Amityville : La Maison du diable

George and Kathy Lutz are looking for a place to anchor down and raise a family. The Lutz's and their children (Kathy's from a previous marriage) settle on an impossibly cheap, large and beautiful shore house. But 28 days later the macabre and scary happenings force them to leave…leaving all their earthly possession behind. During the course of those 28 days, the family goes through all kinds of hell a room full of flies, demonic voices and a pig with glowing red eyes. What kind of past does that house have that would make everything horribly wrong. Based on a true story.

Real or hoax, you decide but "The Amityville Horror" has all the trappings of an excellent haunted house story. Too bad that the filmmakers falter a bit with a lack of character development that also ends up stifling the actors in the film, that would have helped out immensely. A creepy music score (the one rejected for "The Exorcist") and several good set-pieces help out but the end of the second act kind of gets stale. A good supernatural thriller.

Saw this on a VHS in the mid 80s. Revisited it recently on a DVD. To be honest, i found the movie to be tedious n tame then. Now i jus forwarded some boring scenes. The film opens on a dark and stormy night as we hear gunshots and see flashes of light through the home's famous eye-like upstairs windows as an entire family is killed. A new family moves in after a year n unsettling things begin to occur. Ther are scenes where the walls drip blood. Was it blood or tar i don't know. Whose blood it was or where it came from was never explained. There's a hidden room in the house the dog always barks at. In one scene James Brolin climbs the stairs above that room, only to fall through them and into a pit of the same blood/tar. Was that suppose to be comedic? Also the scene involving Rod Steiger with the flies wasn't scary at all. The movie was boring considering the length n nothing happens. Somewhere around 01.16, Josh Brolin breaks open a wall n his facial expressions n eyes r epic scene man. What he sees that makes him so startled, we never come to know n we don't get to see also. The film is helped by an extremely creepy score composed by Lalo Schifrin n Brolin delivered a good performance. Margot Kidder did a decent job.

George (James Brolin) and Kathleen Lutz (Margot Kidder) buy a "dream house" in Amityville, New York for a "dream price". Unfortunately, the price was low because just a year before, the house was the location of the Ronald DeFeo Jr. murders--he killed his entire family while they were sleeping. As a priest, Father Delaney (Rod Steiger), blesses the home, he realizes with horror that something evil is lingering there. The dream house is turning into a nightmare.

Sometimes our affection for or aversion to an artwork that we've been exposed to a number of times over the years is inextricably enmeshed with our historical, emotional experiences, whether we admit this or not. For example, I strongly dislike soap operas, or indeed any dramas that resemble soap operas. This is probably due to the fact that for years my only exposure to soap operas was when I was home sick from school as a kid. These were the days before cable television and home video. In the middle of a weekday afternoon, you either watched soap operas or you didn't watch television. Subconsciously, I associate soap operas with a feeling of illness.

Likewise, Jay Anson's Amityville Horror novel appeared when I was still a teen. I loved it. I can still remember reading it in one long sitting--something I rarely did--in the family car as we drove from Florida to Ohio to visit relatives. I was excited when the film appeared, and liked it a lot at the time.

So although I can see many faults with Amityville Horror now, I still have a deep affection for it that triggers my brain to go into an apologetic mode and defend the film. I just can't bring myself to give it lower than an 8 out of 10, and even that seems low to me. But I can easily see how audiences lacking a history with the film might dislike it. It is relatively slow, uneventful and meandering--with a modern perspective, the pacing and "subtlety" are reminiscent of some recent Asian horror. At the same time, maybe paradoxically, scenery chewing has only rarely had a greater ally.

Just a couple days ago MGM released newly remastered widescreen versions of Amityville 1, 2 and 3. I haven't seen the film look this good since seeing it in the theater in 1979, and it probably didn't even look this good then. The first thing that struck me was how incredible much of the cinematography is. Director Stuart Rosenberg had an amazing knack for finding intriguing angles for shots and imbuing them with beautiful colors.

Unlike recent trends, Rosenberg's colors are not narrowed down to a single scheme. For example, in some shots, such as some of the interiors of the famed Amityville house, we get fabulous combinations of pale greens and yellows. In others, such as many exterior shots near the house, we get intense combinations of fall foliage colors. There are also a number of beautiful shots of the famed "eye window" exterior of the house in differently tinted "negative" colors.

Rosenberg evidences a great eye for placing his cast in the frame and shooting scenes to create depth and symbolism via objects that partially block or surround the frame. He also has a knack for creating winding, receding patterns of objects that enhance depth through perspective. My affection for this aspect of the film has little nostalgic attachment, as I didn't pay attention to such things as a kid (I didn't start noticing them more until I started painting, far into my adult years), and the positive aspects of the cinematography were hardly discernible on the previous, ridiculously bad pan & scan VHS release.

Of course, most people aren't watching a film like this for the aesthetics of the visual composition. This is one of the most famous haunted house films, after all. The horror is handled somewhat awkwardly, occasionally absurdly, but it still works well enough for me, as understated as it is (I'm not referring to the acting, just the horror "objects"). Aspects such as the ubiquitous flies reminded me of similar motifs, such as water, in Hideo Nakata's horror films (such as Ringu, 1998 and Dark Water, 2002). The beginning of the film, showing the Defeo murders, still has a lot of shock value, despite its relative post-Tarantino tameness. Most of the horror elements are more portentous, but they're regular and interesting enough to hold your attention, as long as you don't mind subtlety.

Subtlety, however, was the furthest thing from the cast's minds. Brolin, Kidder and especially Steiger shout their lines more often than they speak them. "Overacting" is not in their vocabularies. Kidder comments on an accompanying documentary that the horror genre walks a fine line between intensity and camp. That may or may not be true in general, but in Amityville Horror, camp is frequently broached. For me, it has a certain charm. I'm a fan of camp and "so bad it's good"; Amityville's performances often attain both.

The commentary on the new DVD is amusing given the 1970s publicity that the book and film depicted a true haunting and the subsequent, thorough debunking by persons such as Stephen Kaplan. Hans Holzer, a parapsychologist who has been involved with the story since the early days, and the author of a book upon which Amityville II was based, provides the commentary. He presents himself as an academic, but he obviously seems to have little concern for "objectivity" or skepticism. He not only still talks about the story as true, he invents supernatural excuses for the DeFeo murders and then some, barely mentioning detractors such as Kaplan.

If you haven't seen the film yet, you should base your viewing decision on whether you have a taste for deliberately paced horror as well as a tolerance for extremely over-the-top performances. The film is historically important in the genre, as well.

Over the years, I have truly enjoyed "The Amityville Horror," a 1979 haunted house flick that has been critically, and unfairly, bashed. Since it's based on a true story, the critics have found that they dislike the movie based on their knowledge of the movie's inspiration. Now, here's my opinion: fiction or non-fiction, Stuart Rosenberg managed to make a fun, campy, and all around creepy horror film that resonates as one of the most famous haunted house movies ever created.

Everyone knows the legend about that house in Amityville, New York, the Dutch Colonial on 112 Ocean Avenue. The movie begins in 1974, when Ronnie DeFeo Jr. murdered his family in the house at 3:15 am, shooting them all in their sleep. A year later, George and Kathy Lutz bought the house and moved in with their three children and their dog, Harry. Aware of the tragedy that occurred in the home, George and his wife planned to fix it up and start a new life after their recent marriage. After all, "houses don't have memories." But then, things went wrong. Horribly wrong. And after 28 days, the family left the house and fled Amityville, never turning back.

Of course, Jay Anson's novel was a bestseller. I've personally read it myself, and it's written well. But there are several different variations on what happened during those 28 days, even with George and Kathy Lutz. So, for those of you who know the story before you watch the movie, it's hard to distinguish what is and isn't true. Some of you may not believe it at all. However, I am one of those people that believe in this account of a suburban haunted house, after watching rather truthful and intelligent interviews with the Lutzes and other paranormal investigators. But aside from that, what matters most about "The Amityville Horror" is how it works as a movie.

First of all, the setting means everything. Filmed in New Jersey, and not actually filmed in Amityville, the house is a particularly creepy abode to look at, especially during night scenes. Those two windows become a character all their own. They stare out into the night, and give the viewer the horrible feeling that they're being watched.

Also, there is definitely enough paranormal activity going on to keep you interested. However, the ghostly phenomenon doesn't start right away. In fact, it builds sporadically, creating a wonderful sense of dread. If you can appreciate a good build-up without much special effects(until the dynamite ending), then you will probably like the movie.

James Brolin and Margot Kidder are a joy to watch as George and Kathy Lutz. They are not perfect performances by far(there are moments when their performances go a little too over the top). But there are great things to see here between Brolin and Kidder. They have sincere moments together as husband and wife. Other times when things get frightening, their shock and fear comes off naturally. Then we are scared for George and Kathy. Basically, Brolin and Kidder give mostly good performances.

We also have Rod Steiger's performance as Father Delaney to judge. Sandor Stern's script has limited this character, and therefore, Steiger is not in the movie too much, but he makes the most with the screen time he has. In fact, he makes the role larger, and we're not just scared for the Lutz family, but for him also.

Obviously, some events in "The Amityville Horror" are slightly exaggerated when you compare them with the book's events or the perspectives of others who have experienced the haunting. But that doesn't make the movie any less entertaining. I look past its flaws, and embrace it for what it is: a cult classic that has gotten some damn good attention over the years. It's not a masterpiece, but I continue to love and believe in "The Amityville Horror."

Excited about the remake I decided to go out and just but the original Amityville Horror. Being a huge horror buff, I just had to and besides I had only seen some of it's absurd sequels. hearing mixed reviews from friends and critics from terrifying to hilarious I turned it on with my boyfriend at the time and prepared myself for something scary. I must say that I was quite impressed. And although slightly disappointed in some of the films scenes ultimately I must say this is one old fashioned scary flick! I can hugely recognize the appeal it had in it's it's hey day. With the exception of Texas chainsaw Massacre, Evil Dead, the Omen and some others I rarely see what people did in their horror classics nowadays. Like The Exorcist, pretty damn boring and funny in my opinion. But getting back to this film. It builds a creeping mood filled with fright inducing suspense. The effects are simple but effective and the performances are somewhat over the top but necessarily wacky. The film's overall lasting appeal has little to do with the film's apparent campiness. it has more to do with the real terror inducing legend that inspired it. Like the Chainsaw remake the new ones looks to amp up the horror and intensity which would be greatly welcomed. Although a great horror classic Amityville's finale is somewhat anti climactic and after a long and impressively scary build-up it fails to deliver the end goods. But whoa some of the scenes from the imaginary friend Jody flying out the window, to the visitor at the door, to the voice in the house and just everything in the basement this film is all about delivering some authentic chills. 8/10