefs. This creates an unfaxible conflict in Beck and Mason's marriage as their differences in opinion of Hopkins' presence becomes a barrier between them. For Swift, the alleged possession by Audrey Rose means that the child has some truly terrifying moments, screaming in horrific fear throughout the film and at another point, transfixed by a bonfire she attempts to walk into. The hypnosis scene is also really scary and the panic on the nun principal's face yelling out her window is definitely the type of image you'd see in a 1970's horror film. The horror here comes through a different kind of an element of the unknown, and the results are tragic to say the least. This is not the type of film to watch over and over, but even with just one viewing, I find it has many different thoughts going through my minds that bring more questions than answers, and unfortunately, that is how life is sometimes. -
sol-kay22 September 2006***SPOILERS*** Losing control of her car on the rain-slick Pennsylvania Turnpike just outside of Pittsburgh Mary Lou Sikes, Ivy Jones, helplessly slides across the grass divider and into the oncoming traffic crashing into a car driven by Silvia Flora Hoover with her five year-old daughter, sitting in the back seat, Audrey Rose. In an instance the car driven by Slivia is knocked over on it's back and bursts into a ball of fire killing both mother and daughter. The time of the accident is 8:20 AM October 3, 1965. Some 375 miles way in New York City two minutes later on 8:22 AM Janice Templeton, Marsha Mason, gives birth to her first child a girl and she and her husband Bill, John Beck, name her Ivy, Susan Swift.
It's now some 12 years later and Ivy has been having nightmares of being burned alive waking up with mysterious blister on her hands. There's also this strange and creepy-looking man who's been following Ivy at school and even to her apartment building doing nothing but just watching her as he knew Ivy all of her life. We and the Templeton's later learn that the man is the president of Unified Steel Corp, among other titles that he has, Elliot Hoover, Anthony Hopkins. Mr Hoover turns out to be the father of Audrey Rose Hoover the girl killed in the October 3, 1965 car crash!
Hoover had been left a broken man after his wife's Silvia and young daughter Audrey Rose's tragic deaths. Over the last seven years Hoover has gotten involved with the occult and the mystic Eastern and Oriental World cultures that believe in Reincarnation and the indestructibility of the soul and that it's as real and alive as both being born and after dying. With the help of a number of oculists and mediums Hoover had tracked down his late daughter's soul, or being, in the body of Ivy Templeton due to the time of her birth and her nightmares about, like Audrey did, being burned alive. Now that Hoover found her he feels that he has to look after Ivy, or Audrey, like some guardian angel.
It's Hoover's annoying behavior and almost fanatical determination to be near Ivy that leads Bill to both verbally and physically have it out with him! This leads Hoover to be brought up on charges of both harassing the Tempeltons and even at one point kidnapping little Ivy. It's Ivy's mom Janice who strangely becomes convinced that Hoover is on to something. Since he has the uncanny ability to get Ivy to stop crying, and in some cases injuring herself, with his father-like attraction to her whenever Ivy goes into one of her uncontrollable fits or spasms.
The very depressing ending of the movie has both Bill and Hoover have, to Janice's objections, Ivy regressed by Dr. Lipscomb, Norman Llyod, back in time. It's then where she returns to her previous life as Audrey Rose Hoover and relives the horror of that accident at the beginning of the movie with first devastating and later deadly results.
I at first had difficulty understanding what exactly Elliot Hoover wanted with Ivy since even if she possessed the soul of his dead daughter Audrey Rose she was still the flesh and blood, and legal, child of Bill and Janice Templeton. As the movie started to slowly explain itself, through Hoover and a number of experts on Reincarnation, it became evident to me that the very fact that Ivy was born so soon, just two minutes after Audrey Rose's death, had left her a both physically and emotionally crippled little girl! It also became evident that Ivy's soul didn't have the much needed rest and time to heal itself from the unbearable trauma that it just went through as Audry Rose.
The tragic ending in the film didn't at all seemed to effect Hoover it was as if he expected it while both Bill and Janice were left numb with shock. It's at the very end of the movie "Audrey Rose" that you begin to realize, like Hoover did all along, that Ivy wasn't meant to be born. In being born so soon, just two minutes after Audry's death, her life would be hell resulting from the terrible memory of her previous incarnations, as Audrey Rose, terrifying death. This would have Ivy either like a moth be attracted to a flame, like she tried to do at a Catholic School snowman bonfire, and end up immolating herself or end up so traumatized that she would never have a happy or normal life.
Janice as well as Hoover, with Bill still not being able to accept what happened, in the end learned that Ivy's death was not a tragedy but in fact an escape from a life of suffering that awaited her. In the near future she'll be reborn again to a loving and caring couple with her troubled and tortured soul healed from what she suffered in the tragic lives that she lead as both Ivy Templeton and Audrey Rose. -
claudio_carvalho11 October 2012In New York, Janice Templeton (Marsha Mason) is happily married with the executive Bill Templeton (John Beck) and they live in a comfortable and fancy apartment with their eleven year-old daughter Ivy (Susan Swift).
One day, Janice is stalked by a weirdo and she tells her husband. Soon the stranger contacts them and invites the couple to meet him in a restaurant. Elliot Hoover (Anthony Hopkins) tells to Janice and Bill that his daughter Audrey Rose died eleven years ago burned in a car crash and her soul would have reincarnated in Ivy's body. Bill and Janice believe that Elliot is nuts and Bill tells his lawyer to get a restraining order against Elliot.
However, Ivy has dreadful nightmares and only Elliot is capable to calm her down. When Elliot abducts Ivy, Bill and Janice go to the court to arrest him. But Elliot wants to prove that Ivy and Audrey Rose are the same soul.
When I saw "Audrey Rose" in the 70's, I found it a great film of reincarnation. I have just seen it again on DVD and this time I found it a reasonable film only with a flawed screenplay. Maybe the film is dated, with the present behavior of people.
The unstable Janice Templeton, performed by Marsha Mason, is an inconsistent and irritating character. Her attitudes are ridiculous and she never supports her husband, even in court when she is summoned to testify. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "As Duas Vidas de Audrey Rose" ("The Two Lives of Audrey Rose") -
BA_Harrison21 March 2016Elliot Hoover (Anthony Hopkins) believes that 11-year-old schoolgirl Ivy Templeton (Susan Swift) is the reincarnation of his daughter, who was burnt alive in a car wreck. Is he a nutter? Ivy's parents (Marsha Mason and John Beck) think so at first.
IMDb categorises Audrey Rose as horror, and the film is listed in my trusty Aurum Encyclopedia of Horror, but it's not in the least bit scary, shocking, or disturbing: the only freaky thing about the whole film is the titular character's 'Crazy Frog' expression, all bug eyes and manic grin. Rather than a sense of fear, all I felt was irritation every time the girl cried, whimpered or screamed, or gave the camera one of her unconvincing smiles or vacant looks of bewilderment.
As if Swift's performance wasn't grating enough, the rest of the cast seem to do their utmost to compete: John Beck's character is a total asshole, Mason's histrionics are hard to bear, and Anthony Hopkins adds to the overall annoyance with his repetitious calling of his little girl's name in an attempt to soothe her. Audrey Rose! Audrey Rose! Audrey F**ing Rose! Aaaaarrrggggh! Put a sock in it, Hopkins!
The final straws that broke this camel's back were the dull 'made-for-TV movie-of-the-week' direction and the choppy editing, the film jumping awkwardly from one scene to another. All told, this is a weak effort, horror or not! -
drownsoda903 June 2007"Audrey Rose" is a strange little tale of reincarnation. The story centers around a Janice (Marsha Mason) and Bill (John Beck) Templeton, a New York city couple who have a wonderful daughter named Ivy. Their lives are fairly normal, that is until a stranger (Anthony Hopkins) begins to stalk Ivy, claiming that within her body is the reincarnated spirit of his daughter, Audrey Rose, who burned to death in a horrible car accident. Of course, the Templetons think this stranger, named Elliot, is a madman. But when Ivy begins having horrible nightmares, running through her room, and banging on her bedroom window with her fists, they begin to wonder if Elliot's claims may just be true...
From the director of the horror classic, "The Haunting", Robert Wise, comes this bizarre but spooky little tale of reincarnation. The story is based on Frank DeFelitta's novel of the same name, and the plot is interesting. Reincarnation was a topic that hadn't really been addressed at the time, but while this film is constructed all around the basic idea of reincarnation, many people have mistaken it for some sort of "Exorcist" rip-off, mainly because of the fact that it displays horrible events plaguing a young girl. It's an intelligent premise and a well-written plot, but the problem with the film is that it is quite plodding and almost too slow for it's own good.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with slow-going stories, but I think most people can agree that the pacing here is a little tedious at times. On the plus side, there are some genuinely frightening hysteria sequences involving the young Ivy, along with the awful car crash death in the beginning that is the basis of the film. As far as the acting goes, it was all good - some of the hysteria scenes were obviously overacted, but aside from that it wasn't bad. Marsha Mason conveys a very emotional, frantic mother, while John Beck isn't given much to work with. The brilliant Anthony Hopkins plays Elliot (in one of his earlier roles, before "The Silence Of The Lambs" fame that he earned later in his career) quite well, which isn't surprising because he's always good. And Susan Swift (who much later appeared in a "Halloween" sequel), plays the tormented Ivy. I'm surprised we didn't see more of her as an actress, she seems to have had the potential.
To sum things up, "Audrey Rose" is a decent horror movie. The storyline is excellent, but unfortunately the pacing here breaks a lot of tension. On the plus side, there are some frightening scenes and a few memorable sequences, plus the story is intelligent and original. While it's a decent horror movie, it's not the kind of movie you can sit down and watch if you're in a tired mood, because it will likely bore you. Go into it with an open mind, but don't expect anything in terms of "The Haunting" or Wise's other films. 6/10. -
Carrigon25 May 2005I first saw this movie years ago when I was much younger. At the time, I thought it was great and very haunting. But now that I've seen it again as an adult, I can't believe I ever thought it was a good movie. The story itself is excellent, but the way it is presented is just plain awful.
The worst thing about this movie is the constant hysterical screaming Ivy does. It goes on and on in so many scenes, it just gets to the point where you hope and pray she either dies or someone kills her just to stop the screaming. It just destroys the entire later half of the movie.
The rest of the script is just horrible. It's just not done well. And the ending leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth.
The basic story of a girl who was killed in a fire at a young age and then reincarnated into Ivy is a very good story. But as I said, it's not played out right here. The script and the acting just ruins it. Really the only reason to see this film is to watch a pre-Hannibal Lecter Anthony Hopkins in one of his early roles. Other than that, I can't really see a reason to recommend this movie. -
measl10 June 2019Starting in the late 60s, and ending in the mid to late 70s, the United States went through a strong religious and occult "rebirth". The occult was centered on Eastern religions, with a strong Indian component. The Beatles had their own "Swami"; the "Seth Material" (supposedly the dictated diaries of a dead "soul" channeled through it's authoress) was a best selling book series; the Krinshnahs and Moonies were at the height of their ascension; and Reincarnation beliefs were widespread in what came to be called "New Age circles".
Audrey Rose was born of that "rebirth", and it clearly shows. The death vs lifecycle hewed closely to the beliefs of at least a half dozen religions (some real, some not so real), and Audrey Rose was the best popular expression of that sudden new belief craze. A lot of people have complained that this appears to have been a cheap take on the Exorcist, but it most definitely is not an exorcist knockoff.
The first hour or some of Audrey Rose is top flight material, especially the scenes where the little girl is trying to "avoid flames", while the second half's "legal battle" kinda ruined the mood. Nevertheless, this was a genuinely possible scenario for it's time. Audrey Rose doesn't age terribly well, as the world of Audrey Rose and the first quarter of the 21st century are polar opposite environments, but it is certainly worth watching if you can find an old copy! -
eytand9411 December 2010Robert Wise may have directed "West Side Story" and "The Sound of Music." But he has done a fair share of horror films and thrillers, including "The Curse of the Cat People," "The Day The Earth Stood Still," but most notably, "The Haunting." However, hardly anybody seems to remember a 1977 film called "Audrey Rose." It is another film from the famed director that, in my eyes, is very memorable and atmospheric.
Janice and Bill Templeton are leading a very happy marriage with their daughter, Ivy. The last thing they want is a strange man by the name of Elliot Hoover stalking them. Worst of all, he sets his eye on Ivy. Soon enough, they are able to talk to Hoover. He explains that his wife and daughter, Audrey Rose, died in a horrible car accident, and that his daughter may have crossed over into Ivy. Of course, Janice and Bill dismiss Hoover as a lunatic. But that's when Ivy begins to exhibit strange behavior. Could Hoover be correct? Is Ivy really the reincarnation of Audrey Rose?
Now, when "Audrey Rose" first came out in 1977, it was subject to mixed reviews, mostly because it was seen as a horror film, and I can understand why. It was released a few years after "The Exorcist," when horror films were becoming more modern and faith was being challenged. But I don't see "Audrey Rose" as a horror film. Instead, I perceive it as a supernatural thriller with a touch of family drama. And it's a very good one.
Based on the novel by Frank De Felitta, creator of "The Entity" and director of "Dark Night of the Scarecrow," "Audrey Rose" is a nifty thriller for three reasons.
First, Robert Wise gives superb direction. He registers the exact amount of passion that he had for "The Haunting" and he has chosen an effective story that challenges the beliefs of the viewer. Do we choose to believe Hoover in that his daughter has come back in the form of Ivy? Or is Ivy simply an ill child in need of psychiatric help? It is a great story.
Second, the acting is quite good. Anthony Hopkins and John Beck give very nice performances as Hoover and Bill. The wide-eyed newcomer Susan Swift is especially believable in the scenes in which Ivy shows off the nightmarish behavior of Hoover's dead daughter. But I, and many other people who have seen the movie, feel that the greatest performance belongs to Marsha Mason, star of "The Goodbye Girl," as Janice. Once Audrey Rose takes over Ivy, Janice's fear of losing her daughter shows and Mason's acting intensifies as the movie goes on.
Third, the film has a tremendous atmosphere. The scenes of rain pattering on the windows as Ivy screams for her daddy are incredibly creepy, and so are the scenes at Ivy's school and inside the banal hospital.
There are plenty of movies about possession and bad seeds, but a reincarnation thriller is very uncommon. "Audrey Rose" may be a little long, but it is a super-effective supernatural thriller that is very creepy. It will leave you with questions, and raise ideas about reincarnation. Robert Wise has given us a thriller to remember. -
dbdumonteil26 May 2004"Audrey Rose" was bound to fail:coming three years after the exorcist farce and all its imitators ,it stood no chance at all.
You should not forget that Robert Wise tackled the paranormal ten years before William Friedkin' s masquerade ,and with highly superior results :"the haunting" (1963).Roughly ,the stories display strong analogies "Her soul is in peace now" says Hopkins at the end of "Audrey Rose" whereas Richard Johnson told his companions that now Eleanor (Julie Harris) had found peace at last.No matter if "the haunting" is primarily a non-religious film and "Audrey Rose" deals with a religion 700 million human beings put their faith in:both the shrink in "Audrey" and doctor Markway in "haunting" try a scientific approach;both movies include a skeptical character:Russ Tamblyn's Luke and John Beck's bewildered father ,and in the end ,these two men begin to realize that something eludes them ,something which is beyond Cartesianism.
The main difference between "Audrey Rose" and "the haunting" lies in directing:whereas the latter's was prodigious ,innovating almost at every scene ,carrying its audience in another world ,allowing them to experiment themselves,the former relies upon clichés -and it's when you see these scenes of Audrey screaming that you realize the bad influence "the exorcist " had on the fantasy and horror genre - and nothing in the shooting of the NYC ancient building -if at least he had borrowed from Polanski's "Rosemary's baby'- recalls the eerie pictures of the Gothic castle where Eleanor and her mates wandered.
Emotion was intense in "the haunting";here only Anthony Hopkins is able to generate desperate hope,tenderness and faith.Hopkins was interested in the fantastic genre at the time,for he made "magic" two years after and "elephant man" -which was realistic but was given a fantasy treatment- which boosted his career as none of his other movies did before.
"Audrey Rose" came at the wrong moment .In spite of its flaws,it deserves a watch .It's Wise's legacy (Unless "star trek " counts). -
benoit-322 February 2006I like Robert Wise movies and I think he was a brilliant stylist who could always be counted on to express the zeitgeist of the age. This film, however, is a serious misfire on his part. Its basic (and only) premise is to treat the possibility of reincarnation as something dramatic, shocking and even potentially scary. Even admitting reincarnation does exists, the heroine's story doesn't make a whit of sense on any level or plane of reality you can name. In this film, reincarnation is just another disease of the week used to justify a soap opera where Marsha Mason can shed as many Oscar-baiting tears as she wants, act all motherly, irrationally change her mind every five minutes while crumpling her handkerchief and filling the screen with the sound of mucus. Whereas Anthony Hopkins is a compelling presence stating an interesting case in an interesting way, John Beck, as Ivy's biological father, is clearly a studmuffin-with-buns-of steel-of-the-month actor whose part demands nothing more than the ability to look tough, use his fists occasionally and remain an uncompromising and uncomprehending lantern-jawed heel from beginning to end. The film starts with a stomach-churning idyllic exposition of what a fun place Manhattan can be for families who have no money worries and whose bread winner exercises an unidentified profession that vaguely has something to do with advertising. The Templetons live in the bosom of luxury with their pampered and obnoxious daughter, in the apex of gracious living quarters, in an era when burnt orange, brown, beige and dark oak were considered an acceptable colour scheme and off-white neo-colonial plush furniture was considered the epitome of good taste. That itself is scarier than anything else the script can come up with. Historical note: the mixture of horror scenes and a trial setting could have given interesting results if one is to judge by the recent "Exorcism of Emily Rose" (very good film but no relation, unfortunately), but in this film it just adds another layer of absurdity to the proceedings. Robert Wise has always been able to absorb the spirit of his times without being subservient to it (e.g.: Eleanor's car trip and the spiral staircase scene in "The Haunting" are an homage to the same scenes in Hitchcock's "Psycho" and "Vertigo" respectively, while remaining personal); but in this film, one senses a willingness to compete with the memory of "Rosemary's Baby", "The Exorcist" and "Don't Look Back" as well as the impossibility to do so because the underlying material and the reason to care are simply absent. I for one was thankful to stop hearing the little brat whine at the end of the film. But the thing that dates the movie the most and definitely relegates it to the putrid pile of 70's "new age crap" is the fact that, nowadays, the person who would be put on trial for murder is the irresponsible hypnotist quack whose work we are asked to respect and take seriously.
-
kipale7817 November 2006I saw the movie last night, and I have to say that I was shocked by the poorness of the plot, the bad acting and the absence of the director touch; the producers tried to get a good hit with a really low budget, and it would be interesting to know how the film did in 1977.
The movie is full of awkward scenes: the girl screams and runs into thing, and the parents just look at her and run to the phone; the tribunal scenes are going nowhere.
M. Mason is overacting beyond any limits and, poor woman, she has to support over her shoulders one of the worst scripts ever: A. Hopkins seems lost and the actor playing the role of the father is useless (and have a very bad written character). I guess she thought she would film the new Exorcist, and she found herself in a low level exploitation of that trend.
Watch The Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby, and The Omen series. They are way better directed and have a strong script. And they are much scarier and leave you with a sense of unease that lasts.
The only interesting scene, and there you see the director's touch, is when the little girl has a crisis and runs all over the house followed by the mother: everything is filmed from behind a window, and you can only hear the noise of the rain. Too bad the scene is then ruined at the next take. -
This movie absolutely terrified me. I watched it alone one night and that was a very big mistake. I almost wet myself. I literally turned the lights in the house on about half-way through the movie. I love a good scare, but this was a little much for me. Things kinda settled down by the ending. Thank God.
This film shows an insight to something that could very well be true. Although I don't believe in reincarnation, this movie made me wonder. But, I still don't believe in it. It was good to see Anthony Hopkins as a younger man again. When I first saw him, I didn't know who he was. I was shocked when I finally realized who he was. Marsha Mason and John Beck play the parents of their daughter Ivy (Susan Swift) who is having night-time terrors of reminiscing about a life she never lived.
See this movie if you are horror buff, see it even if you aren't. You will be absolutely horrified. AUDREY ROSE: 5/5. -
lost-in-limbo1 February 2006An English man tracks down a young girl to New York who he believes that the girl is the reincarnation of his dead daughter Audrey Rose who died in a car accident over 10 years ago. He starts following the girl and her parents, and then suddenly he keeps on ringing their house and trying to confront them why he's here. After deciding to hear what the man wants with their daughter, he reveals that from psychics he was told his daughter was alive and well, and he would like to part of the child's life. After hearing that the parents don't feel same way, the father is totally against it and think his a nut but the mother's mind starts to change when their daughter who every now and again looses consciousness and goes out of control, with her strangely burning her hands on a cold glass window and the only one who can calm her down during this hysteria is the English man.
I remember the first time I tried to watch it, I kind of dozed off during the second half, but I won't blame the movie for that even though I kinda found that particular half far less gripping, but I blame it more towards my tired state of mind. Really, this a isn't a film to watch when your buggered out and I found that out the hard way. So I thought maybe my perception would change this time around. Yep it did, but not by a huge amount. The weak links of this flick is the tedious pacing and the pushiness of the actual topic in making you believe, which are really hard to push aside. During that second half it seems stick out and the characters and their relationships seem to get lost in the subject matter. When the first half is so promising with it building on the interesting story and mood, but when it gets passed the hour mark and leads into the courtroom sequences. Disappointedly I just couldn't care less what happened next. Maybe the slow mode of it had just got to me, but I thought that's when the plot got a bit more numb and banal when the reincarnation subject really took hold. Interesting idea, but the theories weren't so enticing. Although I got to hand to them as the context could've come across as quite silly, but the guiding hands stop it from heading in that direction. The script is rather thorough and complex; maybe sometimes too over dramatic and overwrought, but more often it hit the mark. Also this is based on the novel by Frank De Felitta (which I haven't read), who also penned the screenplay for the film.
Obviously it was made on the back of 'The Exorcist' success with moviegoers. Although, the film pretty much reminded me off the more superior 'Don't Look Now'. Both share certain similarities, but the main one would be that of its depressingly, hurting atmosphere. Here the film feels like a telemovie, but Robert Wise achieves a beautifully presented production. On show is prominent cinematography of the big apple and its incredibly well defined direction by Wise. He constructs some intense sequences, which involves a decent opening and a couple of unnerving fits of hysteria by the child. Plus it gets an extra tick in my book for going for an ending that will leave you more depressed then you were before. Some might feel like it's leading up to something big and wonderful. I hate when they give you a sweet and happy ending, so not to offend, but actually I give credit here because it doesn't take away from painful awe that flowed throughout. I know some people with either love it or loathe the ending. So if you don't want be depressed, steer clear away from this as I assure you it's a real downer. Where given a real gloomy and uncertain tone, but the chills seem to be lacking here. There are one or two moments, but definitely not enough to sustain the running time. The proficiently brood score and sound effects chime along with enough elasticity to ruffle some feathers.
A more than decent cast come up with okay performances, though there's one shining light in the pack. A young Anthony Hopkins gives a controlled performance as Hoover the Englishman. The parents played by John Beck and an impressively realistic Marsha Mason hold their own. Susan Swift was reasonable if little uneven and nagging as Ivy / Audrey Rose. Wise directs a subdued thriller that has a plethora of ideas that flicker between the on and off button. It's just too bad that the solid ensemble cast and crew came up with a real mixed bag.
Overall it's a tepid spiritual thriller/drama, which does contain some memorably effective moments, polished direction and a standout performance by Marsha Mason. Just that it got a bit hard-going towards the latter half of the flick and the drama of it falls away into tiresome territory, but still this is worth a peek for its involving matter. -
lee_eisenberg28 February 2007At face value, "Audrey Rose" looks like a cheap "Exorcist" ripoff at best. But it does make one consider the possibility of reincarnation, as widower Anthony Hopkins tries to convince Marsha Mason and John Beck that their daughter is the reincarnation of his daughter, who got killed in a car wreck. While much of the movie does come across as sort of silly - and the ending is a little confusing - some scenes really tense you up.
Anthony Hopkins and Marsha Mason certainly make the most of their roles, while John Beck actually has little to do. Although Hopkins says the title a little too much, he still invokes fear. Even the girl at times seems a little creepy.
So it's not a great movie, but worth seeing. Back when Robert Wise directed "West Side Story" and "The Sound of Music", who would have ever guessed that he would direct this one? -
Anscules30 July 2018The only thing worthwhile about this embarrassment is the opening 20 seconds or so. Very moody, intriguing, even brave.
Everything after that is hopeless. Clearly aping The Exorcist (Marsha Mason isn't fit to drink from Ellen Burstyn's shoe), the film ends up being a weird hash of TV movie and student film... even Marsha Mason bashed it one year after it came out (!). Really, Wise must've been directing this from the catering truck or something.
A few things that had me almost hating this ting from the opening credits (none are spoilers). Everyone is smiling so hard their faces will break, even when doing something no real person would smile during.... like being alone in a dark room. Ear to ear smile in a home dark room looking at the 10000000th shot of your kid? No. When the girl is handed a single balloon by her dad in the park she practically explodes with glee, running around like a person with some sort of a problem. All of this serves to fulfill a dreadful movie cliche: all of these people are soon to be miserable so let's see the counterpoint. Look how far they've fallen. It's on the level of junior high emotional appeal...
Then, mom waits outside her daughter's school door. The instant the bell rings - in fact I believe the ringing overlaps this - kids begin pouring out of the doors. That's not how it works. Kids don't line up against the door looking at their parents through the glass waiting for a bell that allows them to open the door.
That's the kind of movie this is.
Finally, the worst part. Cinematography. Some of the ugliest, phoniest garbage I have ever seen outside of 1970s network tv shows. Any sequence in the apartment is utterly hideous, with light glaring off actors' cheeks and coming from all directions. Nobody's house interior ever looked like this.
Oh. I spent a good stretch of the film with the subtitles on and sound muted because the girl's performance has got to be one of the most annoying things I've ever heard. See this and tell me you aren't moved into any other emotion than annoyance at all the whining.
Flabbergastingly awful.
I only wrote this review bec so many seem to be lukewarm about it. -
ma-cortes29 October 2020A fine movie centering on a mysterious stranger , Anthony Hopkins , attempts to convince a happy marriage , Marsha Mason , John Beck that their daughter , Susan Swift , has been reincarnated , cementing the fears of the unsettling mother and indeference of the incredulous father . Parents of the young girl are terrified when their small child is having dreadful dreams. The nightmares go on suggesting that none other than Lucifer could be at work . Ultimately , the story contains a staggering misjudged final . And a moving trial at the Criminal Court with a defender lawyer : Robert Walden , a state prosecutor : John Hillerman and an accused Man: Anthony Hopkins .
This one deals with thorny subject of reencarnation , but not one in the long line of demonic kiddie pic , though some critics have considered this one as a slow-moving take-off on The Exorcist . This is a very impressive , and sober-minded film in medium budget with adequate interpretations . Terrific acting by Anthony Hopkins as the widower persuades Mason and Beck that their daughter may be his dead child who died by a car crash and nowadays returning to life. Very good cast is hampered by slow-moving and some boring filmmaking , adding a tense and suspenseful musical score by Michael Small, as well as an atmospheric cinematography . The movie is notable for giving a strikingly sober portrait of the incompatibilities of marriage and especially focusing on the emocional plight of the paranormal malarkey , however, packing a weak staged ending . Adapted by writer Frank De Felitta from his best seller novel .
The picture was well made by Robert Wise giving a hard-hitting direction . This American filmmaker whose work became more variable as his career progressed , generally at his best with sinister issues or small-scale . His break as a filmmaker came when producer Val Lewton hired him for The Curse of the Cat People . His best films are rightly clustered in the ten years that followed from 1944-1953 as The Body Snatchers , furthermore Born To Kill , Blood on the Moon and The House on Telegraph Hill . But the best movie from this top-notch period is The Set-Up with a typically gritty interpretation from Robert Ryan. Subsequently, he made a movie that triggered the revival of Science Fiction genre : The Day the Earth Stood Still . After that , he directed two flag-waving WWII films : Destination Gobi and The Desert Rats about the African campaign . The known drama I Want To Live ¡ won an Academy Award for Susan Hayward . The successful and superb ghost story : The Haunting considered to be a terror Cult Movie. And the extremely Oscarized West Side Story and The Sound of Music and the really spectacular The Sand Pebbles , The Hindenburg , Star Trek the Motion Picture , and the intelligent Sci-Fi movie : The Andromeda Strain , among others. -
Quag713 April 2006I can see why someone would like this film.
That being said, I found this movie to be irritating to watch.
First, the kid screams *constantly* for the first part of the film. Shrill, high pitched screaming. While I understand that this was necessary for the role, I just wanted her to shut up. So utterly grating was her high pitched screeching, that I lost any sympathy for her character. I wanted someone to just clock her good, to shut her up. You can tell she was directed not to immediately respond to Hopkins's interventions. I was deeply annoyed at the directors for this because it prolonged the howling. Again - probably good direction in service of the story, complete agony for me.
Second, the mother is a constant emotional wreck, which is annoying to watch as well. Again, I admit - necessary for the film, but it got so incredibly tiresome watching this woman in a state of constant distress. Take a Valium already or go to church or just off yourself, please, for the love of god, the constant worried crease in your brow is making me dyspeptic. Pull yourself together, you miserable cow or at least, please SHUT UP.
Then, there were the predictable plot devices, where the father refuses to believe Hopkins's claims and motivations. The hostility - necessary and consistent with the believability of the plot, was tiresome and obligatory. Yes, we get it, you think the guy's either a shyster or a nutcase and you're hostile to him. Can we please just flash forward a week or something and get past this? We know we're watching a horror movie with probably supernatural overtones. Can we all agree as audience and filmmakers that yeah, the guy is all skeptical as anyone would be, in real life, and then just jump forward? Every stupid film dealing with the supernatural makes us go through this. The skeptic in horror films is like a placeholder. Perhaps flash a title card, "For the first 45 minutes of this film, the father was skeptical, and very angry at those who weren't." It would save a lot of screen time.
(It's like television, too - you have a super genius but non-traditional cop who is *always* right, over and over, yet every time he posits some kind of theory, his chair-warming superiors scoff at it even though the cop has solved like 400 cases in the last year and is never wrong. TIRESOME.)
Then, as others have mentioned, there is the tired 70s new age crap. I can't really expound further on this, except to say, 70s new age crap sucks. (See the movie "Serial" for a fun send up of all of that garbage.) Not a horrible movie by any stretch, but for me, at least, completely unpleasant to watch. Whatever virtues there were in the story, they were overshadowed by my boundless discontent.
Maybe you can sit through this and see the kinda okay movie underneath all of these annoyances. But you'd better be okay with the sound of screeching children.
I would also warn you that creepy mustaches abound, as they apparently did everywhere, in the 70s. -
Overlong, pointless reincarnation-thriller takes its cue from "The Exorcist" in that it places a young girl in traumatic, metaphysical circumstances. Anthony Hopkins is well-cast as a mysterious man mourning the death of his little girl Audrey Rose, who perished in a car accident many years ago. He enters the lives of a New York City couple, claiming the soul of their preteen daughter Ivy once belonged to his child (he may be right, but what does he want done about it?). Hopkins is terrific in the film's early scenes, but eventually his speeches about reincarnation and the eternal struggle of souls become tiresome. As the girl's parents, Marsha Mason and John Beck are an unlikely couple; Mason's character (usually on the verge on tears) makes no sense, while vapid Beck is obviously out of his league alongside such acting heavyweights (occasionally twitching his model's mustache, so thick and perfect I expected someone to rip it off him). As the hapless Ivy, Susan Swift screams and cries convincingly enough, and I liked her hypnosis scene at the end, but she's an untrained child-actor with a limited range. Worst of all is a laughable courtroom sequence wherein a handicapped woman is wheeled in to tell her story and goes into such precise and incredible detail about a car wreck that "Audrey Rose" for a moment becomes a self-parody. Director Robert Wise, who interjects footage of natives and their reincarnation rituals into the mix, hasn't the visual style for this kind of material. The film has a dull, square look. There is a striking sequence involving a bonfire, and the well-mounted finale is nicely-done, but Wise is discreet in the worst way. He tiptoes around the plot-holes in the screenplay as if acknowledging them would be too rude. That doesn't make him a smart filmmaker--just one who is out-of-touch. **1/2 from ****
-
rainking_es9 June 2006I don't know if the prestigious director Robert Wise wanted to make a thriller with this story of a young girl who happens to be the reincarnation of another girl (Audrey Rose) who died the same day that she was born. I've said that I don't know if he wanted to make a thriller 'cause the fact is that the movie is so boring, so slow and so reiterative. The way it ends it looks more like a propagandist manifesto in favor of the Oriental philosophies, the "karma" and all that stuff I couldn't care less about. Besides, the actors are not that brilliant and it's one of the poorest works of Anthony Hopkins (as far as I remember).
In short: a movie without any real attractions.
*My rate: 4/10 -
Ivy Templeton is a preteen girl living in New York City in the 1970's. She does daily activities with her mom and dad, goes to Catholic school with lots of friends and has the picture-perfect family life. Her mom and dad are sophisticated and live in a high-class apartment and have high-class friends. One day Ivy's mom notices a strange and sad-looking man watching Ivy on the street corner. He begins to stalk the family and they believe he may want to molest or attack Ivy. As it turns out, he used to be the successful owner of a large steel factory in Pittsburgh until his wife and daughter were killed in a horrible accident. His daughter's name was Audrey-Rose, and he believes Ivy is her reincarnation. The Templetons are skeptical until Ivy begins to act erratic and harm herself and the strange man, named Hoover, warns that Ivy may be in danger. Audrey Rose was based on a book by Frank De Felitta. It was highly popular and stated to be "the scariest since the Exorcist". Audrey Rose had very good acting, a beautiful soundtrack and a creepy plot, but what really made it good was the ending, as Ivy is hypnotized and goes backwards through different stages in her life. This was probably very difficult for the actress to pull off so considering that, it was a very convincing scene in the film. Audrey Rose shares elements of films like the Lovely Bones and Alice, Sweet Alice. It's really worth watching.
-
gavin694213 October 2014A 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). -
lutheranchick3 January 2006Marsha Mason is alright in this film, but Susan Swift (the little girl) delivers all of her lines in two ways-- a happy whine, or a sad whine. The sad whines are a lot louder. Perhaps that is why her parents seem oddly underwhelmed by the mishaps that befall her in the film. At any rate, the script is pretty terrible, mixing real Hindu theology about reincarnation, which should be respected,--- with crappy 1970's hypnotic regression crap that belongs in the new-age dustbin. I can't believe anyone ever found this movie to be scary, but perhaps the subject matter itself-- reincarnation-- was seen as forbidden and "occult." Today it is just a snooze, and Anthony Hopkins must be glad to be out of the career slump that had him taking on films like this.