Audrey Rose

In 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")

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).

I'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.

Robert 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.

"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).