How annoying is that girl?
I mean really. I felt like throwing her out my window.
share[deleted]
I just saw the last 35 minutes of Audrey Rose and I have to agree. Her performance was spotty at best. Maybe I'll give her 13 year old self a break. If I can stand to do it, I'll watch it from the start next time it's on.
shareI finally cracked and turned off the DVD. That girl was utterly annoying.
"Perhaps we can learn a lesson from this tragedy like don't steal and don't be disturbed."
Sorry, I have to disagree. I think it was a remarkable performance by a child actor, especially in the '70s when child actors were so dreadful. The scenes of her hysteria could be overlong and repetitive at times, but that was the director's doing, not the actress's. In fact, I think her ability to maintain that emotional level and switch back and forth between the two "souls" was very impressive. Now, Linda Blair in The Exorcist (before she becomes possessed)... that was an annoying performance!
share..and I will have to disagree with you as well.
Comparing Linda Blair to this girl fairly silly, in my opinion. I BELIEVED Linda Blair was Pazuzu. I didn't believe anything about this movie other than the little girl knew how to stare vacantly at the camera and whimper. But that's about it.
Comparing Linda Blair to this girl fairly silly, in my opinion.
...and I have to disagree with your 2010 self. Linda Blair was embarrasing as a normal little girl. So dorky. Once the makeup was on she did great but a lot of that wasn't even her voice or her head.
★ share
The dorkiness of Regan pre-possession was simply her character. She's smiley, happy, loves her Mom and horses, and is friendly to everyone. That's why it's so shocking when she slowly begins her horrifying transformation. A sweet innocent girl becomes a portal for a great evil that must be stopped...
But that's not "Audrey Rose." It's not so much that her constant screaming was annoying (she is going through a very bizarre and scary experience throughout. If I were in her place, I'd be screaming my head off too) but it was because she had no personality. Not the actress, the character. We don't know a thing about Audrey Rose/Ivy. We know about Regan because she displays her true dorky self and we are told details about her from her Mom, doctor, her Mom's assistant and housekeepers, that it's not like Regan at all to swear at doctors or tell astronauts they're going to "die up there." Audrey/Ivy are both just objects, pretty much. We know this is an extraordinary occurrence, but we have no glimpse into Audrey's life before her death or Ivy's life before her possession, so we can't be shocked at Ivy's transformation because what do we compare it to? Ivy's parents don't say anything about her personality. Anthony Hopkins's character doesn't describe Audrey Rose, just her bedroom. Hard to get worked up about somebody you don't know about when watching a movie, no matter if it's demonic possession, reincarnation, or being chased by a chainsaw wielding maniac wearing a mask of human skin.
I agree. I thought her acting was fantastic, especially for a first performance.
You don't make friends with salad.
Linda Blair is awesome in "The Exorcist," before being possessed and after. Sorry, but the girl in "Audrey Rose" is not good at all . . . Probably why people don't even know the title to this movie anymore.
share
I do to, it was the 70's after all. I think she did a great job.
[deleted]
she didn't have TWO souls, she had ONE soul <that is what reincarnation means: one soul that goes into another egg fertilizing some time after it's former body dies
Don’t you ever let a soul in the world tell you that you can’t be exactly who you are -Lady Gaga