Search

» » Audrey Rose (1977)

Short summary

In New York, Janice Templeton is happily married to executive Bill Templeton and they live in a comfortable and fancy apartment with their eleven-year-old daughter Ivy. One day, Janice is stalked by a weirdo and she tells her husband. Soon afterwards the stranger contacts them and invites the couple to meet him in a restaurant. Elliot Hoover tells Janice and Bill that his daughter Audrey Rose died eleven years ago, burned in a car crash, and her soul has been 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 able to calm her down. When Elliot abducts Ivy, Bill and Janice go to court to have him arrested. But Elliot wants to prove that Ivy and Audrey Rose are the same soul.

Brooke Shields screentested for the role of Ivy Templeton. Shields posed for the cover art for the film's source best-selling novel. Confirmed by Susan Swift in 2016.

According to the book, "The Case for Reincarnation" by Joe Fisher, the screenplay for this movie was inspired by an actual incident in source novelist Frank De Felitta's life. Hearing expert ragtime piano coming from his family's music room, he was astonished to discover it was being produced by his six-year-old son, who had never had a music lesson. "My fingers are doing it by themselves, Daddy!" the boy said. "Isn't it wonderful?" The experience set him to contemplating the possibility of reincarnation. Website Wikipedia states that the film's source "...book ("Audrey Rose" (1975) by Frank De Felitta) was inspired by an incident in which De Felitta's young son began displaying unusual talents and interests, leading an occultist to suggest to De Felitta that the child might be remembering a previous life."

This is the only one of his films for which Director Robert Wise had a full week of rehearsals before shooting.

Final horror movie directed by veteran Hollywood Robert Wise, who is more known for the classic musicals West Side Story (1961) and Tutti insieme appassionatamente (1965), but who had previously helmed the terror flicks Gli invasati (1963), La jena: L'uomo di mezzanotte (1945), and Il giardino delle streghe (1944).

Susan Swift had an acting coach hired for her by Robert Wise to assist her with her difficult and demanding dual double title role.

Debut theatrical movie of Susan Swift.

Robert Wise once said of this movie: "I don't think we're going to prove reincarnation in this picture, but I'm very open to the whole possibility of the supernatural, the paranormal, the possibility of dimensions out there."

The film was released two years after its best-seller source novel of the same name by Frank De Felitta had been published. De Felitta also penned the screenplay for this movie, and was a Producer.

Frank De Felitta wrote a sequel to the novel called "For Love of Audrey Rose", which has never been filmed. It was published in 1982, when Entity (1982), adapted from De Felitta's 1978 novel of the same name, debuted.

Marsha Mason told columnist Rex Reed in 1978 that she was unhappy with her character in this movie. "All I did was cry. It turned the picture into a Greek tragedy."

The film was often compared and likened to L'esorcista (1973), of which some public and critics were saying the film was a rip-off, inspired by, part of a cycle, influenced by, a copy of, similar to, of the same ilk or genre, or a knock-off. It has been alleged that Susan Swift was directed to look like, resemble, and shown in particular camera angles to signify to audiences, Linda Blair from L'esorcista (1973).

The movie ends with a quote from the Bhagavad-Gita, as with the novel. The picture's closing credits quotation epilogue states: "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..." The Bhagavad-Gita

Robert Wise has said of the improvisational technique utilized in this film in his autobiography "Robert Wise on His Films: From Editing Room to Director's Chair" (1995): "Mine is a prepared approach with ample room for improvising as we go along. We had a sequence in the bedroom between Marsha Mason and John Beck in which they get to a very high, angry pitch, and it wasn't right somehow, as written in the script. I suggested that at the end of the day's shooting, we get John and Marsha into the bedroom, and just let them improvise the scene to see what they could come up with. They got into a really tough argument, much better than the one we had. Frank De Felitta had a tape recorder, and he taped everything. Later, he went back to his office and re-wrote the entire scene, taking elements that the actors had come up with in the improvisation. That's one of the few times I've ever done that kind of thing, and it worked."

Debut cinema movie as a Producer of Writer Frank De Felitta. The film remains the only lead producing credit for De Felitta for a theatrical movie, though De Felitta was an Executive Producer on ZPG, un mondo maledetto fatto di bambole (1972), for which he co-wrote the screenplay.

Susan Swift received an "introducing" credit.

First of two novels written by Frank De Felitta, that have been adapted into theatrical movies. The second was Entity (1982).

Jon Pertwee was the original choice for the role of Elliot Hoover, before Sir Anthony Hopkins was cast.

The place where Ivy Templeton's (Susan Swift's) parents lived, was the Hotel Des Artistes in New York City, New York.

Frank De Felitta performed a few roles on this picture. De Felitta was a Producer, the Screenwriter, and the film's source novelist.

Susan Swift portrayed two roles in this movie: Ivy Templeton and Audrey Rose.

The title of the academic treatise, which analyzes this movie in depth, is "East Meets West: Representing the Possessed Child in Frank De Felitta's / Robert Wise's Audrey Rose (1977)". It was written by Adrian Schober and published in 2004 in the journal Literature/Film Quarterly (Volume 32, Issue 1, pp. 60-70).

Just as there were two personalities inhabiting the body of Ivy Templeton (Susan Swift), there were two personas named "Ivy" associated with the movie, the title character (Susan Swift), and Ivy Jones (Mary Lou Sides).

User reviews


  • comment
    • Author: Mpapa
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Budar
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Faezahn
    I 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.
  • comment
    • Author: Andromathris
    Audrey Rose is a very intelligent horror movie, but it is not as creepy as its original source - the novel by Frank De Felitta. On the acting front, Marsha Mason is both believable and sympathetic as the frantic mother, Janice Templeton. It's a shame that both Sir Anthony Hopkins and John Beck seem to have their minds on other matters, as if they were not enjoying being a part of this movie. Making a fantastic debut, Susan Swift is quite remarkable in the dual roles of Ivy Templeton and Audrey Rose Hoover. The climax, however, is more depressing than moving.
  • comment
    • Author: MrDog
    "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).
  • comment
    • Author: Winawel
    "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.
  • comment
    • Author: Snowseeker
    I remember seeing this movie in 1979 on television and being pretty rather freaked out by it then, but I was a kid, so I recently rented it and found it to just as disturbing and actually very sad, too. I think the actress playing Ivy/Audrey, Susan Swift, turned in a VERY good performance as the tormented child. I'm not quite sure what another reviewer on here is even referring to about being "whiny" at all. An Marsha Mason's empathetic performance is enough to bring you into the insanity of the situation she's forced into. No surprise that Anthony Hopkins is also incredibly good in this film as the mourning father of Audrey Rose. I do find it interesting how similarly the movie deals with a possessed daughter and distraught mother as "The Exorcist" did, albeit with much less violence and gore.
  • comment
    • Author: Cenneel
    I 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.
  • comment
    • Author: Marg
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Mushicage
    This movie will touch you deeply. It is a profound, unforgettable occult story. The movie has a very strong ending, which I feel is important in a movie. Many movies fail due to their ending, not so with this movie. This is a very unsettling, intelligent, and haunting movie. It is a movie in the vein of Rosemary's Baby. Movies like Rosemary's Baby, Audrey Rose and the Exorcist put to shame bad movies like the Omen and other stinkers. "Audrey Rose" will please anyone who wishes to see a mature, thought provoking chiller. Anthony Hopkins is at his best, and Susan Swift is phenomenal. It is a great movie to watch on a dark, rainy evening. Highly recommended.
  • comment
    • Author: Dominator
    "Interesting" seems a necessary component of entertainment, and after the first 15 minutes AUDREY ROSE fails to meet even this basic criterion. Robert Wise is capable of good stuff: there's not much wrong with BLOOD ON THE MOON, or DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, or SOUND OF MUSIC, but he is sometimes the most boring filmmaker who ever lived. STAR TREK THE MOVIE is some kind of historic low-water mark, and there are many others. This is one. This movie would be depressing if it were good enough to inspire any emotion - a girl dies tragically, then her soul is reincarnated in another girl, who, uh, dies tragically. Fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be, instead it simply sucks.

    The premise is compelling, and there is good acting here, but Frank De Felitta's script fails to explore any of his story's potential value, and ignores its many inherent contradictions. If "the soul is free", as his hodge-podge of Eastern mysticism purports, why does Ivy suffer death due to Audrey's trauma? Her soul didn't look any too free when it was thrashing around on fire, trapped in nightmares of its previous incarnation's demise, drawing Ivy to the same doom. What good, then, does Hoover do when he calms his daughter's soul-descendant in her panic? Does she recognize him as Daddy? Do I care? Not much, but apparently more than De Felitta and Wise did. Rather than consider any of these questions, Wise and his scribe prefer to linger for leaden minutes on the minutiae of police, medical and legal procedure. This stuff is supposed to be creepy, a banality of horror-type thing, but it's merely frustrating. Sure, those elements worked in EXORCIST: but there was a movie behind them.

    Anthony Hopkins is a dependable manic, and Marsha Mason, even when married to John "a jaw is a fine substitute for a talent" Beck, is a credible and sympathetic performer. Susan Swift alternates between outrageously good and howlingly awful in her turn as the fatal juvenile. None of these fine people is able to salvage whatever usefulness there may have been in the bestseller, and concurrent decade-long national obsession with the paranormal, that gave AUDREY ROSE life.
  • comment
    • Author: JOIN
    I 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.
  • comment
    • Author: Flamekiller
    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")
  • comment
    • Author: Dark_Sun
    ***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.
  • comment
    • Author: Modimeena
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Oso
    About 3 or 4 years ago I bought the novel Audrey Rose at a fair because the summary at the back seemed interesting. I started to read it, and wow! What a story! Incredible, such a story that you read once and remember for ever. It took me only 2 evenings to read it, couldn't stop.

    Now I have a DVD player and while browsing IMDb I noticed there's a movie of the story, from 1976. I searched for it on DVD and was soon able to order it. Last night I watched it for the first time.

    (minor spoilers) Let me say that the movie did bring the book to live. The thing I am most happy (well, so to speak) about is that they left the original ending unchanged, as sad and depressing as it is. No Hollywood 'happy ever after' this time. Through the entire movie I recognized all scenes from the book. I'm not a very big Hopkins fan but here he did portray a good, and sad, role. The girl, Ivy/Audrey.... why hasn't she done more movies than the 5 or so she did? She was very believable, and in the end scene, even though I knew what was going to happen, she had me paralyzed with fear for Ivy and compassion for Audrey. Just thinking what Audrey must have gone through in her final moments is enough to make your stomache cramp and you eyes tear.
  • comment
    • Author: GoodLike
    I revisited this film recently, after having watched it numerous times as a child. I saw this film on T.V when I was about 7 years old & I remember how scary it was...definitely not the case now. The main problem with the film is the acting. Overacting must have been the "In" thing in the mid seventies. Marsha Mason & Susan Swift are the worst offenders, making their performances laughable at best. Anthony Hopkins was not particularly effective, but there are glimpses of the sinisterness of Hannibal Lecter in some scenes. Given this was directed by Robert Wise, it really should have been better. However, it is nothing more than a poor imitation of The Exorcist with terrible staging, unsympathetic characters and a thread-bare storyline. Clearly there are some films that should stay buried...
  • comment
    • Author: Tar
    This appalling example of paranormal mumbo jumbo marked Anthony Hopkins first major attempt to move from the small screen and the stage to Hollywood. Apparently it did the trick for him, but Audrey Rose is nearly unwatchable primarily because of his over the top performance. The story itself is emotional claptrap of the worst kind, and Hopkins layers on the goo every time he's on screen, tempering it with some annoying verbal tics that probably work well on stage but don't survive the transition to celluloid. I kept hoping the film would improve, if only for the sake of poor Marsha Mason, but there's one absurd and laughable moment after another. My favourite is the trial scene, as an Indian guru takes the stand as an expert witness on reincarnation. Oy. Things weren't going to improve much for the venerable and respected Robert Wise, who went on to direct Star Trek: The Motion Picture, a film whose only crime is its numbing dullness. I'm not sure which movie is worse, but I'd just as soon avoid them both.
  • comment
    • Author: Akir
    I 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
  • comment
    • Author: JoJogar
    Marsha 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.
  • comment
    • Author: Lost Python
    The 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.
  • comment
    • Author: Ericaz
    "Audrey Rose" is a great drama / horror film that from it's beginning till' it's end, could be compared to the acclaimed horror film "the exorcist"...sure this film talks about reincarnation, and "The Exorcist" is about a possession, that may be the great difference.

    Anyways, "Audrey Rose" has great acting, a plot that cannot be taken seriously but the way it's handled during the movie automatically makes you be a part of it.

    *Minor spoiler* One "scary" moment is when Ivy runs through her house shouting the name "Audrey Rose" for several times, until Anthony Hopkins' s character appears in the scene. I liked the idea of taking a "specialist" in reincarnation to the trail where Ivy's future was decided.

    *NO MORE SPOILERS* In overall, this movie is a must see for those who wanna see a horror story that will let you wonder at the end of it...
  • comment
    • Author: Wenaiand
    Audrey Rose was a good movie to make fun of. I thought the whole idea was pretty stupid. I'm not dissing reincarnation, but first of all-- even if reincarnation does exist, something like that would never happen, which makes the movie not "haunting" at all. I found it all a bit confusing too. How could Ivy have ever been a fetus if she was Audrey Rose? What happened with the two parents-- why did they stay together? Elliot Hoover was also annoying and he should have just moved on instead of trying to steal the daughter away. If she was going to die anyway, why was he trying to take her away from her real parents? The movie was basically fun to laugh at, and of course I love anything with Anthony Hopkins. But the story was just really weird. I have the book, too, for some reason, and it looked even weirder.
  • comment
    • Author: Doulkree
    A husband and wife (John Beck, Marsha Mason) have a loving 12 year old girl (Susan Swift). However she keeps having strange nightmares that won't stop. They are visited by a strange man (Anthony Hopkins) who tells them the spirit of of his dead daughter Audrey lives in their little girl.

    The book of this came out in the mid 1970s. It was a huge hit and sparked off an interest in reincarnation. It was a long (over 400 or 500 pages) but engrossing read. For some reason Hollywood took its sweet time making this. By the time this was released there was no interest and this film failed almost immediately. Many people said it was made and released too late. To be honest though, this film isn't very good at all.

    The film is well-directed by Robert Wise and it looks fantastic (the Templeton's apartment alone is jaw-dropping) but there are numerous things wrong here. The script is simply dull. It's all talk talk talk--just saying the same things over and over again. This movie moves very slowly. The acting doesn't help. Beck is dull and lifeless. Swift isn't good either but her role WAS difficult and she was only 13. Even Hopkins (a GREAT actor) is terrible. His reaction to seeing Ivy running around screaming as Audrey was just so bad! Only Mason (a very underrated actress) gives a very good credible performance. Basically the film is too long, unfocused and dull. Mason's good performance can't save this. This still remains an unknown film for good reason! Read the book instead.
  • Cast overview, first billed only:
    Marsha Mason Marsha Mason - Janice Templeton
    Anthony Hopkins Anthony Hopkins - Elliot Hoover
    John Beck John Beck - Bill Templeton
    Susan Swift Susan Swift - Audrey Rose / Ivy Templeton
    Norman Lloyd Norman Lloyd - Dr. Steven Lipscomb
    John Hillerman John Hillerman - Scott Velie
    Robert Walden Robert Walden - Brice Mack
    Philip Sterling Philip Sterling - Judge Langley
    Ivy Jones Ivy Jones - Mary Lou Sides
    Stephen Pearlman Stephen Pearlman - Russ Rothman
    Aly Wassil Aly Wassil - Maharishi Gupta Pradesh
    Mary Jackson Mary Jackson - Mother Veronica
    Richard Lawson Richard Lawson - Policeman #1
    Tony Brande Tony Brande - Detective Fallon
    Elizabeth Farley Elizabeth Farley - Carole Rothman
    All rights reserved © 2017-2024 hd.thomson-multimedia.com