[.ca] The Amityville Horror

No, No..they did it all wrong!!!:
First of all, there was no need for a remake, but since everything in movies right now is about being lazy and not coming up with new ideas and just trying to find ways to make easy money fast, you get this film. Since i was a little kid, i've read, watched and studied everything on the amityville house...and even though i don't believe that those things actually happened, i still enjoy a good scare once and a while and ladies and gentleman, boys and girls, this movie doesn't have any. First of all, what's with the change of the look of the house, the famous "eyes" of the house that are really on the side, now got transfered to the front, i guess it's easier to film that way but man does the house look ugly and may i add FAKE LOOKING too. This movie that was supposed to be based on a "true story" ADDED some made-up stuff that the original movie never had, nor the book, and even the Real Lutz family said these things never happened (they actually tried to sue the filmakers of this 2005 version over these false accusations, if that's what you wanna call them) like the father making coffins for every member of the family, or killing their dog, and many more. But forget all that, let's just say this was an ordinary horror film, why wasn't it good? Well, it wasn't scary or creepy, dragged on too long to get to the point, the acting was ok, but they still should've gotten an unknown to play George Lutz, "Van Wilder" Ryan Reynolds was too hard for me to take seriously. This movie was made for the MTV crowd that never heard of this story or movie, and chances are, if your 21 or younger..this relates to you. So watch it, but remember, 60% of that stuff you see in the film are all made up fiction and never happened. Wanna be really scared, read the book, it's awesome and for more information on what really happened in that house and more, go check out the official website www.amityvillehorror.com .

I was pleasantly surprised!:
Everyone I knew who had seen this movie said it was awful.. but then I watched it and actually liked it BETTER than the original movie. Not everyone thinks this movie is crap! I am a great fan of haunting-related horror movies, my favorites being the Exorcist, Blair Witch project, Ju-on, the Eye, the Ring (#1, #2 in my opinion was ridiculous), and other such flicks. Pros: It was well made, great graphics, great atmosphere, great emotional tangibility... I really enjoyed how they portrayed the evil in this movie. It's a clean looking movie, aesthetically pleasing, and just plain well done in post-production. The acting was good, believable, and I thought it was more organic than the original. Great direction. Cons: I was a little disappointed that they didn't have the creepy "Get Out" scene at the beginning of the book (in the movie) with the priest.. There are a few other scenes that could/should have made it into the new film, but I think it's good that they went a "different" route to distinguish the film from the original. Overall, I say that you read the book first. It gives you insight into the matter, and helps you form your own opinion of the infamous haunting. Like original Ju-On and the Grudge, the original Ringu and the Ring, the original Amityville horror movie and the New Amityville movie kind of "complete" one another. They explain things that the other doesn't, they go "places" that the other doesn't.

just as disturbing and creepy as the first,and a bit better (4.2/5):
for me,this updating of the original 1976 movie of the same name,is just as good.obviously it's been changed somewhat,given the advances in technology since 1979.however,it is no less scary.i also think that Ryan Reynolds(George Luts)and Melissa George(Kathy Luts)were at least as good as James Brolin and Margot Kidder,maybe a bit better.the children were all acted well enough,but they didn't really stand out or anything.this time Philip Baker Hall plays the Priest(played by Rod Steiger in the original).i actually liked him in the role a bit more job than Steiger.not to take anything away from Steiger.i had just as many chills running down my spine this time,as in the original.there is a bit of CG,but i don't think it detracts from the overall effectiveness of the movie.i guess i actually liked this version a bit better than the 1979 version,but that's just me.i give The Amityville Horror(2005)a 4.2/5

" Not 100% True to the Story but a extremely effective Horror ":
Few horror films are true to the original story, because they need to grasp the audiences attention for two hours. Look at this film as strictly a haunted house story. If you enjoy this type of setting, you will not be dissapointed with the film. The special effects of today outweigh the original in 1977. Best to enjoy this film in a dark room alone; or with the girlfriend / boyfriend close. I've seen a fair amount of horror and spooky films over the last good 30 years. This film does rank with the best, such as the original Haunting back in 1965, (but much more frightening), and The Shining, although the Shining was shy of 3 hours and had more time to evolve. Hat's off to the actors and producer that made a effective horror with less time. The film keeps you on the edge pretty well all the way through and does not lag. What I enjoyed was the effective chilling moments. Usually it was in the background and sometimes difficult to see if you don't quickly spot them. Critics of this film give it much less credit then due, and usually base it on the book. Few will ever really know the Amityville stories truth. Aside; this remake of Amityville Horror deserves top marks for its chilling effects! In 10 or so years, this is destined to become one of those classic horrors.