Vincent Canby of "The New York Times" wrote: "The soul of the movie is that of "The Exorcist" instantly recycled." Gene Siskel of the "Chicago Tribune" gave the film three stars out of four and called the first hour "excellent" but the second half "pretty bad ... The picture falls apart as it turns into a dumb legal melodrama replete with cross-examination and a hypnotized key witness." Charles Champlin of the "Los Angeles Times" praised the "first-rate acting" but added "In a way, 'Audrey Rose' may go too far in denying the mystery and proclaiming the certainty of reincarnation. The handling denies the story of some of the spookiness of an exercise in style like "Don't Look Now," and the literalness has a way of putting off those who might be willing to go along for the ride." For "Newsweek", Janet Maslin wrote that "Audrey Rose" lacked "not only any sign of intelligence, but also that other prerequisite of a good horror movie - fast pacing"; and Judith Crist in the "Saturday Review" wrote that the film "starts out as a titillating little thriller, but after 20 minutes, it bogs down in a series of minilectures on reincarnation that wipe out whatever dramatic potential the story might have had."