|Page 1 of 53:||          |
|Index||524 reviews in total|
If you completely ignore anything and everything that has to do with
the Amityville stories, then this is a pretty decent horror flick. Ryan
Reynolds turns in a very effective performance, reminiscent of Jack
Nicholson in "The Shining." By the end of the flick, i was scared of
the dude. The rest of the cast was solid, as well. Lots of scares
throughout the film, but a little too much of the "MTV style" editing,
especially in the last fifteen minutes or so. But all in all, a decent
effort, just like i said.
If you're going into this expecting any resemblance WHATSOEVER to the book, the original film, or any of the stories told over the years, you're going to be severely disappointed. The filmmakers have pretty much left out the events that transpired in the novel and the previous film, and instead they take an extreme amount of liberty with the story and turn it into a series of stylized Hollywood scare tactics. Don't get me wrong, this is still effective, but if you're going to release a movie and promote it as "Based on the True Story" then you might wanna make sure that the movie at least RESEMBLES the original story.
In fact, George Lutz is currently in litigation with MGM films over the content of the movie, claiming that it shows his family in a potentially damaging light. When you see the flick, you'll understand why he's upset. I can't fault the guy.
If they had left the Amityville name off of this one and just released it as some generic haunted house movie, then i wouldn't have so many issues with it. But to even associate it with anything Amityville-related just seems wrong to me, because they have completely screwed it up. I would still recommend the film, and just caution potential viewers to forget everything you've ever seen or heard about Amityville. Otherwise you'll walk out of that theater just as annoyed as i was.
A remake of the film by the same name from 1979, which was based on Jay
Anson's book about a supposedly "true" haunting, Amityville Horror
begins in familiar territory by showing us Ronald DeFeo, Jr. (Brendan
Donaldson) murdering his family. A year later, newlyweds George (Ryan
Reynolds) and Kathy Lutz (Melissa George), with three kids from her
previous marriage in tow, buy the vacant house at a steal, although
they hesitate a bit once they learn why it's so cheap. Strange
occurrences begin not long after they settle in. George becomes
increasingly impatient and hostile, daughter Chelsea (Chloe Moretz)
begins seeing the dead DeFeo girl, and so on. The film recounts their
very brief but tumultuous stay at the home the Lutz's believed would be
their dream home, but which turned into a nightmare.
After seeing the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003), which had the same production team, principal scriptwriter and visual effects team, and which I loved--I gave it a 10--I was completely psyched for the Amityville Horror remake. After all, unlike my view of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), which I also gave a 10, I think the 1979 Amityville has more than its share of problems. I like the original in spite of that, but producer Michael Bay and crew had plenty of opportunity for improvement. Unfortunately, although some aspects of this remake are better in my view, it suffers from a host of new problems. Like the first, the assets are good enough to transcend the flaws so that it squeaks by with a very low "B", or an 8.
In my view, there are two primary problems, with at least one a bit ineffable. The more effable problem is that relative newcomer director Andrew Douglas (his previous effort was 2003's relatively little-known documentary Searching for the Wrong-Eyed Jesus) instructs cinematographer Peter Lyons Collister to shoot the film using way too much close framing. I repeatedly felt the urge to take a couple steps back so I could better discern the action, the settings, the staging of scenes, and so on.
The second problem lies more in the realm of writing and editing--the film just doesn't seem to flow right. The transition from scene to scene often feels almost arbitrary. Even though Reynolds does a great job in his transformation as George Lutz (and the acting is superb all around), there was a sense of buildup in the original that this remake is missing. Further indicative of the transition problems, although seemingly minor, is the fact that the date, or the day of the Lutz' stay at the home, is sometimes given as a title and sometimes not. It seems like they just forgot to add the day titles for half of the scenes. Overall the final cut gives an impression of being hastily put together.
And that's a shame, because there is a lot of potential here. The house itself is impressive, as it needs to be, and the overall style of the film is nicely atmospheric. I was also impressed with the production design by Jennifer Williams, which among other assets tends to have the period setting spot-on. For example, I was a huge Kiss, Alice Cooper, etc. fan during this era (and I'm still a fan). Williams has a number of Kiss and Cooper images in the film. She very carefully ensures that none are anachronistic.
Even though scriptwriter Scott Kosar disappointingly expressed a lack of enthusiasm for Anson's book and the original film, he reintroduces a number of elements from the book that work well, but which were left out of the original film. He also introduces new scenarios that in some cases are among the best material of the film--such as a breathtaking sequence on the roof of the home, and the extension of the mythology behind the "haunting". He also greatly improves on sequences such as the babysitter. But on the other hand, he inexplicably changes core elements of the story, like the kind of being that Jody is.
Anyone frustrated with the typical horror style of the later 1990s and early 2000s may find this remake troublesome. As one might expect with Michael Bay producing, Douglas is encouraged to use "MTV-styled" cinematography and editing. There are a number of extended techniques that have become somewhat clichéd in recent years. Douglas has characters do that fast headshaking movement ala Jacob's Ladder (1990). There are sections shot in a cinema vérité style. There are instances of quickly changing film stocks and processing methods, and so on. Even though I usually love all of that stuff, and I'm actually a fan of Bay's work, I have to agree that it's not exactly the most natural fit in this case. But for me, it's not something I would subtract points for either.
Maybe the most surprising fact is that this version of Amityville Horror is so close, structurally, to the original. There is nothing here that is a big surprise, and anyone who has seen the 1979 film a number of times will know exactly what's coming next, or close enough to it. Whether this is positive or not depends on your opinion of the original film, and just how highly you cherish originality for its own sake. Big Amityville fans and big haunted house film fans will probably enjoy the film enough. Everyone else should approach with more caution.
My advice: Don't see the 1979 version first, don't think about it too hard, pretend it's not based on the "true story", and just enjoy this great horror film. It may not be a timeless classic, but its fun. The thing I liked best about this one is that everything makes sense. There's no cliffhangers or overly complicated mystery that never gets explained. It's just 89 minutes of very frightening ghosts popping up and some surprisingly appropriate acting. In fact, I would say this movie has one of the most petrifying ghost scenes ever.(The boy in the bathroom!)The costumes/makeup were really good too. Also, I loved Ryan Reynolds in a scary movie. I thought his quirky style was a perfect complement to the cast. He makes a smooth transition from Van Wilder to Blade 3 to Amityville because he seems to just be himself.
In terms of cinematic legacy, the original "The Amityville Horror"
managed to foreshadow both "The Shining" and "Poltergeist" while
swiping a few nods from "The Exorcist." But time has not been kind to
the hit 1979 horror film, once considered spooky but now considered at
best a camp classic.
The remake opens in the late 1970s, with George Lutz (Ryan Reynolds) and his new wife Kathy (Melissa George) getting what appears to be the deal of a lifetime. A colonial era Long Island home that is within their price range has just come up for sale, and the two decide the place would be perfect to raise their children, all from Kathy's previous marriage.
Little do they know that the house comes with loads of supernatural baggage. The previous owner had killed his entire family within 28 days of moving in, claiming there was a demonic presence in the home that drove him to do so. It's not long before strange things start to happen with the new family as well.
Chelsea (Chloë Grace Moretz) starts seeing the ghost of the previous little girl who occupied the house, Billy (Jesse James) and Michael (Jimmy Bennett) see supernatural activity while also being blamed for the trouble it causes, and George begins to go mad, taking increasingly drastic steps to maintain order and discipline the children. It's not long before Kathy begins to suspect that all is not right in their quaint little home.
"The Amityville Horror" is such a mediocre film, you can't help but wonder what was once considered so shocking about the original story. In truth, with all the negative reviews the original movie received, it's obvious that that film (and its numerous sequels) is merely famous for being famous. The thing that most people seem to remember is the front of the house itself, which actually is scary looking. It's just a shame there's never been a horror movie filmed in the house to do its spooky appearance justice.
The other thing to note is that the remake still claims to be based on a true story, which is partially true. The real life Lutz's account was eventually proved to be a hoax to cover up the fact that the family couldn't pay their mortgage, but not before the family made millions on everything from talk show appearances to the movie rights.
The movie never really lets you into the horror that is occurring, and director Andrew Douglas does a very workman-like job directing the story, never really doing anything to interest us in the characters or situation. Special effects run amok, like walls that ooze blood and jack-in-the-box scares like decomposing ghosts jumping out at you, but it's all for naught. The movie can only scream "boo!" at you so many times before you start booing back.
Acting-wise, the movie is decent but not terribly inspired. Just like Jack Nicholson in "The Shining," Reynolds seems to lose his sanity just a tad too early for the rest of the story to be believable. As Kathy, George manages to be the emotional anchor holding the film together and does a good job, however her character puts up with far too much stress before she finally acts. The child actors all do okay, but they merely exist to be put in danger.
So, what was the purpose of remaking a horror movie that hasn't aged very well over the last quarter of a century? The main reason I can think of is the house itself, which still manages to scare people. Other than that, there's a big market for remaking classic horror films right now, though hardly any of been able to justify their own existence, including last year's "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre," also produced and written by the same team behind this film. "The Amityville Horror" is likely to join that undistinguished canon, ultimately being a horror movie about a group of people too dumb to leave a house just because the script requires them to stay. It's movies like this that make you want to root for the ghosts.
5 out of 10 stars. It's hard to feel sympathetic for characters in a movie who have to stay in a stupid situation just because the script says so.
When it comes to making a film in Hollywood these days it would appear
that they are running out of original material. Any film that is over
10 years old has the chance of being remade but the real question is
which will be better. This is a film that breaks the normal mold of
being awful compared to its predecessor. I actually really enjoyed this
remake and found myself more scared in this one than the original. Was
this film Better? No. But it holds its own on its own merits. Having
read the book, this one is a little more true to the story and for that
I applaud the film makers. The film was very good and I rate it in my
Horror Hall of Fame.
In this particular version of the film it could be said that it was more accurate to the original book. And for those who consider this to be a hoax there has never been any proof either way. It is quite interesting to hear people who think they are authorities on the matter. Most people probably have not even read the book. There have been more than one book written about what happened in the house and the house the stood on the same location prior to the incident with the Lutz family. This film represents more than just the book the Amityville Horror. It takes its cues from the different novels that have been written about the event and the location.
This movie is very scary, and has lots of good jumps in it. The director of the film was obviously very interested in not making a film that came across as a remake but one that could stand on its own merits and not those of its previous incarnation. When I go to a film I judge it by several different criteria since I used to be a movie critic for a reputable newspaper. These criteria are the following. 1. How did the movie effect the audience in general? 2. Storyline cohesion. 3. Special Effects (ie. did they detract from the movie, overpower the movie, or just assist in the telling of the movie) 4. Can it stand on its own if its a Prequel, Sequel or Remake. 5. When I left the movie did I feel like I had been part of it (ie Suspension of Disbelief)
When I look at the Amityville Horror it scored highly in all of these categories, especially the last which in my opinion is the most important of the 5. When you walk out from a film and you were ready to leave because the movie was good enough to make you feel as if you were part of it, it was just a good movie. Most people have preconceived ideas about what a movie should be like when they go into it. I on the other hand go in as blank slate as possible so I can take the movie for its own worth and nothing else. It is a suggestion that I would give to all movie goers, don't go in prejudging a film because of the movies prequels, or predecessors. This movie is a prime example of trying to compare it to the original. The two movies were very different takes on the story and should be viewed as such.
Okay, let me start out by saying that I only started watching scary movies with "Signs." I loved it, and it really scared me. Since I saw it, I've been watching lots of horror movies, and so far, haven't found one that scared me as badly as "Signs." I saw the movies that people said were the scariest ever, like The Excorsist, Saw, and Scream, but I really found none of them scary. Finally, I see Amittyville Horror, and let me say: I loved it. It came near scaring me as much as signs! There weren't many kills, which I hated about typical slasher, and generally, it was the mood and atmosphere that scared. I will admit, though, I never saw the original, but really, I loved this movie. I would highly recommend it to anyone that likes horror movies!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
After seeing this movie I had to admit it was the absolute worst movie I have ever seen (Battlefield Earth included). When this train wreck of a movie was finished I had to wonder...did the script writer and/or director even read the book or see the original movie???? Refresh my memory..at what point in the book does George Lutz become an axe wielding psychopath??? Where does it mention some ignorant Indian killing preacher that lived in the house and had a torture chamber in the basement? When in the hell did they get this stuff. I seriously think dimension films owes me a refund for the time spent at this movie. I went to their website, but there is no way to contact them, no surprise there. If they keep putting out garbage like this I wouldn't want anyone being able to contact me either. I really don't remember any part in the book or original movie where Mrs. Lutz turns into some Bruce Willis one-liner spouting action hero. "No one dies today!" before wacking George with a shotgun or whatever the hell she picked up. If I were the Lutz's I would be ticked to be portrayed in this way. After making this movie, poor Ryan Reynolds actually has to keep Blade Trinity and Van Wilder on his resume as his best work to-date. Sorry Ryan, hope things get better for you. Please avoid this movie if you can, and if you did already see it, let me know if you know how to get a hold of the studio so I can demand a refund.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
*There MAY be spoilers, although you will probably thank me for the
one's I point out*
For those of you who haven't seen the original?
Do not see this movie.
For those of you who have?
For the love of God, stay away from this movie!
Now, I've only seen about 80% of the original Amityville, with chunks missing from the middle, but I think I can safely say - the original was better than this train wreck in every way:
1) The new Amityville is not a horror movie
This requires a bit of explanation - the remake is not a scary movie; it is an occasionally surprising movie. Sure, there are dead people, ghosts, blood, etc, but it's nothing horrific, per se. Hell, how hard is it to scare somebody when they're sitting in the dark staring at a 40-ft lighted screen and surrounded be loudspeakers? If I were watching a movie about puppies and you suddenly shifted the screen to a picture of kittens, but played a really loud 'scary' sound effect, I'd probably sh*t my pants.
2) The term 'Remake' is very loosely implied
It would have required a lot less time and energy just to make a new film, instead of butchering the original plot to make room for more "BOO!" moments. Whereas the original showed the father, George, slowly coming under the influence of the house, it seems that after stepping foot in this new version of the house, George goes completely psycho. Within a week he's yelling at his stepchildren and bitching at his wife. Oh yes the house... now, like I said, I didn't see ALL of the original, but I'm pretty sure I don't remember the part where the spirit of an evil Quaker Oats guy, who tortured Native Americans and then committed suicide, was the cause of all the trouble. Again, maybe that's just me. (Also, did I miss the part with the crazy ass, pot-smoking babysitter in the original? I don't know!)
3) The Dog
In the remake, they find it necessary to have George axes the hell out of the family dog, and then show it's mangled corpse. In the original, I seem to remember George running back into the house after his family escapes just to save this dog! Now, one may seem sappy, but the other one involves a mangled dog corpse, so you can see which one I prefer.
4) The Softcore Sex Scene
The softcore sex scene between George and his wife, Kathy (played by the surprisingly hot Melissa George), it starts out with so much promise! She disrobes and mounts her husband, which is followed by a minute and a half of implied humping where you get a great view of her back from the waist up. So far so good. And then... *BAM* Dead girl being hanged. My reaction? "JESUS! What the f*ck?! God damnit! That's... God DAMNIT!" And so on, so forth. Definitely one of the movie's most startling moments, but also it's most brutally disappointing. You expect a treat, and you get sucker punched right in the family jewels.
I could go on, but I think by now you've got the picture. Having seen this movie at the dollar theater, where I got a half-off discount because it was Tuesday, I can safely say that I feel grossly overcharged for having wasted my time on such a blatantly bad movie.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This is easily the worst remake I've ever seen, apart from The Haunting. The original belonged to the 70's school of effective, atmospheric horror films, and although a bit silly, works. This failed on every level from the terrible pacing, confusing narrative and comical 'scarey bits'....It was unoriginal and obvious in the way a Muppet movie would be and played on every horror cliché in the worst possible way. The characters were fillers.....Completely unbelievable and served only to drag the story screaming to it's conclusion...In the horror genre reality is not a requirement....Feasibilty is !...You only need to suggest it might be possible and your audience will go with you...The film assumes it's audience has never seen any film, horror or otherwise....It took up 90 minutes I my life...I want them back !
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
All i can Say is why bother! The film is so far from the truth the only
Factual part of the film is the first 5 minutes.
I think it is pathetic that you get parts that are similar other films like when the priest walks up to the house with the black case just like in the exorcist.
The film portrays George lutz as a raving lunatic that kills his dog and scares his kids.
I really think they shouldn't have bothered. I understand that there has got to be some fictional parts in to make it more scary but for people who have read about the Amityville Horror it is pathetic.
|Page 1 of 53:||          |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|