ScottR
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2000
- Messages
- 2,646
This remake of the 1979 horror film is a disaster on almost every level. From the moment that the infamous house appears onscreen, it is evident that the viewer is being taken on a contrived, warped rollercoaster ride. Everything about the film, from its absurd plot devices to its pacing have the mark of trashy exploitation.
The film is based on the true story of the 1974 Long Island DeFeo muders, in which a young man kills his entire family, then blames his actions on demonic forces inside the house. One year later, a newlywed couple purchases their dream home, in the hopes of raising their family in an upscale neighborhood. Their dream soon becomes a nightmare as strange happenings start to occur, from bleeding walls to upturned crucifixes. The Lutz family flees from the home after only 28 days, leaving all of their belongings inside the house.
Enter 1979, and the release of The Amityville Horror starring Margot Kidder (fresh off of her Superman success) and James Brolin (future Mr. Streisand.) The film was made on a modest budget and went on to gross some $85 million at the Box Office. However, as the years went by, the Lutz story was pretty much debunked as a hoax, in an effort for the family to cash in on the DeFeo tragedy. This turn of events tarnished the reputation of the 1979 film, as well.
The remake is pointless, as most horror remakes are. What the filmmakers fail to realize is that less is more, in terms of ghost stories. "The Others", "The Haunting", and "The Sixth Sense" were successful in that the majority of scares occured in the imaginations of the audience. In the 2005 Amityville, all traces of imagination are not left to the viewer, as blood spattered kids and dogs are exposed in all of their hideous gory.
Ryan Reynolds is okay as George Lutz, but never really rising above the material. The rest of the cast plods along, it seems, waiting for the shoot to be over so they can cash their checks. Thankfully, none of the performances are as over the top as Rod Steiger's in the original (which gave new meaning to the word "ham.")
The original contained one of the creepiest scores ever for a horror film (it having been taken from unused music intended for 1973's The Exorcist.) The score was not repeated for this version (although you can hear it in the television trailers.)
The 1979 film did have an effectively scary look, due to great work on the part of the Art Director. The house in that film looked lived in and totally believeable. In this version, it appears as more a towering (some four stories), warped church. Its structure is complex and oddly shaped, giving the viewer the impression that its construction was a hack job.
In this era of endless sequels and remakes, the producers of The Amityville Horror should have picked a better subject to film. We've been to Amityville time and again......and like the Lutzes, have run away from it; not in terror, but from over exposure to one of the biggest shams in modern American superstition.
Grade: D
The film is based on the true story of the 1974 Long Island DeFeo muders, in which a young man kills his entire family, then blames his actions on demonic forces inside the house. One year later, a newlywed couple purchases their dream home, in the hopes of raising their family in an upscale neighborhood. Their dream soon becomes a nightmare as strange happenings start to occur, from bleeding walls to upturned crucifixes. The Lutz family flees from the home after only 28 days, leaving all of their belongings inside the house.
Enter 1979, and the release of The Amityville Horror starring Margot Kidder (fresh off of her Superman success) and James Brolin (future Mr. Streisand.) The film was made on a modest budget and went on to gross some $85 million at the Box Office. However, as the years went by, the Lutz story was pretty much debunked as a hoax, in an effort for the family to cash in on the DeFeo tragedy. This turn of events tarnished the reputation of the 1979 film, as well.
The remake is pointless, as most horror remakes are. What the filmmakers fail to realize is that less is more, in terms of ghost stories. "The Others", "The Haunting", and "The Sixth Sense" were successful in that the majority of scares occured in the imaginations of the audience. In the 2005 Amityville, all traces of imagination are not left to the viewer, as blood spattered kids and dogs are exposed in all of their hideous gory.
Ryan Reynolds is okay as George Lutz, but never really rising above the material. The rest of the cast plods along, it seems, waiting for the shoot to be over so they can cash their checks. Thankfully, none of the performances are as over the top as Rod Steiger's in the original (which gave new meaning to the word "ham.")
The original contained one of the creepiest scores ever for a horror film (it having been taken from unused music intended for 1973's The Exorcist.) The score was not repeated for this version (although you can hear it in the television trailers.)
The 1979 film did have an effectively scary look, due to great work on the part of the Art Director. The house in that film looked lived in and totally believeable. In this version, it appears as more a towering (some four stories), warped church. Its structure is complex and oddly shaped, giving the viewer the impression that its construction was a hack job.
In this era of endless sequels and remakes, the producers of The Amityville Horror should have picked a better subject to film. We've been to Amityville time and again......and like the Lutzes, have run away from it; not in terror, but from over exposure to one of the biggest shams in modern American superstition.
Grade: D
