The Amityville Horror

[moviegroupie]

Remake of the film from 1979 (go pink floyd). Stars Ryan Reynolds. has potential and we shall have to see , usually remakes don't go over well.

Credited cast:
Ryan Reynolds .... George Lutz
Melissa George .... Kathy Lutz
Philip Baker Hall .... Father McNamara
Jimmy Bennett .... Michael Lutz
Jesse James .... Billy Lutz
Chloe Moretz .... Chelsea Lutz

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/mgm/the_amityville_horror/_group_photos/andrew_douglas11.jpg

In Theatres April 15th (2005)

"kathy lutz can suck my nutz"

[Duke Nukem]

To me, this is more of a second adaptation than a remake. I liked the orginal, but from I'm told, it lacked a lot of the elements from the book. So, this 2005 version is a chance to be more faithful to the book. From that standpoint, I have no problems with this "remake" whatsoever. It just better not disappoint.

[ChemicalRomance]

I live on Long Island so I wanna go see it in Amityville. Maybe they're doing something special for it.

[Jimbo513]

I'll see anything with Van Wilder in it. That guy is an awesome actor and has the potential to be great. He totally made Blade 3.

[ilovemovies]

Hey it stars the guy from Blade III and Lauren Reed. As well as Phillip Baker Hall, an awsome character actor I haven't seen around in a while. Plus, the trailer is pretty damn creepy. I'm most definately there.

[TheDeadWalk]

I think the casting is a little off. Instead of casting a couple of twenty-somethings, I think they would have been better fit to find a couple closer to the side of 35, for realism effect. I see Reynolds and George and simply feel like it's eye candy bait.

I haven't seen the film yet, but already I'm not buying into this family.

To me it's like putting out another remake of Night of the living dead, and having Ben be played by Usher, or Mekhi Phifer. It loses that 'ordinary man', 'ordinary family' role.

[ilovemovies]

I don't see what's wrong with the casting. Besides, Reynolds and George are 28, turning 29 later this year. So they are almost in their 30's.

[Strider]

Hmm. I've never seen the original, and this remake doesn't look that great, but I'll check it out anyway. It could be a surprise.

Strider

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
I don't see what's wrong with the casting. Besides, Reynolds and George are 28, turning 29 later this year. So they are almost in their 30's.

It looks like Barbie, Ken, and baby Skipper.

What I meant by pushing 35 isn't so much the age, but the loss of the sex appeal. The film should be about a family getting terrorized in this house, that should be the focal point. I see George and Reynolds as a huge distraction to that.

Just look at the picture at the top of the thread. Reynolds in a comfortably tight turtleneck in a blatant way to show off his muscles for all the women.

I HATE that shit anymore.

[EvilEd]

Well, I could definitely see room for improvement as the original isn't exactly Texas Chainsaw or Poltergeist. Brolin was pretty good in the original and that's about it. From the trailers, this looks to have some pretty good imagery. I might check it out if I hear some good buzz on it, but other than that I could give a rats fuck about this flick.

And I hate how they sell this as being "Based on a True Story" How about "Based on a buncha lies." Yeah that works better. :D

[Jimbo513]

What I meant by pushing 35 isn't so much the age, but the loss of the sex appeal.

So you're saying that ghosts could not possibly want to spook the shit out of good looking, sexy people? You have to be middle aged and overweight to be tormented by demons?

I know if I was a ghost I would only hang around good looking, sexy women. Who wants to spend the afterlife staring at ugly chicks and fat dudes.

[Moviefan1234]

I'm really looking forward to this one. Good horror films are hard to find, and judging from the early buzz, set reports, and trailers this looks genuinely scary as well as an entertaining film.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by Jimbo513
So you're saying that ghosts could not possibly want to spook the shit out of good looking, sexy people? You have to be middle aged and overweight to be tormented by demons?

I know if I was a ghost I would only hang around good looking, sexy women. Who wants to spend the afterlife staring at ugly chicks and fat dudes.

What I said went way over your head.

It has nothing to do with what and who the ghosts want to scare. I'm talking about the film, and me as a viewer. I'm talking about marketability and target audiences, and how this film is supposed to give off that 'ordinary family in an extraordinary situation' feeling.

You don't get The Rock and Katherine Zeta-Jones if you want that feeling. Save these people for their standard pubescent stage PG-13 films, and if you want to sit down and make a serious horror film, then sit down and do it.

Where you got the "oh ghosts can't attack good looking people" theory is beyond me. I'm talking about my ability to sit down and enjoy a good show, or be blown away by its over-the-top unbelievable lifestyles.

Put G.I. Joe and Barbie back into the toy box and lets get some more ordinary, older looking people to play the parts. When you reek of glamor and hollywood, it detracts believability from the film.

[Fisting Ackbar]

Loathed the original, so for once I'm not complaining how this is just another pointless and useless remake and how Hollywood is out of ideas. That said, it looks alright; I don't care for Reynolds but George seems like a cutie and at least I'm glad it's rated R. I'll definitely rent it but not sure yet about a potential theater visit.

[Cronos]

i didnt think that much of the first film so this is one of the few remakes that i'm not bothered about, from the trailer it also looks damn kool

[Moviefan02000]

Can't believe this shitty looking flick comes out Friday ... I'll still see it, to laugh at it anyways.

[Joshmo]

I read the book shortly after it came into print. The trailer for the new film did more to creep me out (like the book did) than the original shitty movie)

Why do people feel the need to think its cool to say, they'll go just to laugh at a movie? That sounds so grade school ...or freshie, and not like a person who loves movies and wants to give them a chance before commenting on them...especially when a trailer is cut quite well. :rolleyes:

[Sandstone]

Originally posted by Duke Nukem
To me, this is more of a second adaptation than a remake. I liked the orginal, but from I'm told, it lacked a lot of the elements from the book. So, this 2005 version is a chance to be more faithful to the book. From that standpoint, I have no problems with this "remake" whatsoever. It just better not disappoint.

Me 2.....

[dellamorte dellamore]

Looks like almost every other pg 13 horror to comeout in the past couple of years , it's a cut and paste operation . Still looks half way decent , haunted house stories are always nice , even the mediocre ones . And the trailers are looking allright , this one could be a pleasant surprise .

[dellamorte dellamore]

oops , it's rated r , it only looks like it should be pg 13 :)

[MadsenOMC]

I think it looks pretty good and look forward to seeing it this weekend, but has anyone seen this fucking movie yet? I haven't come across a single review from an advanced screening and there seems to be very little buzz surrounding it, despite a solid trailer. What's the deal? Is that a bad omen?

[Duke Nukem]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
I think it looks pretty good and look forward to seeing it this weekend, but has anyone seen this fucking movie yet? I haven't come across a single review from an advanced screening and there seems to be very little buzz surrounding it, despite a solid trailer. What's the deal? Is that a bad omen?

Oh my gosh! A movie that Madsen actually thinks looks good! ;) Don't worry, just kidding, you don't need to explain yourself again:) Anyway, there's no sense in jumping to conclusions just yet over a lack of reviews from early screenings. It's only Monday and the movie comes out Friday. Usually, reviews for major movies like this start stacking up a little bit later in the week before the premier. However, somebody has already posted on www.IMDB.com upon an early screening and saying its good.

[Jimbo513]

What I said went way over your head.

It has nothing to do with what and who the ghosts want to scare. I'm talking about the film, and me as a viewer. I'm talking about marketability and target audiences, and how this film is supposed to give off that 'ordinary family in an extraordinary situation' feeling.

You don't get The Rock and Katherine Zeta-Jones if you want that feeling. Save these people for their standard pubescent stage PG-13 films, and if you want to sit down and make a serious horror film, then sit down and do it.

Where you got the "oh ghosts can't attack good looking people" theory is beyond me. I'm talking about my ability to sit down and enjoy a good show, or be blown away by its over-the-top unbelievable lifestyles.

Put G.I. Joe and Barbie back into the toy box and lets get some more ordinary, older looking people to play the parts. When you reek of glamor and hollywood, it detracts believability from the film.

Your point is valid but only works for a minority of movie watchers. Obviously, when you watch a movie you notice things like that. When I watch a movie, I focus on the movie itself. The plot, the acting, the scenes. It doesn't bother me that young, sexy looking people are playing a role that was meant for ordinary, run of the mill people. Most movie goers fall into this category. I bet you will hear way more people talking about whether this movie was scary rather than if big name stars made the movie not as believeable.

My point is, unles you are a die hard fan of the book (I have never read it, know nothing about it, didn't even know there was one) the fact that the 2 main characters are young and attractive and not ordinary people doesn't mean anything. As long as the actors give a good performance, it will be believeable.

Where are you getting that the couple are just 2 ordinary people? From the book I would assume, or the original. This is an adaptation, it doesn't need to stay true to the source.

And who says good looking people aren't ordinary? Seriously, put anyone in the roles from the biggest Hollywood names to people straight out of Drama class, as long as they play the part well it will work.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by Jimbo513
Your point is valid but only works for a minority of movie watchers. Obviously, when you watch a movie you notice things like that.

It doesn't bother me that young, sexy looking people are playing a role that was meant for ordinary, run of the mill people. I bet you will hear way more people talking about whether this movie was scary rather than if big name stars made the movie not as believeable.

My point is, unles you are a die hard fan of the book (I have never read it, know nothing about it, didn't even know there was one) the fact that the 2 main characters are young and attractive and not ordinary people doesn't mean anything. As long as the actors give a good performance, it will be believeable.

Where are you getting that the couple are just 2 ordinary people? From the book I would assume, or the original. This is an adaptation, it doesn't need to stay true to the source.

And who says good looking people aren't ordinary? Seriously, put anyone in the roles from the biggest Hollywood names to people straight out of Drama class, as long as they play the part well it will work.

I think you put up a good debate against this issue, especially when you say only a minority of movie watchers will notice this. However, I do happen to be one of those movie watchers.

I love watching films for what they are not just in appearance, but in the abstract substance. For example, I just watched Christine tonight for the first time in ten years, and the cinematography and mise-en-scene was just blowing me away with Carpenter's vision, and ability to tell the story from beneath the surface. I have a bad habit of looking at things like that, and when I see this story, so far all I see is a good surface, with nothing underneath but eye candy for the popcorn viewers.

I could be wrong, and time will tell because my girlfriend who is a HUGE fan of the original is making damn sure we see this one at the theater. So in time things could change, it's just really commenting from the peanut gallery.

The ordinary people thing was my basis from the original's story and original cast. Lutz was played by a 40 year old and his wife was around the same. It really gave off that feeling of the 'nuclear family' that allowed me to get in touch with the characters and their personality, and not merely for their physical traits (or ability to be suave or funny in a National Lampoon or Blade sequel.)

What I don't understand is that in one paragraph it makes it look like you're saying that to make these observations and critique I would have to be a major fan of the book, but a few paragraphs down you say that being an adaptation it doesn't have to stay true to the source material. I do agree with the latter, but the way that it is appearing to be changing isn't the type of pop culture change that I like to see in films nowadays.

I feel like I'm a dynamic person and I grow with my vicarious life experiences, so I have no trouble eating my words if I come out of the theater loving this film. However as of late, I'm losing touch with the popular culture, slowly separating myself from it. I no longer like to watch some of the hollywood surface popcorn films, that favor cute faces, blond heads, and 50 quick camera cuts that give me a headache during an action scene.

And like they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, and the one used by the thread starter is one that helped fuel my pre-existing theory about this film.

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/mgm/the_amityville_horror/_group_photos/andrew_douglas11.jpg

With this picture you really get that feeling that Reynolds is going to play a muscle bound Captain Badass that when the going gets tough he's going to start slamming through doors, and his wife who is a hottie, but obviously meek will start to be afraid for him, and either he will become possessed or she will think he is posessed and it will create some turmoil when Captain Badass feels the need to grab a weapon, and again, slam through doors like he does in the first two acts to get to some resolution while the wife is the thinker, and tries to come up with some answer but doesn't realize until the final act that only the daughter has the key to elixir, so they can move out of the house and go back to being the picture-esque perfect pop-up book version of the teenager's guide to what the nuclear family should look like.

Bahhhh, I'm tough on some things I know. And the above is in no way a spoiler, it's just some stereotypical stuff.

[chinton]

Didnt like the original maybe this one will be good

[dellamorte dellamore]

Hey , i'm not complaining , i'll take any studio released R rated film i can get at this point . And, believe it or not , that might actually help draw in some more genre fans , because we've been deluged by pg 13 so long , it's always nice to see that " adult" r rating dangling below the marquee . Much rather prefer unrated , but freak it , that's not happening for a while .

Now , hopefully they take full advantage of that rating . I don't want another Boogeyman , or even Darkness .

It looks interesting so far , and i don't care who is in it , i'm giving it a chance .

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore
Hey , i'm not complaining , i'll take any studio released R rated film i can get at this point .

It looks interesting so far , and i don't care who is in it , i'm giving it a chance .

I can definately understand that. Too much PG-13 bullshit nowadays.

But like I says to my man-whore of a friend... just because she's the best lookin girl at the bar, doesn't mean ya gotta take her home.

To inspire debate, as I wasn't expecting this answer from you... but how do you differentiate between my debate with this film, and a previous discussion that we had about cameo appearances, and how you thought they detracted from the film?

[Mystique963]

I have a question.

In the trailer that's in theatres, there's a song played in the very beginning while they're showing the houses. It's soft techno and the only other place I've heard it was towards the end of Mortal Kombat. If anyone knows the name of the song and artist, I would forever be in your debt because the song is awesome and I haven't been able to find it.

Sorry to interrupt any prior discussions... :)

[daddiefatsacks]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
I think it looks pretty good and look forward to seeing it this weekend, but has anyone seen this fucking movie yet? I haven't come across a single review from an advanced screening and there seems to be very little buzz surrounding it, despite a solid trailer. What's the deal? Is that a bad omen?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/amityville_horror/?show=all

so far it has 4 positive reviews and 0 negative

that's pretty impressive to me

[MadsenOMC]

I noticed that earlier today and was happy to see it.

[Sandstone]

ITs got 100% so far at rottentomatoes

[miguel_montes]

It's down to 75%: 6 fresh and 2 rotten.

I gotta say this one of the movies i'm most looking forward to see. Since I knew that babe Melissa George was in it, I was hooked... and Ryan Reynolds a cool dude, so...

[HHH123007]

The theater I work at had a screening for it the other night. I asked around as people were coming out of the theater. The responses I got were overwhelmingly negative.

The best I got was "It was alright" and "TCM was better", which is just as good as "It blew" to normal movie-goers.

[daddiefatsacks]

67% positive now

which is still overwhelming considering its a HORROR and a REMAKE

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by daddiefatsacks
67% positive now

which is still overwhelming considering its a HORROR and a REMAKE

True. We all know critics rarely embrace a movie like this. I just hope it's better than the rest of the abysmal horror movies we've been subjected to this year so far.

[Sigur509]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
True. We all know critics rarely embrace a movie like this. I just hope it's better than the rest of the abysmal horror movies we've been subjected to this year so far.

Try past few years.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Dead , i don't fully understand your question , i don't know what cameos have to do with this , all i'm saying is it's rated r and it's horror , so i'm automatically giving it a chance . That's the main reason i went to see Texas remake , and it paid off , 99 percent of the time i'll skip a film if it's pg 13horror , in fact i don't think i've ever seen one in the theaters , but i'm sure there is at least one i did , maybe .

[Kim_EZ]

Just saw a screener with Ryan Reynolds in the audience (he's SO funny). I liked it. But I also don't like the original. They definitely took some liberties with the background of the house, but it worked even if it felt a little forced at times. And Ryan's performance was scary (in a good way).

[ilovemovies]

It's now rotten with 54%.

The reviews are decidely mixed. Not surprising though.

[GingerNjack]

Originally posted by Kim_EZ
Just saw a screener with Ryan Reynolds in the audience (he's SO funny). I liked it. But I also don't like the original. They definitely took some liberties with the background of the house, but it worked even if it felt a little forced at times. And Ryan's performance was scary (in a good way).

See, I like Ryan Reynolds but I can't get comfortable with the idea of him in this role for some reason. I'll still see it though for sure.

[daddiefatsacks]

ok back to reality, its at 42%

but i'd still like to check it out now

[spacemonkey]

http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/2679/1901/lo/co4.jpg

Title: Amityville Horror (2005)

Director: Andrew Douglas

Cast: Ryan Reynolds, Jimmy Bennett, Melissa George, Philip Baker Hall, Jesse James, Chloe Moretz, Rachel Nichols

Review:

Me being a big fan and admirer of the original Amityville Horror film I was a little hesitant (as where many of you Im sure) about this new remake. Would it blemish the subtle spookiness of the 1979 version? Would it distract us with quick youth oriented editing and fx? Would it just plain suck?

By now everyone is familiar with the story of the Amityville haunting, the most famous poltergeist case in the world. Ronald DeFeo wakes up in the middle of the night and murders his whole family in cold blood and then blames it on "the voices" that made him do it. A year later the Lutz family searching for their first home decide to buy the home with the dark history in spite of what happened. Spooky shenanigans follow. And heres the scary part...its all based on a real life story!

The movie started on the right foot by keeping things very faithful to the real George Lutz's testimony of what happened. Id read up on the real events and some interviews they did to George Lutz himself where he explains the things that happened to him in the infamous house. I was very aware of what was going to be hollywoods taking artistic liberty and what was going to be "based on real life events", and I have to say that for the most part the film has everything that Mr. Lutz claims happened inside the house. The filmakers obviously took special attention in showing everything that Mr. Lutz claimed happened in the house and I really dug that.

But then comes the hollywood side of things. Adding certain events and twisting certain things around to make em more exciting...and Ill be honest, I liked hollywood twitching things around! It was fun! We get some of the truth sprinkled with some really cool make believe stuff that didnt really happened but makes for a damn fine haunted house flick! I guess if you look at the film without taking in consideration the "real life" events youll find that this movie is pretty damn entertaining.

Heres the thing though. I can see why the real Mr. Lutz is pissed at MGM and all that. George Lutz's character in this version is a few notches higher on the evil-o-meter! In the original George Lutz goes, well, a little nutz. But not even close to the level of evilness he goes to in the new version! On this one he really goes haywire and I had many flahsbacks of The Shinning during the last few minutes of the film. So I can understand why the real George Lutz might be pissed. But again, it made for an even more intensely entertaining picture so I aint complaining.

Another thing was that they switched the focus of the film on the ghost of the little girl Jodie. I can understand why they did that because of the current trend in the film industry of using spooky little ghost girls ala The Ring or The Grudge. Again, I wasnt complaining because it is part of the story after all. And also the spooky little girl scenario lended it self for some of the spookiest moments in the film, like the scene with the babysitter in the closet! That was intense!

Looking at the movie from afar, what the filmakers did was turn up the notch on the intensity of each sequence of the original. A good example of this was the babysitter bit. On the original she was this dorky girl with bracers on her teeth....on this one shes a horny dope smoking hotty with a mean streak! Another thing they did was take away the corny sequences from the original one, like for example that whole bit with the preast screaming in the church. I was kind of glad that they eliminated that sequence. Also gone is that psychic girl who helps them figure out that the whole in the basement is a "door way to hell" which lets admit was one of the corniest scenes in the original. Gone is also the "door way to hell" angle and it was replaced with something a bit more credible, but at the same time equally spooky and morbid.

Ryan Reynolds did a good job of portraying the crazy Mr. Lutz, but I must admit that his little jokes and funny remarks every now and then reminded me that this guy was a comedian after all and that he couldnt hold his funny side inside even in a film like this one, where hes supposed to be playing this really serious evil dude. But it aint all that distracting and it doesnt mess up the experience. At least not for me. Everyone else did a great job including the kids which were likable and credible.

By the way, Im really glad this movie was a hard R! Lets see that means we get to see some really bloody and gory moments which I savored like a plate of caviar...and then theres a really cool sex scene that was preatty decent in my book! Melissa George honey, you made my temperture go up! Kudos for you. And speaking of the sexy angle...the really exploited Ryan Reynolds new pumped up figure. They made sure he was shirtless quite a few times...not to mention that for a huge chunk of the flick his walking around with this pijama pants which seem like they are going to fall off and reveal his manhood at any given moment. So girls, theres some eye candy for you too. Enjoy.

All in all an entertaining flick that mixes the events that really occured with some really fun and well executed scares. Who cares if they changed things around a bit....the film was good! It entertained! The movie is fairly faithfull to the original and has some really cool new elements to it...specifically towards the ending. Theres this new character that was introduced that was just awesome and I hope to see him in further flicks. Fun times, go see it!

Rating: 4 out of 5

[TornDaredevil]

I was very disappointed. A lot of jump scares, but nothing that got under my skin. Reynolds was great, though. The kid actors were absolutely terrible, some of the worst I've seen in a long time, especially the little girl. But that one scene really got me, considering that I'm afraid of heights.

All in all, the movie just didn't make sense.

5/10

[mr_gamecube]

top notch horror!!! GO SEE IT!!!!

[B1rd_Po0p]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
What I meant by pushing 35 isn't so much the age, but the loss of the sex appeal.

:eek:

I'm "pushing 35" and I promise you I haven't even begun to lose my sex appeal!!!

:D

[michael_fan_1]

wana c really bad

[EDsoulsurvive*]

I had a great time during this movie. Many scenes had me on the edge of my seat with a hand on my face while the other gripped my arm rest. That's how I like my horror films; the ones that make you want to look away although i dare not take my eyes off the screen. Plus, i really really loved how passionately the f-bombs were dropped here. It was as if Melissa George and Ryan Reynolds knew that this would be one of the only R rated horror movies to come out in the first half of the year so they basked in every gore-laden, profanity-spitting minute of it. Speaking of George and Reynolds, I thought they were both excellent, especially George who was also amazing on Alias last year. I can't wait to see her next project.

On the downside of things, I think when things got more hollywood in the second half, the movie lost some of its footing. Some scenes were very unbelievable and felt a little cheap, what with all the buzz around what really happened. Fortunately, the ending was intense and entertaining enough to make me feel like it was all worth it.

However, in the recent trend of horror remakes - Texas Chainsaw Massacre '03 (9/10) and Dawn of the Dead 04 (8/10) - The Amityville Horror 05 was a new low. Considering the other shit thats out right now (Boogeyman 2/10 and Ring Two 3/10) and the fact that i did jump many times, I'd still take these remakes over the original shit that's being put out anyday.

7/10

[Mystique963]

I'm seriously jazzed for this one, i'll probably be seeing it on Tues. Thanks for the reviews, they're really cool to read without all the spoilers.

[Duke Nukem]

SPOILERS...SPOILERS...

This is another one of those remakes that I, and nor the world, had to see exist. It wasn't bad, it wasn't terrible, it wasn't unwatchable or anything like that, in fact it was enjoyable and had its good points. But, it just wasn't good enough.

With this second try at the infamoust "Amityville" stories, the filmmakers have (in comparison to the orginal) quickened the pace and jazzed up the film with more "scary" scenarios and ghostly visuals but it doesn't compensate for a thin plot that is clearly hinged by scare scene after scare scene after scare scene. There wasn't that much story or meat to go on, and this is the film's weakness (as opposed to the original's slow pace, missed opportunities and shortage of potential scares).

This film, in fact, is the opposite of the original in terms of strength's and weaknesses. I like the original, because of the constantly building dread the film picks up, scene after scene. Even if it there seemed to be missed opportunities, it had enough tense moments and good performances to make up for it. The story was also well thought, sorting out from the 1st to 28th day of the Lut'z stay in the house.

This remake starts off well, but loses itself as it goes. I didn't think that the progression from their 1st day in the house to the 28th was done as smoothly this time. They seemed to rush too quickly and loosely and I didn't like it. This film should have been longer, it should have been about 1 hour 45 minutes or so at least to properly show the progression of their stay and the crazy shit that goes on. They didn't need to rush the pace of this film the way they did. They didn't need to go with the "standard horror film length" make it a cheap 85-90 minutes.

Also, by the end of the movie, when Kathy Lutz FINALLY checks out old news articles about the house, despite ALREADY KNOWING that people died there before and that some crazy shit has been going on, and even after already talking to the priest who knew much about it, I was rolling my eyes like crazy. The way the Margot Kidder finally found out about the what was really up about the house in the original, despite the crazy shit going on, was done much better and more convincingly. The way it was done in the remake was just cheap. Oh, and the "Get out! scene... so much more cheap in this version; the original's presentation of this scene was much more effective.

The acting, however, is as good as before. Ryan Reynold's proved that he could acting seriously and be mean, daunting, threatening and scary. He was right up there with James Brolin. Another poster said that he still tried to get away with some cheap laughs, but I disagree. This makes up for the way he mucked up "Blade: Trinity." Melissa George was fine, but I can't say she was given that much meat anyway. Her character never really confronted her suddenly mean husband the way Margot Kidder did in the original. The child actors were fine, too.

One thing I abhored about this remake is the way the treated the "babysitter" sequence this time. I know that none of the "Amityville" films are "true to fact," and that they don't have to do the same things way every time, but I personally didn't like how the babysitter in this film was a completely slutty, idiotic, snanky, etc. She was a complete bitch who know nothing about babysitting and she even says so! Thank goodness least Jodie showed her...

I seem to be really down on this film, but I did enjoy it. I would give it **1/2 out of 4 stars. But, it should have been better than this. If I'm comparing it to the original too much, I can't help it. You can only judge a remake on its own terms so much. Sooner or later, you're going to compare it to the original. And after seeing this remake, I have to show appreciation for the original a lot more than I did before. I'm glad for this remake, only because it helps me appreciate the original for what it is, despites its flaws.

Note: in the beginning of this thread, I said how I looked at this film as more of a second adaption of the book than a remake. And, now I'm calling it a remake and comparing it to the original a lot. I'm not being hyprocritical. Upon seeing this movie, my thoughts on remake/second adaption changed as the film show its true colors. And, its a shame. Just as this remake could have improved upon the original's slow pace and missed opportunities, it speeds up the plot big-time and sacrifices the strong storyline for mostly cheap scares that should have been more genuine. There were some good scares, but this film was more superficial than genuine.

My ratings:

Original - ***
Remake - **1/2

[Mentiroso]

Ok just got back from seeing this. No major spoilers in my little post so any one can read it if they like.



To start off with, I never liked the original. I always thought that part 2 (The possession) was much better.This remake is a great improvement on the original though. Good cast overall. Ryan Reynolds is always good. Although at times it was like he was still in comedy mode, not horror movie psycho mode. But then again the guy is hilarious so it is hard to get that out of your mind while watching him in something other than comedy. The house looked equally creepy as the original so no complaints there. It has been a while since I read the original book but I think this movie was a little more true to the book than the orignal movie itself. I might need to reread it though. Over all I had a great time with the movie. 8/10.


Only complaint, at about 30 minutes into the movie which was a very packed house, I noticed a horde of ushers standing around. Well the movie stops, the lights come on and the manager starts yelling about people talking to loudly and cell phones. They had everyones tickets checked and kicked out about 20 people who did not have a ticket. The manager also threatened to have the next person on a cell phone kicked out by our local police department. Now at first I was a little ticked. Stopping my movie to do this crap?!?! BUT in the past I always wished they would do something like that but they never did so I became used to people talking to loudly to their neighbors and on their cell phones so I rarely notice it now. Besides that 10 minute break in the film, a good experience tonight. Hope to see more of Ryan Reynolds on the screen. Everything he has done so far is gold compared to most of the crap some other actors are putting out.

[jaw2929]

I went to go see this remake of the old 70's oriiginal horror movie (which I've yet to see actually) and the first word that came to my mind while watching, and after seeing this movie was:

SICK!

This movie was fuckin GREAT! It's gotta very dark feel to it, and it's basically about how a house is possessing one man to kill his family.... Reynalds does a GREAT job of playing the main character George Lutz, as over the course of 28 days you see him slowly change from nice boyfriend of recently widowed mom of 3 children... To pissed off mean as hell, psychotic son of a bitch!

The visuals in this movie were fucking excellent as well... I had a feeling of dread, and at one point I thought while watching "If I was between the ages of 6-12 I would've RAN the fuck outta the theatre, cuz it was so disturbing"!!!

It just gave me an uneasy feeling throughout, as I felt for the characters, and thought they were each played brilliantly! I HIGHLY recommend this movie, as it is BAR-NON the BEST Horror movie of 2005... I'll be buyin this bad boy once it's out on DVD, and I suggest you do so too!

[Jimbo513]

The manager also threatened to have the next person on a cell phone kicked out by our local police department.

Thats when I would have got the fuck up, demanded my money back, and called the manager bad names. Don't get me wrong, I don't like people talking on cell phones in movies either, but I would not tolerate someone making threats and treating grown people like 1st graders.

[B1rd_Po0p]

I saw this last night and I LOVED IT. It gave me the chills... Ryan Reynolds is so dang hot - with them washboard abs of his... All he needs is a shave and some Visine... :D

But seriously - I love a good ghost story, and even though some of the film was a bit muddled and felt rushed; as far as I'm concerned this one delivered the goods. I thought all of the kids were cute; especially the little boy. (He was the same little monkey from Hostage.) So I recommend to folks who can enjoy a good scary movie without picking it apart.

[Mentiroso]

Originally posted by Jimbo513
Thats when I would have got the fuck up, demanded my money back, and called the manager bad names. Don't get me wrong, I don't like people talking on cell phones in movies either, but I would not tolerate someone making threats and treating grown people like 1st graders.



Well the people using cell phones and talking loudly during the movie WERE acting like 1st graders so I felt the manager was doing the right thing. The rest of the movie was much quieter and no more cell phones. It was worth it.

[chinton]

heres my review


Remakes are the hot thing in Hollywood these days, specifically remakes of horror films. Now while remakes can be particularly bad things occasionally they can be a good idea. For example, take the new release of the film The Amityville Horror which is a remake of the 1979 horror film of the same name. The original film is now a dated and a very unscary movie, therefore it would be ripe for a revisit. Why remake a good movie when you can remake a bad one. While this new edition of the story is not great it is a decent standard horror film marred by a ludicrous last 20 minutes.
Now before one looks at the movie’s story let’s get everything straight right here. This movie says it’s based on a true story, but it’s not. Here are the facts. There really is a house like that on Ocean Avenue, which was the site for the murder of a family named the Defeos. The reasons behind it are less interesting as it turns out the father may have held connections to the mob and pissed them off. People still don’t completely know whether the son did it or not.
Then the Lutzs moved in and ran out 23 days later. They gave their experiences for the book that both movies are based on written by Jay Anson. Problem is the lawyer of the family has come out saying it was all hoax, made up because the Lutzs were behind on their bills. According to the story the ghost claims made an easy way to escape payment. What’s ironic is that even if the events were true the movie ignores the book even more then the original did. There was no boathouse, girl ghost, or Indian burial ground.
The story that is there is standard and partly cobbled together from the sequel to the original film. Ryan Reynolds and Melissa George play George and Kathy Lutz who find their perfect dream home. It doesn’t take long for George to start acting really strangely, and the daughter to be visited by the little girl ghost of the house. As things get worse it looks like George may be possessed, and Kathy is naturally perturbed by this.
That’s about it for the film as for as story or character development goes. This movie is exactly like every other horror film nowadays which are not really horror films but rather a series of loud noises and sometimes freaky images. Plot in this horror film and in The Grudge or any other recent horror film resembles not a deep, complex, or substantive thing but rather the haunted house ride at a typical carnival. The person gets in goes around in a circle while loud noises and boo scares pop up every two minutes and then it’s over. The person leaves and easily forgets he even went on a ride.
Admittedly, for a completely standard horror film this does have some decent boo scares as it should since that is the only thing it has going for it. There is one memorable scene inside the boathouse where the family dog meets his fate or another great scene with the babysitter trapped inside the closet. There is nothing ground-breaking about anything this movie does, and it’s fairly standard. Yet, the film uses it’s genre conventions fairly well.
Although, what’s really funny is that the most effective scene in the movie surprisingly has no gore or special effects or anything close to that. It is where the real estate agent is showing the Lutz’s around the house. She is obviously terrified to go anywhere near the house, but she must do her job to sell it. The scene becomes both creepy and funny as the audience knows why she is acting like this, but the Lutzs are in the dark.
Yet, then we get to the ending which almost single-handedly sinks this film. Of course, the movie has to give a reason why the house is evil which is silly in itself. It’s far more creepier if the mystery behind the house remains a mystery. Yet what’s worse is that the reason they pick out is depressingly cliché and unintentionally funny the way it’s handled. Then there’s the climax with crazy George that does not work at all probably because the way it plays out on screen is really stupid.
It’s funny, as much as this critic didn’t like the original but found the babysitter scene effective it’s interesting here to compare those two scenes as they really show how our horror film mentalities have changed over time. In the original, the closet scene was one of the few scares. It simply consisted of the daughter looking at the door with a dead stare, the babysitter screaming inside the closet, and then the lights going out where the babysitter starts to hear strange noises. In this movie the audience has the MTV generation version of it where nothing is left up to the viewer’s imagination. As far as what happens that won’t be spoiled here. This is not to say this version is bad, it just says a lot about how the movie viewing audience has changed. In the end, this film was decently creepy for the first hour. Too bad it had to be nearly ruined by a truly stupid ending.

5/10

[Dom Shady]

The Amityville Horror
6/10
SPOILERS!!!












The Good:
-Some of the "boo" scares were good.

-The psychology of the main character(Ryan Reynolds) was good as his character got crazier and meaner. "Katch 'em, Kill 'em"

-The scene where he makes the kid hold down the log while he's chopping it.

-Some chilling and suspenseful scenes.

-The gore, especially the little girl with the gunshot in her head.

The Bad:
-Some of the scenes seemed like they moved along too quick.

-They should have dumped the whole priest subplot because the priest had 2 seconds of screentime MAXIMUM!.

-The 12 year old brat didn't get killed! If anybody deserved it it would have been him. I would have reached a whole new respect for the movie if they had to balls to ice a kid. But movies don't do that anymore.

The Ugly:
-NOBODY GOT KILLED! Not any of the main characters anyway. Not even the damn whore babysitter. The only people who got killed were the people who had lived in the house in the very beginning before the Lutz family moved in and we never get to know them.

-The last frame. It would have been a good scene with the camera zooming out on the little creepy girl with the camera moving out of the door and the door slamming shut. Fade to black. But they went the "every other wannabe horror movie these days" route and had one last CGI boo scare to end the movie. I don't know why, but it peeved me more than a little bit.

Conclusion:
Not a great movie, not exactly good, but certainly not a bad movie. It's decent. Not a bad way to kill a couple of hours.

[B1rd_Po0p]

Originally posted by Dom Shady
I would have reached a whole new respect for the movie if they had to balls to ice a kid. But movies don't do that anymore.


SPOILER




Did you even see the beginning of this movie? Three kids got iced. The little girl (Jodie - the creepy ghost) and her two brothers. Shot in their beds and Jodie got it while hiding in the closet. Guess you missed that part. ;)

[Sandstone]

I just saw the flick and i was happy.. the scary scenes were creepy for the most part and the performances were good.. My only gripe was that not 1 part of the movie followed the book.. no biggie. i took this for what it was....a movie. BTW i have been to the reral house a couple of times and let me say this... its 2 story with a very very small yard.. yes there is a boathouse.. :)

I give this movie a 8.0/10... woth buying..

[Digifruitella]

I just saw it too, It was good. Never saw the original though. So I didn't really know what was going on, which parts were true and which were 'hollywood'

I have a question though


**********************SPOILERS******************** ******































the part with Reynolds breaking down the wall in the basement, and finding it was a torture chamber, did that happen in the real story, is that part true or is it Hollywood addition?








































*****************************END SPOILERS*******************************

[Mr. Fred Krueger]

Originally posted by .Digifruitella.
I just saw it too, It was good. Never saw the original though. So I didn't really know what was going on, which parts were true and which were 'hollywood'

I have a question though


**********************SPOILERS******************** ******































the part with Reynolds breaking down the wall in the basement, and finding it was a torture chamber, did that happen in the real story, is that part true or is it Hollywood addition?








































*****************************END SPOILERS*******************************

It's a Hollywood addition.

[chinton]

it certianly was a Hollywood addition which is too bad becuase it was so stupid. Why do all evil house have to be buried on top of Indian burial grounds, a torture no less here. God what a stupid scene.

[Mr. Fred Krueger]

Originally posted by chinton
it certianly was a Hollywood addition which is too bad becuase it was so stupid. Why do all evil house have to be buried on top of Indian burial grounds, a torture no less here. God what a stupid scene.

I liked it myself. Sure as hell beat the shit out of the "doorway to hell" in the original film.

[Kim_EZ]

At the screening, Ryan Reynolds and the producers told us that the "backstory" of the movie (about the house) was just Hollywood taking liberties. It was a bit rushed, but I can deal with it.

[KcMsterpce]

This was a watchable movie, but I feel it didn't need to be made.

Here's my review (http://www.kcmsterpce.com/reviews/amityville.html), if anyone is curious.

5/10

[Digifruitella]

Originally posted by chinton
it certianly was a Hollywood addition which is too bad becuase it was so stupid. Why do all evil house have to be buried on top of Indian burial grounds, a torture no less here. God what a stupid scene.

BAH!!! that SUCKS! man, I did feel skeptical about that scene, I was questioning it's credibility. That's too bad, because it toally makes the movie UN-"based on true story" stupid hollywood addition

[chinton]

I agree the doorway to hell ddint work in the roginal either. In f ac neither of them worked.


The only horror film ive seen that gave a credible explanation a haunted a house and an interesting one is The Changeling

[MadsenOMC]

SPOILERS!!!

Will Hollywood produce a decent fucking horror movie this year? Seriously. I really expected this to be better than the shit that's been released so far this year, but when all was said and done, I was pretty disappointed. This is a classic case of overdoing it in nearly every way possible. Yet another movie that attempts to scare you not with the story, but with lame ass boo scares and sound effects. Subtlety is not the name of the game here, and I really feel like this movie needed a less-is-more approach. The house kicked ass and the premise is certainly solid enough for a horror flick. But the audience gets treated like they're a bunch of fucking morons. Way too much explanation and not nearly enough left to the imagination. And talk about going overboard in the sound department. I felt like I was being assaulted by a sledgehammer. During the movie I kept thinking about The Others and how the sound in that movie is fucking amazing. It's used so effectively. Amityville is the exact opposite. You get beaten over the head with it instead. In the end it's just way too generic. Same old shit. Serious lack of story/character development (just the minimum), cheap and obvious scares, over-direction (I hated Douglas's work here; absolutely terrible horror movie direction) and cliches up the ass. One or two cool scenes do not add up to a satisfying movie. That's about all this had going for it. I really expected this to be a better movie. A shame.

4/10

[Dom Shady]

Originally posted by B1rd_Po0p
SPOILER




Did you even see the beginning of this movie? Three kids got iced. The little girl (Jodie - the creepy ghost) and her two brothers. Shot in their beds and Jodie got it while hiding in the closet. Guess you missed that part. ;)

O yeah i forgot about that. I guess i just wanted that 12 year old to get it and was upset when he didn't. What I really meant was that they never kill the really annoying ones. Or worse, have them fight back and beat up the supposed psycho killer or knock them upside the head.

[MadsenOMC]

SPOILER

That's a good point. When it came down to it, they sure as hell didn't have trouble getting away from Reynolds. He had a shotgun at one point. An axe at another. Yet they miraculously escaped from him time and time again. But I never really felt like they were in any danger. Not in a mainstream horror flick. And then, as if it wasn't bad enough by that point, they have him getting his wife in the gut with the axe, but it didn't really happen. Fucking cheap ass tactics at work there.

[Dom Shady]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
SPOILER

That's a good point. When it came down to it, they sure as hell didn't have trouble getting away from Reynolds. He had a shotgun at one point. An axe at another. Yet they miraculously escaped from him time and time again. But I never really felt like they were in any danger. Not in a mainstream horror flick. And then, as if it wasn't bad enough by that point, they have him getting his wife in the gut with the axe, but it didn't really happen. Fucking cheap ass tactics at work there.

I totally agree. At that point (the fake killing of wife), I think i heard a collective groan from the theatre. Some people were fine with that, and that's they're own opinion; that little plot twist and then untwist could work, but i personally hated it.

[chinton]

Spoilers!!!




I was also annoyed by how the ending suggested that the house was setting itself up again for a new couple. This gives the idea the house is out on a mission to drive any husband crazy. I just thought that was silly.

[bdubprod]

i liked it better than the original. it explained more about what had happened on that land before the house was there. scarier than the original as well.

[B1rd_Po0p]

Originally posted by Dom Shady
O yeah i forgot about that. I guess i just wanted that 12 year old to get it and was upset when he didn't. .

:D You are evil!!!!

I figured he got his when George made him hold the wood for him while he was splitting it. That's a pretty mean thing to do to a kid.

[Dom Shady]

Originally posted by B1rd_Po0p
:D You are evil!!!!

I figured he got his when George made him hold the wood for him while he was splitting it. That's a pretty mean thing to do to a kid.

LOL, you got me. I guess I am evil because I feel that if anybody in the movie deserved to die, it was a tie between him and the babysitter. He probably gets the edge. RESPECT YOUR ELDERS!

[jaw2929]

Yea, I agree that babysitter was a CUNT! Hah! She deserved to die, I don't see why they wouldn't kill her off... Ah well a trip to the old insane asylum will do her good! :p

[Spike014]

I recently had a chance to see this movie yesterday(Wednesday) and I thought it was freakin awesome. I don't watch alot of horror movies at the cinema/theatre but I had to see this remake, Reynolds played an awesome role. There was a few jump scenes which was cool and the sex scene was average, but overall I thought it was a great film. I've never seen the original so if this remake is anything like the original then I might have to check it out.

I'd give a 7/10

I'm also a Reynolds mark

[deppjolieperabo]

i saw this on the weekend and it was awesome!! i really liked it!! finally a good horror movie!

[Mr.Majestyk]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
SPOILERS!!!

Will Hollywood produce a decent fucking horror movie this year? Seriously. I really expected this to be better than the shit that's been released so far this year, but when all was said and done, I was pretty disappointed. This is a classic case of overdoing it in nearly every way possible. Yet another movie that attempts to scare you not with the story, but with lame ass boo scares and sound effects. Subtlety is not the name of the game here, and I really feel like this movie needed a less-is-more approach. The house kicked ass and the premise is certainly solid enough for a horror flick. But the audience gets treated like they're a bunch of fucking morons. Way too much explanation and not nearly enough left to the imagination. And talk about going overboard in the sound department. I felt like I was being assaulted by a sledgehammer. During the movie I kept thinking about The Others and how the sound in that movie is fucking amazing. It's used so effectively. Amityville is the exact opposite. You get beaten over the head with it instead. In the end it's just way too generic. Same old shit. Serious lack of story/character development (just the minimum), cheap and obvious scares, over-direction (I hated Douglas's work here; absolutely terrible horror movie direction) and cliches up the ass. One or two cool scenes do not add up to a satisfying movie. That's about all this had going for it. I really expected this to be a better movie. A shame.

4/10

Almost everyone that has posted here has said that they got a few boo scares out of this movie even if they really didn't like it that much. I think that can mainly be attributed to the direction and sound so your attacks on these areas are misguided. I didn't think it was the greatest horror movie either but I would say most of the fault lies at the writer's feet.

[LordSimen]

I just saw it, and I must say it was great. I like it a little better than the original.

[LordSimen]

edit: Damn double post. :(

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by Mr.Majestyk
Almost everyone that has posted here has said that they got a few boo scares out of this movie even if they really didn't like it that much. I think that can mainly be attributed to the direction and sound so your attacks on these areas are misguided. I didn't think it was the greatest horror movie either but I would say most of the fault lies at the writer's feet.

I am not the misguided one here. I would say you are. A few people state that the movie has a couple of effective boo scares, and somehow that proves that I am wrong and the direction is good?! Are you serious? That is your evidence? I stand by what I said. The direction is fucking terrible. Reminded me of Stephen Kay's direction of Boogeyman. Style over substance. Beating the audience over the head. Relying way, way too much on jacked-up sound and crazy camera work to substitute for a poor screenplay. I am hardly the only one to have these complaints about the movie.

[Dom Shady]

I agree with Madsen. The direction was too flashy which alot of horror movies do nowadays. The funny thing is that it is typical Michael Bay. I know he didn't Direct but anything that he is involved with is style over substance so maybe he pushed the director to do the movie that way.

[Mr.Majestyk]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
I am not the misguided one here. I would say you are. A few people state that the movie has a couple of effective boo scares, and somehow that proves that I am wrong and the direction is good?! Are you serious? That is your evidence? I stand by what I said. The direction is fucking terrible. Reminded me of Stephen Kay's direction of Boogeyman. Style over substance. Beating the audience over the head. Relying way, way too much on jacked-up sound and crazy camera work to substitute for a poor screenplay. I am hardly the only one to have these complaints about the movie.

Then what do you attribute the scares in the movie to? There were more than a few people who said that the movie had some really good boo scares in it. What grade are you in anyways? I say you are misguided so you have to say I'm misguided. Just sayin'. Then again I am just an infant schmo so what the hell do I know about anything.

[MadsenOMC]

Since when do boo scares mean that a movie is well-directed? Most people frown upon boo scares in horror movies because they are cheap and obvious. Therefore, if a movie resorts to boo scares (and has nothing else going for it), I would say that it is a movie suffering from poor direction. Am I wrong? Even if people do believe there are some solid boo scares in it, that hardly proves that it's well-directed. I would argue the opposite.

[Sandstone]

I think it is incredibly hard to make a good horror movie... the hardest in fact. so if this film suceded in making me happy it had to have some good direction in it.. mabey not the best but i sure thought it wasnt that flashy..even if it was.. i dont see the problem with it.

im not trying to knock on you madsen.. i like your reviews. this is just my thoughts..

and by the way..


i love michael bay... so what. crucify me


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/kornb1ind/smilies/hiloser.jpg

[MadsenOMC]

I didn't think you were knocking me Sandstone. It's merely a simple difference of opinion. I think the direction sucked, and you didn't. No big deal.

[Mr.Majestyk]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Since when do boo scares mean that a movie is well-directed? Most people frown upon boo scares in horror movies because they are cheap and obvious. Therefore, if a movie resorts to boo scares (and has nothing else going for it), I would say that it is a movie suffering from poor direction. Am I wrong? Even if people do believe there are some solid boo scares in it, that hardly proves that it's well-directed. I would argue the opposite.

I don't want to keep going back and forth with this because as you've already pointed out to sandstone, it is all a matter of opinion. I would still like to know what you would attribute the boo scares to. All in all I think the director and producers accomplished what they set out to do with this movie. Most people I have talked to said they thought it was pretty good. It ain't gonna win any Academy Awards but that wasn't their aim in the first place.

[MadsenOMC]

You may disagree, but horror fans that I know (and myself) are not fans of boo scares. IMO, they are lazy and obvious, taking the easy way out. The director has a weak story, and he/she knows it, so he/she has no choice but to throw in some boo scares in an effort to salvage the movie. How hard is a boo scare? Not very. And how often do we see them? Way too often for my taste. I do not think that two or three effective boo scares means that a director has done his/her job. I believe the exact opposite is true. During this movie, I repeatedly noted to myself how awful the direction is. Like I said before, it reminded me a lot of Stephen Kay's direction in Boogeyman. Boo scares, sound jacked up to the max and wild camerawork. To me, that is bad directing. You can't tell a good story, so you resort to a bag of tricks.

[daddiefatsacks]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
You may disagree, but horror fans that I know (and myself) are not fans of boo scares. IMO, they are lazy and obvious, taking the easy way out. The director has a weak story, and he/she knows it, so he/she has no choice but to throw in some boo scares in an effort to salvage the movie. How hard is a boo scare? Not very. And how often do we see them? Way too often for my taste. I do not think that two or three effective boo scares means that a director has done his/her job. I believe the exact opposite is true. During this movie, I repeatedly noted to myself how awful the direction is. Like I said before, it reminded me a lot of Stephen Kay's direction in Boogeyman. Boo scares, sound jacked up to the max and wild camerawork. To me, that is bad directing. You can't tell a good story, so you resort to a bag of tricks.

dead on perception of the movie.

But it sells, i don't know why we keep going and checking out these jacked up films.

Plus im getting sick of seeing 'lttile girls' who are supposed to be scary, its little girl overkill

[Mentiroso]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
You may disagree, but horror fans that I know (and myself) are not fans of boo scares. IMO, they are lazy and obvious, taking the easy way out. The director has a weak story, and he/she knows it, so he/she has no choice but to throw in some boo scares in an effort to salvage the movie. How hard is a boo scare? Not very. And how often do we see them? Way too often for my taste. I do not think that two or three effective boo scares means that a director has done his/her job. I believe the exact opposite is true. During this movie, I repeatedly noted to myself how awful the direction is. Like I said before, it reminded me a lot of Stephen Kay's direction in Boogeyman. Boo scares, sound jacked up to the max and wild camerawork. To me, that is bad directing. You can't tell a good story, so you resort to a bag of tricks.



I actually enjoy those "boo" scares and I am a huge horror fan, all types of horror. It is a staple of Amityville movies (all 4 of the ones I have seen) to use "boo" scares. So why do a remake without them? Amityville 2: The Possession was FULL of those "boo" scares.
That is like complaining about zombie movies having too many zombies. You can never have too many zombies in a zombie movie just like you can never have too many "boo" scares in a movie like Amityville or Boogeyman.
Upon my second viewing of this film, I still enjoyed it very much. Reynolds has a great career ahead of him if he keeps up the good work.

[MadsenOMC]

So you want your remakes to do everything just like the originals? Even if the original isn't very good? To each their own I guess. I don't like them, simple as that. I guess we want different things out of a horror movie.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by Mentiroso
I actually enjoy those "boo" scares and I am a huge horror fan, all types of horror. It is a staple of Amityville movies (all 4 of the ones I have seen) to use "boo" scares. So why do a remake without them? Amityville 2: The Possession was FULL of those "boo" scares.
That is like complaining about zombie movies having too many zombies. You can never have too many zombies in a zombie movie just like you can never have too many "boo" scares in a movie like Amityville or Boogeyman.
Upon my second viewing of this film, I still enjoyed it very much. Reynolds has a great career ahead of him if he keeps up the good work.

Zombies and boo scares are apples and oranges.

Boo scares would have to be compared to gore, tension, use of camera/lighting, suspense, and genuine scary scenes.

I'll take heaping amounts of all of them, with just a dash of the boo stuff. When you base your entire movie around that, that doesn't make it good. I can get that effect anytime I play with a jack in the box.

[GavinE]

My two cents on the Amityville Horror

"The Amityville Horror" is the next horror movie in the recent trend of horro remakes. How does this one do? Well I think it did what it set out to do; scare people. Now it isn't as scary as I thought it might be but it was still decent.

"The Amityville Horror" is of course based on that infamous Long Island home where a man was told to kill his entire family by voices. Fast forward one year and we meet the Lutz family. George Lutz (Ryan Reynolds) is in a new relstionship with Kathy(Melissa George). I guess they are newlyweds since one of the annoying kids asked if he was supposed to call George "dad" or not. I say "I guess" because it is never really disclosed what they are. This is where the biggest problem of the movie comes from, plot holes. Lots and lots and lots of plotholes. It was if the writers were intentionally trying to sabotage their own project with the sheer ammount of unanswered questions. One scene has George discovering boat keys in Billy's(Jesse James aka "that kid from the Butterfly Effect") room. However we never know how, why, or when he got the keys. It has absolutely no point to it. Another scene, and a huge part of the plot, is the little girl Chelsea's (Chloe Moretz) relationship with dead girl Jodie(Isabelle Conner). Jodie was one of the family members murdered one year earlier. She is one of the main driving forces of the story but we don't get any explanation to why she is still hanging around the house or why she can hang around the house. Is she there to hurt them? In one scene she has convinced Chelsea to jump off the roof yet in another she is trying to protect them from the "bad man" that lives in the basement. Anyway as the 28 days progress (they only stayed in the house 28 days before fleeing) George starts to lose touch of reality. Everytime the clock strikes 3:15am, you know something is going to happen. However George goes in and out of sanity more than truly going insane. My favorite scene was with him and Billy chopping wood. "We're friends, we're having fun!" Best line in the movie. Also, I think the writers did rewrites on set in order to find another excuse to have Reynolds take his shirt off. Seriously, the dude takes his shirt off at least 4 times during the movie. Anyway the movie moves along at a fast pace and it may have been a little too fast. The movie's runtime is only 85 minutes long. However considering how boring the parts of the orignal that I saw were, this is not a bad thing. The story is predicatable since you already know they are going to eventually get out of the house. Still the origin of the house makes sense and the true villain being revealed was cool. Whether or not it is true or not, is for you to decide.

The scares in this film are pretty good. However not as scary as I thought it would be, it was still fun. The scares in the movie are "BOO" scares. It could also be compared to being punched in the stomach one time and having your attacker flee only to come back and do the same thing 10 more times. It isn't a constant sense of uncertainty. You know when stuff is going to happen and when you as an audience are safe. Even with the plotholes and predictability, it doesn't stop being fun. And really, what more can you ask for?

Final Score
3.5/5

[Harry Warden]

10/10 just for the damn babysitter...


She was H-O-T!!!!!

[combat_rock81]

Personally, I thought this was one of the most piss-poor horror movies I've ever seen, and I'll tell you why: It wasn't scary. Seriously, not only did they rely almost completely on "boo" scares (I'll give them a little credit for the wood chopping scene and having some creepy scenery), but during every time that there could have been something creepy happening, there was. Maybe this was done to keep the film short (it is) and just give the immature target audience their fill of quick and violent thrills, but you need some false alarms to really ramp up the terror, otherwise you're able to predict everytime something will happen.

Also, I didn't like the characters at all. Even before becoming possesed I got a distinct "douchebag" vibe from Reynolds character (and I ussually like the guy, go figure). The kids were either unnoticable (the youngest boy), charicatures (creepy little girl, what a suprise) or just annoying (the oldest boy). And the mom was a total moron, although I guess that's to be expected in horror movies.

Then there's the plot, which starts as pretty much standard haunted house stuff (some horrible crime happened in the house before, now some other people move in and scary stuff happens), but actually had a fairly good hook due to the fact that the house was actually turning George (Reynolds) into a psycho. But then it all falls apart with the horrible "twist" at the end, which was stupid and totally unneccesary. I guess this is supposed to be a true story (probably more a story that the real Lutzes or whoever they were told to get rich, but whatever), but couldn't this have been one of those times they just threw the "truth" out the window to make a good movie? Anyway, I really didn't like this movie, and I'd reccomend not spending your money on it.

[freakandgeek]

ryan reynolds looked damn good, but this movie couldn't even touch the original. thumbs down for me!

[Mentiroso]

Originally posted by Harry Warden
10/10 just for the damn babysitter...


She was H-O-T!!!!!


Amen to that. She can come babysit me anytime. But she can not stick her finger in my hole though.

[Sandstone]

Originally posted by daddiefatsacks

Plus im getting sick of seeing 'lttile girls' who are supposed to be scary, its little girl overkill

Yeah, im sick of all the little kid one liners in horror movies.. a good parody of that is in scary movie 3..

[The Prowler]

I have to agree as well with Harry Warden. The babysitter was smokin hot. But I have a feeling that anybody that loves My Bloody Valentine I will have a lot to agree with.

I also thought the subtle humor was pretty good in here by Reynolds. Especially when he was telling his family they were crazy when he was as looney as they come.

I thought the direction was very slick. The cinematography was good and the overall look of the property was very cool. I loved the boathouse. The overall look and feel of the film was pretty faithful to the original with the wood chopping scene and the priest scene.

Best horror of the year so far but there are gonna be some hard ones to beat later this year with Land of the Dead and The Fog remake.

8/10

[eMouth1]

Definitely some legitimate scares in this one. But they do not emerge organically from the atmosphere or from the plot. The scares are mechanically inserted, and mostly negated by their equally mechanic repetition.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by eMouth1
Definitely some legitimate scares in this one. But they do not emerge organically from the atmosphere or from the plot. The scares are mechanically inserted, and mostly negated by their equally mechanic repetition.

Very, very well-said. I agree with you 100%.

[ilovemovies]

SOME MINOR SPOILERS!



I found this movie to be wildly uneven. Some very good, effective such as when the little girl is on the roof and Reynolds and George try and get her down. But there are so many scenes that are just overdone, overacted and overdirected. The babysitter scene is an example of both the good and bad of the movie. It starts off rather awkwardly and kind of rushed but then it actually becomes somewhat effective. But overall, since it was rushed it was only semi effective. Ryan Reynolds also gives an uneven performance. Sometimes he's very good, especially during the early parts of the movie, but other times he wildly overacts. Milessa George is very good here, and quite hot too. Though me being a major Alias fan, it was kind of wierd not hearing her with a british accent (or whatever accent she had on that show). The actors playing the kids were all fine too. The scenes with Phillip Baker Hall were completely pointless and totally unneccessary. And the scene with him in the house doesn't work either.

Overall, it was very mixed bag for me. But I do think as a matinee or a dvd rental, there are worse ways to kill a couple of hours.

** 1/2 (out of ****)