Audrey Rose

"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).

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).

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")

"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.

I 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.