The Amityville Horror

I liked it. Here's what to watch for:

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.

If you completely ignore anything and everything that has to do with the Amityville stories, then this is a pretty decent horror flick. Ryan Reynolds turns in a very effective performance, reminiscent of Jack Nicholson in "The Shining." By the end of the flick, i was scared of the dude. The rest of the cast was solid, as well. Lots of scares throughout the film, but a little too much of the "MTV style" editing, especially in the last fifteen minutes or so. But all in all, a decent effort, just like i said.

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.

I never saw the original so cannot compare them. However, I thought this was a solid horror film with a few good jump scares and a few inspired original sequences. The haunted house could have been creepier for me and didn't feel very atmospheric. A pet peeve of mine present here is how relatively intelligent people in horror movies do what they're told by supernatural agencies just because they're told to do so. Regarding performances, the mother was quite warm and believable. Ryan Reynolds the lead did pretty good for one of his first dramatic roles but unfortunately his sculpted perfect shaved physique detracted from the performance. I don't expect a building contractor to look like a male model or olympic swimming athlete. The kids were OK except the youngest one who seemed a bit fake like in those TV commercials. It's worth a rental, probably not buying unless it's cheap.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10

A year after the DeFeo family is slaughtered wholesale by a rifle-loving father, a new family -- the Lutzes -- move in. Soon, the family feels an eerie presence in the house and George Lutz (Ryan Reynolds) -- the new dad -- begins to change.

The movie overall is a respectable one. The mood is very nice, the New York Times rightfully called it "a modest improvement over the original", and I freely admit there were moments I was on edge thinking something nasty was going to come popping out, a feeling I very rarely have anymore after seeing so many "scary movies". So all in all they did something right. One scene in particular, where something is in the ceiling (I couldn't quite make it out) was creepy, and the dead girl in the window was unsettling. I also take a little pride knowing the film was shot in Wisconsin (in the towns of Salem and Silver Lake, near Kenosha).

Someone commented that this was very much a Ryan Reynolds fetish film, having him taking up almost all the scenes. More specifically, it's a Ryan Reynolds chopping wood fetish film. He is in 85% of the shots and in many of those he is chopping wood. And why is his shirt constantly off? Yes, I see those pecs and abs, Ryan... I know you were in that "Blade" movie... but come on, you were also in "Van Wilder"... you're not a threat.

Melissa George (Kathy Lutz) on the other hand did not take her shirt off enough, and when she did the camera was positioned in such convenient ways. Was this film PG-13? I don't believe it was, so why tease the audience like that? By the way, George's performance was the weakest of the entire cast, even the children. Some people have commented on how she is a TV actress, and I agree this might have something to do with it. (For a better Melissa George film, see "Triangle".)

Another reviewer complained that Kathy didn't remove her children fast enough when George began turning violent. I disagree. The family has been together a while, George has been nothing but loving and supportive (I mean, geez, he bought her a house). The whole film takes place in about a week, as far as I can tell. The man deserves a few days of blowing off steam.

What's the deal with the babysitter (Rachel Nichols)? She shows up looking like a prostitute and then talks seductively to a little boy. This was very confusing for me. I don't mind... and actually, I really liked her character, but it was still odd.

My friend warned me about the babysitter in the closet scene, which he said was the creepiest thing he saw since "In the Mouth of Madness". Well, I think ITMOM was John Carpenter's best film (even more than "The Thing", "They Live" and "Prince of Darkness") but it never scared me. The closet scene had me on edge -- but only because he had me convinced it was going to be awful. Really, the scene was nothing out of the ordinary. (You'll have to see for yourself what happens, maybe you'll be grossed out more than I was.)

There were many "Wicked Little Things" connections, which is a slam on WLT. If you read my review for that film, you'll see I complained about how unoriginal it was. After seeing "Amityville Horror", I can add so many more instances. Both films star Chloe Moretz (the Dakota Fanning of horror). Both have her with an "imaginary friend" that is a dead girl. Both inform their mothers they won't be hurt. Both carry disfigured dolls previously owned by the dead friend. So, um, for the guys who made "Wicked Little Things" -- if you were gonna rip off "Amityville Horror", why didn't you at least bother to get a new actress? The producers do say on the commentary that "she was amazing" and I appreciate that Chloe was singled out.

I didn't expect much from this one, hearing it was nothing special and many saying it was monotonous. Well, I liked it. I think it all went together very well, and they do a fine job of explaining the backstory, which is something many horror films fail miserably at. (I don't recall if the original explains it as well, but I'm willing to bet it doesn't). By remake standards, better than average. By movie standards, not bad. I stamp it with my seal of approval.

A remake of the film by the same name from 1979, which was based on Jay Anson's book about a supposedly "true" haunting, Amityville Horror begins in familiar territory by showing us Ronald DeFeo, Jr. (Brendan Donaldson) murdering his family. A year later, newlyweds George (Ryan Reynolds) and Kathy Lutz (Melissa George), with three kids from her previous marriage in tow, buy the vacant house at a steal, although they hesitate a bit once they learn why it's so cheap. Strange occurrences begin not long after they settle in. George becomes increasingly impatient and hostile, daughter Chelsea (Chloe Moretz) begins seeing the dead DeFeo girl, and so on. The film recounts their very brief but tumultuous stay at the home the Lutz's believed would be their dream home, but which turned into a nightmare.

After seeing the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003), which had the same production team, principal scriptwriter and visual effects team, and which I loved--I gave it a 10--I was completely psyched for the Amityville Horror remake. After all, unlike my view of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), which I also gave a 10, I think the 1979 Amityville has more than its share of problems. I like the original in spite of that, but producer Michael Bay and crew had plenty of opportunity for improvement. Unfortunately, although some aspects of this remake are better in my view, it suffers from a host of new problems. Like the first, the assets are good enough to transcend the flaws so that it squeaks by with a very low "B", or an 8.

In my view, there are two primary problems, with at least one a bit ineffable. The more effable problem is that relative newcomer director Andrew Douglas (his previous effort was 2003's relatively little-known documentary Searching for the Wrong-Eyed Jesus) instructs cinematographer Peter Lyons Collister to shoot the film using way too much close framing. I repeatedly felt the urge to take a couple steps back so I could better discern the action, the settings, the staging of scenes, and so on.

The second problem lies more in the realm of writing and editing--the film just doesn't seem to flow right. The transition from scene to scene often feels almost arbitrary. Even though Reynolds does a great job in his transformation as George Lutz (and the acting is superb all around), there was a sense of buildup in the original that this remake is missing. Further indicative of the transition problems, although seemingly minor, is the fact that the date, or the day of the Lutz' stay at the home, is sometimes given as a title and sometimes not. It seems like they just forgot to add the day titles for half of the scenes. Overall the final cut gives an impression of being hastily put together.

And that's a shame, because there is a lot of potential here. The house itself is impressive, as it needs to be, and the overall style of the film is nicely atmospheric. I was also impressed with the production design by Jennifer Williams, which among other assets tends to have the period setting spot-on. For example, I was a huge Kiss, Alice Cooper, etc. fan during this era (and I'm still a fan). Williams has a number of Kiss and Cooper images in the film. She very carefully ensures that none are anachronistic.

Even though scriptwriter Scott Kosar disappointingly expressed a lack of enthusiasm for Anson's book and the original film, he reintroduces a number of elements from the book that work well, but which were left out of the original film. He also introduces new scenarios that in some cases are among the best material of the film--such as a breathtaking sequence on the roof of the home, and the extension of the mythology behind the "haunting". He also greatly improves on sequences such as the babysitter. But on the other hand, he inexplicably changes core elements of the story, like the kind of being that Jody is.

Anyone frustrated with the typical horror style of the later 1990s and early 2000s may find this remake troublesome. As one might expect with Michael Bay producing, Douglas is encouraged to use "MTV-styled" cinematography and editing. There are a number of extended techniques that have become somewhat clichéd in recent years. Douglas has characters do that fast headshaking movement ala Jacob's Ladder (1990). There are sections shot in a cinema vérité style. There are instances of quickly changing film stocks and processing methods, and so on. Even though I usually love all of that stuff, and I'm actually a fan of Bay's work, I have to agree that it's not exactly the most natural fit in this case. But for me, it's not something I would subtract points for either.

Maybe the most surprising fact is that this version of Amityville Horror is so close, structurally, to the original. There is nothing here that is a big surprise, and anyone who has seen the 1979 film a number of times will know exactly what's coming next, or close enough to it. Whether this is positive or not depends on your opinion of the original film, and just how highly you cherish originality for its own sake. Big Amityville fans and big haunted house film fans will probably enjoy the film enough. Everyone else should approach with more caution.