adtron12-1 Saw it in the theatre in the 70's. Just to let everyone that doesn't already know, it will be available on 4K and DVD MAY 29th.

Rainey Dawn All - everyone - give outstanding performances in this terrifically terrifying story of reincarnation. I was about 3 years old when this film came out but was introduced to it as a pre-teen or teen. Anyway I saw it a handful of times as a teen and watching it again all these years later I have to say the film still gives me the chills.Peter Proud has nightmares, he seeks help in a dream clinic and later he and a friend feel he must be experiencing flashbacks of a previous life - Jeff Curtis. Peter sets off on a journey to find out who Jeff Curtis was and why he was murdered before.The film is a little graphic at times, mainly with sex, rape and murder - but that is NOT all there is to this film - it's mainly Peter "finding himself" or should I say "finding Jeff Curtis".9/10

inspectors71 I certainly think so. I've never seen anything with Kidder that didn't make me cringe with embarrassment while wanting to spritz with Holy Water.Now, let's back-track to the review I was planning to write.J. Lee Thompson's The Reincarnation of Peter Proud, based on a novel by Max S. Ehrlich, is a perfect reason for people to giggle and point at the 1970s. It's a dopey, overly-dramatic, performance-free glob of hippie-dippy spiritulalism, perfect for anyone who wants to get in touch with the silliest of the Me Decade. If you know anything at all about the Hindu belief in the journey of souls through reincarnation, don't be shocked when Hooey-wood takes the idea and turns it into a lugubrious chunk of nonsense about some rich New England dimebag who gets murdered by his wife, and his soul pops up- -for totally no reason at all--thirty years later in a young university professor.If it weren't for the mystery that Michael Sarrazin's Peter Proud has to unravel to explain his out-of-his-body-and-in-somebody-else's dreams, all we would have would be lots of naked people swimming and sexing, principal characters driving around Massachusetts in gigantic Chevrolets, everyone looking as if they are in the death throes of painful mortification, and Margot Kidder, painted up with flour in her hair to make her look old, swilling bourbon, and, I am not kidding, soaking in her bathtub while masturbating to the memory of her no-good-nik husband raping her in 1947. On occasion, there is some real mystery here, but every time the story begins to treat the audience as a group of adults--instead of dim teens--Thompson and screenwriter Ehrlich throw in some nonsense that stops everything dead in its tracks.Sarrazin goes to the house of his previous self (good time for mysteriousness, right?) and we spend more time gawping at the pudgy teenager in the tight shorts who wants to jump Peter's peter.We're adults here, right J.? Then treat us as such!By the end--and if you didn't see it coming, you must be new to movies--we're left with nothing solved but for Kidder's character's liver glowing in the dark. 105 minutes of nonsense and nothing to show for it.Unless watching Kidder play with herself is all you need in a motion picture.

Catharina_Sweden This was a very good movie! It was one of those movies that you just can't take a break in - it was that exciting! The plot proceeds at all times and there is not a dull moment.The idea is also original. Although there are a lot of stories about reincarnation, these usually are about people who are somehow brought back to their previous lives several centuries ago. I cannot remember that I have ever before come across a story, in which the main character died only 35 years ago in his previous life. Which means that he can go to see the people he were involved with in that life, because they are still alive. It opens up for interesting moral dilemmas, such as: can you have a love affair with someone who was your child in your previous life, or is this incest..?Reincarnation is of course always an interesting theme, because it is such a fantastic possibility to contemplate!I think the category "horror" was a little wrong for this movie though, because it is not that kind of movie by which you get your thrills from suddenly seeing something scary - such as a ghost. It is more of a crime/mystery story, actually.It was not possible to foresee the ending, which is good, but I wish they had chosen an happy ending... The main character had not done anything to deserve this ending.The reason I give this movie only 8 stars instead of 10, in spite of the fact that I found it so exciting, interesting, and original, is the fact that there was too much and too explicit nudity and sex in it. You could almost call it a soft porn movie. This was of course typical of the 1970:s - but I do not like it.I think ordinary feature films which are not labeled as porn should not continue porn either, because this can be offending to some people. It can also be very unsuitable and embarrassing, if you have rented the movie to watch it in the company of for instance your teenagers or your older relatives. To be honest, I got embarrassed when I watched this movie although I was alone in the room, because I feel some things should be done in private...