What makes it different from others?

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

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.

All in all, the movie was really boring. I love old movies, but this was so off-the-wall it wasn't palatable. The ending was horrible, IMHO. That's not a spoiler, just my opinion. If you love old movies...don't get fooled into watching this. There is no character development, the plot is flimsy at best. The first half hour or so is compelling and has the makings for a good movie...if the plot hadn't unfolded as it did. Anthony Hopkins gives a great performance, but it's not worth watching the movie to see it. I don't know why it false into a "psychological horror" category because some creep telling you your daughter is reincarnated is more annoying than anything.

I found this film extremely enjoyable as it was so original with concepts about reincarnation way ahead of its time (1977), and I really don't know how it could have been shortened or sped up as suggested by some as it seemed all the necessary information was relayed to us as it only could have been, step by step - otherwise, it would have been confusing.In short summary, a mysterious man seems to be stalking a seemingly happy family, until we begin to learn the family is not so happy, as the young daughter has frequent terrifying nightmares, and pretty soon the man watching her from afar, despite all prejudice from the father especially, becomes her saviour as he seems to comfort her during her traumatic episodes. There is even a court case later on - who would have thought of this in 1977, let alone today - concerning WHO the child really is! I won't say anymore.... I don't understand why this film has received such a low score here, even if the acting and directing are not top-notch, just the sheer originality makes up for whatever might be lacking. I believe we should cherish films like this that make an effort to step out of the ordinary, out of the mundane film world of car chases and bombs going off and inane conversations. This is a film that can make you think, if you let it - hey, maybe, this, or parts of this, are really true!

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.