Too much of everything

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

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.

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.

Remember, this was 1977, a good ten years after the Beatles had invited us to consider all things eastern spiritual (Hare Krishna anyone?). This movie is premised upon the belief that reincarnation not only happens, but that people can recognize others from prior lives and those reincarnated can have memories of their previous lives. Both are dubious claims, but hey, it's a movie.What I kept waiting for was for anyone to give a counter argument against reincarnation. But not only does this not happen, it is not even raised as a possibility! And these parents have their daughter is a Roman Catholic school! Excuse me, can anyone say Incarnation, as opposed to re-incarnation??? The "examination" of reincarnation is so shallow as to be laughable, and Marsha Mason's instant acceptance of it (on the stand!) is sadly preposterous. What kind of psychic vibes Anthony Hopkins got that he would "recognize" a two-year old as his two-years deceased daughter is never explained, but could have been a poignant example of grief and displacement, if the movie took another direction. I don't know how anyone can consider this film to be "intelligent" when there is absolutely no opposing viewpoint (except that Audrey Rose is Ivy). And for those who believe in reincarnation: what did Ivy do to deserve the "karma" of dying on the hypnosis table?

Maybe I'm biased. When I was looking for something to spice up the Halloween mood Netflix recommended this movie to me. I enjoy paranormal horror films and was looking for the moody, psychological thrill that the 70's horror films seemed to have in spades. That was not delivered to me with this film.On it's own, Audrey Rose isn't a bad movie. Not great, but not bad. I don't know how I feel about Marsha Mason on a whole. I don't think she added the dramatic oomph that I was hoping for from her character, but she wasn't bad or a distraction, which is more than I can say for the little girl. I thought that the actress playing Ivy was awful the majority of the time, non-sympathetic and obnoxiously pouty.But the real issue with the film is that I felt cheated. I was promised a horror story and instead I got one of reincarnation. This film is really more of a courtroom drama if anything. Aside from my issue with how the film is presented, I also found myself annoyed that the filmed seemed to allude that those who believe in reincarnation are the only ones that believe in life after death and can therefore be comforted instead of bereft.All in all, this film served as an OK drama about the benefits of Hinduism. If you walk into it knowing that maybe you can get more out of it than I did.