Des jeunes mariés sont terrorisés par des forces démoniaques après avoir emménagé dans une grande maison qui a été le lieu d'un meurtre effroyable un an auparavant.Des jeunes mariés sont terrorisés par des forces démoniaques après avoir emménagé dans une grande maison qui a été le lieu d'un meurtre effroyable un an auparavant.Des jeunes mariés sont terrorisés par des forces démoniaques après avoir emménagé dans une grande maison qui a été le lieu d'un meurtre effroyable un an auparavant.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 2 victoires et 4 nominations au total
- Nurse Fuller
- (non crédité)
- New York State Trooper
- (non crédité)
- Store Patron
- (non crédité)
Avis à la une
Rating: 6.5 out of 10
HOWEVER.
If you're going into this expecting any resemblance WHATSOEVER to the book, the original film, or any of the stories told over the years, you're going to be severely disappointed. The filmmakers have pretty much left out the events that transpired in the novel and the previous film, and instead they take an extreme amount of liberty with the story and turn it into a series of stylized Hollywood scare tactics. Don't get me wrong, this is still effective, but if you're going to release a movie and promote it as "Based on the True Story" then you might wanna make sure that the movie at least RESEMBLES the original story.
In fact, George Lutz is currently in litigation with MGM films over the content of the movie, claiming that it shows his family in a potentially damaging light. When you see the flick, you'll understand why he's upset. I can't fault the guy.
If they had left the Amityville name off of this one and just released it as some generic haunted house movie, then i wouldn't have so many issues with it. But to even associate it with anything Amityville-related just seems wrong to me, because they have completely screwed it up. I would still recommend the film, and just caution potential viewers to forget everything you've ever seen or heard about Amityville. Otherwise you'll walk out of that theater just as annoyed as i was.
1) Best actor: "Lisa the BabySitter". Even if the film this isn't your cup of tea, stick around to catch a glimpse of babysitting-2005 courtesy of Ms. Lisa! She's great. Ryan Reynolds (a Jason Lee lookalike) in truth gets the best actor award for his macabre transformation. He's good!
2) Most unusual moment: When the family tries to elude danger one dark and stormy night like the Von Trapps on a hot, wet roof. The scene conjured up images of the Sound of Music for me, swapping out the nasty Nazis with a Lizzie Borden-like ax man.
3) Economy: One priest gets the job of four (from the original) done. When the priest is played by master character actor "Philip Michael Hall" what would you expect.
4) Scary: ... has it's moments. Nothing unique and original . . . but Director Andrew Douglas gets the job done for newcomers to the horror genre. Enjoy.
All in all, it's a 6 out of 10. Better than the original. Truly.
The biggest mistake is using the wrong POV. Ryan Reynolds shouldn't be the one to lead the movie. Melissa George should be the lead. She can be afraid of Reynolds. She can be conflicted about the new man as a father for her children. There are all kinds of avenues this could have taken.
The creepiest thing that happened is the super sexy babysitter (Rachel Nichols) for the kids. Would any parents really just walk off without a second look when the babysitter is dressed like that? And it gets super awkward with the sex talk.
The film contains restless terror and great loads of gore and blood and usual poltergeists phenomenon caused by the curse as pipes and wall ooze stuff,flies swarm,doors suddenly slam ;it is recreated with high grade special effects which are frightening and horrifying the spectator.It's actually halfway decent terror movie that will like to ghostly and eerie occur fonds. The original¨Exorcist¨film(Friedkin) spawned a wave of demonic possessions movies that continues unabated today ¨Changeling¨,¨Amytiville ¨(Stuart Rosemberg) are two further examples of this sub-genre ,following a great number of sequels directed by Damiano Damiani,Richard Fleischer,Sandor Stern(authentic film's screenwriter),Anthony Hitchcock... .Although this is a new version from previous film, it's one of the highest earning horror movie of the last years.The motion picture is well directed by Andrew Douglas
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesRyan Reynolds chose not to become close with his on-screen children. He was not mean or rude to them, just very distant. So distant in fact that the children often confided to those on the set that "Ryan doesn't like us!" Reynolds said that he did not want to "fall in love" with the kids. He did this so that when George Lutz started changing, he would have no trouble easing into the verbal and physical abuse.
- GaffesOn the wall of Billy's bedroom, there is a Whitesnake poster. The band Whitesnake wasn't formed until 1978, 3 years after the film's setting.
- Citations
Father Callaway: You know the doll with one eye that your daughter is holding?
Kathy Lutz: Yes, well...
Father Callaway: Well, that belonged to the little girl who lived here before you.
Kathy Lutz: Yes, it was left here.
Father Callaway: No, Mrs. Lutz, it was not left here.
Kathy Lutz: Father, what exactly are you trying to tell me?
Father Callaway: I knew the DeFeo's very well. I presided over their funeral. Jodie DeFeo was buried with that doll.
Meilleurs choix
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Terror en Amityville
- Lieux de tournage
- 27618 Silver Lake Rd., Salem, Wisconsin, États-Unis(Amityville house)
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 19 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 65 233 369 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 23 507 007 $US
- 17 avr. 2005
- Montant brut mondial
- 107 516 369 $US
- Durée1 heure 30 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.39 : 1