Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

GL84 Noticing a stranger hanging around them, a girls' parents begin to feel uneasy after he claims that his young daughter has been reincarnated into their daughter yet when a series of strange accidents begin plaguing the family they realize the deadly truth too late to stop them.This one didn't have that many positives. One of the biggest is the sense of realism attached to the whole affair in that there's a real sense of this outlandish concept actually happening. These are played out mostly as panic attacks which become much more dangerous as they go on, letting them have a sense of being built up effectively. This makes them seem like an action to be feared as what's going to happen to top the last one remains a big aspect of the film overall. The majority of these are based on the idea of reliving the car crash that killed off her older self or throwing the furniture around the room which adds a special bit of action with the final one being long and really agonizing while even the actions to soothe her are quite thrilling and take on a sort of uneasy feeling. The film's highlight is the action carried out in the playground where there's real suspense as the rush to stop it from happening and the genuinely disturbing act itself make for a great scene. It works beautifully and really manages to get the film's sole creep-out moment. The only other fun part is the central idea of possession here is uniquely carried out, coming from a really creative viewpoint and offering up something that feels new and fresh. Otherwise, this one wasn't all that terrific since this one does have some pretty big problems. One of the biggest problems is that there's really very little in here that is actually scary. While the constant freak-outs and erratic behavior might be unsettling for some, most of the time all it seems like is just a repetition of the same thing over and over again. After a while, it just produces a feeling of what room will it start in now which doesn't inspire any frights. That's not an entirely scary activity, and to have that become the sole purpose of the creepy behavior isn't that grand a concept since it simply feels like it's been seen before. This is also compounded by the relative lack of fear generated by the event. There's nothing in here that should make the viewer afraid of the act sense all it boils down to a young girl throwing screaming fits every now and then. Had the possession brought on more frightening acts or the fear of what the possessed girl would do under the influence of the victim would've been far more frightening. That is the film's biggest flaw, as well as not providing anything resembling an explanation for the events. That would've been a really rewarding aspect, had it ever been given why this was occurring. The last big problem is that it really feels drawn-out and could've been shortened quite easily with too many scenes that go on and have no real bearing on the film. These are the film's biggest flaws and keep the film from really making its mark.Rated PG: Language and Mild Violence.

Knox Morris I just watched Don't Look Now, and after viewing it I found myself recollecting memories of a little film by Robert Wise that was forced into obscurity, Audrey Rose. I saw Audrey Rose on a cold Halloween night for my annual "scary movie" viewing, and I was disappointed not by the film but by the fact that it really isn't that scary. It's chilling, ultra-atmospheric, and very suspenseful, but by no means terrifying. At the end I felt empty, something the director probably intended, because that's basically what the story suggests. The plot, based on a source novel by Frank De FeLitta, was inspired by an actual event in which Felitta's daughter played the piano perfectly despite having never touched one in her life. Some of his preachiness manages to seep into the screenplay, sometimes resulting in little moments where someone who completely doubts reincarnation would roll their eyes. However, the audience is so captivated that they accept what's going on. This acceptance should be accredited to Wise, who found the idea of returning to the world fascinating, but knew not everyone would be under the spell. For compensation, he puts the atmosphere at the fore front, keeping everything on a segue. Sure, the film sometimes allows the material to appear sententious and John Beck's performance is as wooden as hell, but the disorienting camera work and acting turns from the three leads (Hopkins, Mason, Swift) are all virtuoso. Anthony Hopkins, here in a role before James Ivory and The Silence of the Lambs, and even Richard Attenborough's "Magic," gives a performance so perfectly minimalist that his character's emptiness might evoke Donald Sutherland in Don't Look Now, a film primarily fueled by its structure coat fit for Hitchcock. But now, 40 years after it's initial release, this supposed Exorcist rip-off proves as ambitious as "Contact" and utterly original.

TheBlueHairedLawyer 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.

eytand94 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.