User reviews

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.

"Houses don't kill people. People kill people."

The film debut of the then eight-year-old Chloë Grace Moretz is a remake of the 1979 film of the same name. This is an average "haunted house" horror, based on true events. Decently done and moderately entertaining, it stands out only with the performance of little Chloë, and especially the scene on the roof, which is the only thing that remains etched in my memory even after five years.

6/10

In terms of cinematic legacy, the original "The Amityville Horror" managed to foreshadow both "The Shining" and "Poltergeist" while swiping a few nods from "The Exorcist." But time has not been kind to the hit 1979 horror film, once considered spooky but now considered at best a camp classic.

The remake opens in the late 1970s, with George Lutz (Ryan Reynolds) and his new wife Kathy (Melissa George) getting what appears to be the deal of a lifetime. A colonial era Long Island home that is within their price range has just come up for sale, and the two decide the place would be perfect to raise their children, all from Kathy's previous marriage.

Little do they know that the house comes with loads of supernatural baggage. The previous owner had killed his entire family within 28 days of moving in, claiming there was a demonic presence in the home that drove him to do so. It's not long before strange things start to happen with the new family as well.

Chelsea (Chloë Grace Moretz) starts seeing the ghost of the previous little girl who occupied the house, Billy (Jesse James) and Michael (Jimmy Bennett) see supernatural activity while also being blamed for the trouble it causes, and George begins to go mad, taking increasingly drastic steps to maintain order and discipline the children. It's not long before Kathy begins to suspect that all is not right in their quaint little home.

"The Amityville Horror" is such a mediocre film, you can't help but wonder what was once considered so shocking about the original story. In truth, with all the negative reviews the original movie received, it's obvious that that film (and its numerous sequels) is merely famous for being famous. The thing that most people seem to remember is the front of the house itself, which actually is scary looking. It's just a shame there's never been a horror movie filmed in the house to do its spooky appearance justice.

The other thing to note is that the remake still claims to be based on a true story, which is partially true. The real life Lutz's account was eventually proved to be a hoax to cover up the fact that the family couldn't pay their mortgage, but not before the family made millions on everything from talk show appearances to the movie rights.

The movie never really lets you into the horror that is occurring, and director Andrew Douglas does a very workman-like job directing the story, never really doing anything to interest us in the characters or situation. Special effects run amok, like walls that ooze blood and jack-in-the-box scares like decomposing ghosts jumping out at you, but it's all for naught. The movie can only scream "boo!" at you so many times before you start booing back.

Acting-wise, the movie is decent but not terribly inspired. Just like Jack Nicholson in "The Shining," Reynolds seems to lose his sanity just a tad too early for the rest of the story to be believable. As Kathy, George manages to be the emotional anchor holding the film together and does a good job, however her character puts up with far too much stress before she finally acts. The child actors all do okay, but they merely exist to be put in danger.

So, what was the purpose of remaking a horror movie that hasn't aged very well over the last quarter of a century? The main reason I can think of is the house itself, which still manages to scare people. Other than that, there's a big market for remaking classic horror films right now, though hardly any of been able to justify their own existence, including last year's "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre," also produced and written by the same team behind this film. "The Amityville Horror" is likely to join that undistinguished canon, ultimately being a horror movie about a group of people too dumb to leave a house just because the script requires them to stay. It's movies like this that make you want to root for the ghosts.

5 out of 10 stars. It's hard to feel sympathetic for characters in a movie who have to stay in a stupid situation just because the script says so.

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 classic haunted house yarn with solid performances from the cast - young and old, Amityville Horror (2005) is not a subtle, psychological horror but a balls-out, in-yer-face monster picture with the vengeful ghosts and demons appearing on screen from the moment the Lutz family arrive at their new home.

Although it claims to be based on a true story no real attempt is made to keep the mayhem within the bounds of reality and George's rapid descent into insanity isn't so much an homage to Nicholson in The Shining as a parody. Ryan Reynolds is superb as the troubled head of his step-family and while best known for his light-hearted roles shows here he can turn charm to menace at the flick of a switch.

Amityville is the least well-respected of the clutch of iconic horrors from the 1970s and has spawned some truly awful sequels, but this remake does the story proud, reinventing it for a multiplex audience used to glamorous leads and stories told through OTT gore and special effects.

There's nothing really original here and the 2005 film ticks all the boxes for haunted house clichés e.g. spooky faces at windows, erratic plumbing, moving furniture, clocks stopping etc but does it with a brazen panache and lack of pretencion that makes the film enjoyable for what it is.

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

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.

The Lutz family (Ryan Reynolds, Melissa George, Jesse James, Jimmy Bennett, Chloë Grace Moretz) finds a big house for a surprising price. The reason for the low price is a grisly murder suicide in its history. When the family moves in, strange things start happening.

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.

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.

The Amityville Horror was much better than Boogeyman but still not the best this year. I enjoyed both The Ring Two and Cursed, among others, a little bit more. Don't get me wrong, Amityville had some genuinely creepy parts, along with some unintentionally funny ones.

George & Kathy Lutz (Ryan Reynolds & Melissa George) unexpectedly find their dream home at the deal-of-a-lifetime price. In fact, it seems to good to be true. George asks the realtor the catch. She exclaims that there were some murders in the house but that did not deter the Lutz's. Their reasoning being that it would be impossible for a house to cause people to kill.

Shortly after moving in, George experiences some strange developments in his health and attitude. Also, their daughter, Chelsea ( Chloë Grace Moretz), makes a new friend who her parents assume in imaginary. These are perhaps some of the creepiest parts of the movie, when the imaginary friend, Jodie (Isabel Conner), becomes visible to the audience and sometimes the cast. The scene with the insanely hot but pretty unlikeable babysitter, Lisa (Rachel Nichols), was pretty good.

The director, Andrew Douglas, did a good job by showing little differences in George's attitude and demeanor once he was out of the house. Ryan Reynolds also did a good job of portraying this to the audience. He has come a long way. Melissa George could also leave her mark in Hollywood if the right roles come along for her. I was pretty impressed by her performance almost as much as Ryan's.

While not the best of it's genre, The Amityville Horror has it's place amongst horror movies. It is worth seeing, as you can do much worse if you do not do your homework. 8/10

A family(Ryan Reynolds,Melissa George and sons)moves to Long Island where is purchased a Victorian home ,their house of dreams but they find only devilish horror.Longtime ago,there occurred a grisly mass killing based on an allegedly real life occurrence in Amityville. And now a possessed father is plunged by demonic forces into supernatural attitude driving him to mistreat and beat the kiddies.He is attempting to find out the bottom of events by ways of the cellar.Meanwhile a exorcist(Philip Baker Hall)tries praying to vanquish the malignant spirit.

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

This movie was one of the scariest movies I have seen in a long time. I think it is definitely better than the original. I have never jumped so much in a movie before. There is a lot more information in this movie than there was in the original. Ryan Reynolds and Melissa George did a great job, especially Ryan, I have never seen anyone who can look so mean. If anyone remembers Jodie from the first movie, she was a pig, she isn't a pig in this one, she is just a little girl, but a creepy little girl. I will definitely buy this movie when it comes out on DVD, I liked it that much. If you are looking for a good scary movie, I would recommend this movie. This movie does not have a lot of gore, and does not go to over the top with things that could never happen, it is done just right.

Don't have high expectations for the 2005 remake of The Amityville Horror directed by Andrew Douglas and you just might enjoy it. If you have already seen the 1979 classic, it may already be too late for you.

The nightmare begins when the Lutz family decides to purchase a gorgeous new home with a price that is too good to be true. They are informed by the Realtor of tragedy that occurred in the home, but decide to go through with purchase anyway – big mistake.

Soon after moving in, strange occurrences begin to take place. Chelsea Lutz (Chloe Moretz) befriends the ghost of Jodie Defeo (Isabel Conner) while her step dad George Lutz, played by the very sexy Ryan Reynolds, begins to go a little nutty. All the while the family slowly begins to unravel and fall apart as the spirits of the previous tenants haunt and possess the current occupants.

Throughout the movie there are a few scary scenes and creepy moments, but for the most part the remake of the 1979 classic is just silly. The most ridiculous scene would have to be with the scantily-clad babysitter, Lisa (Rachel Nichols). Lisa who appears to be 17 or 18 years old asks Billy Lutz (Jesse James) who appears to be no older than 12-years-old "if he's ever Frenched before… you know like French kissed" during a bedroom scene. I mean come on – was this part really even necessary? However, the one great aspect of the movie – listen up ladies – is the numerous scenes with Ryan Reynolds half naked. In fact, according to the Internet Movie Database Web site, females gave The Amityville Horror a higher rating then men – gee, I wonder why.

Despite the ridiculousness of the movie, it is still worth watching – especially so close to Halloween.

Overall The Amityville Horror receives two and one half out of four stars. I would have given it only two stars, but Ryan Reynolds really does have a great body.

I have always been a little leery of movie remakes, especially when it comes to classic horror films, but since I did enjoy Michael Bay's remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (even with the story changes) I figured I'd give it a try. Glad I did! Off the top of my head, this is the only horror remake that I can think of that surpasses the original. This may be because I was never a big fan of the original, thinking it quite timid after such classics as the The Omen & The Exorcist (Ok, it's 32 years later and I'm still frightened by that movie), or because I have never found Margo Kidder much of an actress. Either way, I think the new remake will stand on it's own and I cannot wait to add it to my collection so I can revel in the frights for years to come.

I saw a preview screening of this last night, and most of my feelings for this film have been pretty accurately described by "dharv" in their review below. This film is terrible, and my two friends and I all couldn't wait for it to end. Then again, we're all in our 30s so we're exactly twice the age of the intended audience for this attempt at horror.

Put "The Ring" together with "The Shining" in a blender and you get this film, minus the truly striking visuals. Ryan Reynolds is there show off his non-70's hair and impressive abs; his character is unlikable from the very start and almost IMMEDIATELY upon moving into the house begins to act like he's possessed. The minute Melissa George has to start emoting her acting ability goes out the window (she's from the "if you're upset rub your arm" school of acting). The kids are passable, and Phillip Baker Hall is wasted as the priest. As for the woman who plays the babysitter, the less said the better.

Saying this film is better than the original is like comparing apples to oranges. While the 1979 version has not dated well, it at least had a slow build and true atmosphere, neither of which are accomplished here. This film is more concerned with the typical specter suddenly appearing behind someone/jump cuts/shaking camera work like in every other contemporary horror film that tries to look like a Nine Inch Nails video. If you get bored, start counting how many times lightning strikes in the film, how many times they show the boathouse doors moving back and forth or how many times the director closes up on the "spooky" air vent. I'm surprised I didn't leave the theater with grill marks on my face.

My advice: Don't see the 1979 version first, don't think about it too hard, pretend it's not based on the "true story", and just enjoy this great horror film. It may not be a timeless classic, but its fun. The thing I liked best about this one is that everything makes sense. There's no cliffhangers or overly complicated mystery that never gets explained. It's just 89 minutes of very frightening ghosts popping up and some surprisingly appropriate acting. In fact, I would say this movie has one of the most petrifying ghost scenes ever.(The boy in the bathroom!)The costumes/makeup were really good too. Also, I loved Ryan Reynolds in a scary movie. I thought his quirky style was a perfect complement to the cast. He makes a smooth transition from Van Wilder to Blade 3 to Amityville because he seems to just be himself.

THE AMITYVILLE HORROR

Aspect ratio: 2.39:1

Sound formats: Dolby Digital / DTS / SDDS

A young couple (Ryan Reynolds and Melissa George) are driven from their dream home by ghostly manifestations which compel Reynolds to the brink of murder.

Less an examination of supernatural horror than a study of one man's descent into mental breakdown, prompted by unspecified forces within a house built on the foundations of murder and mayhem. Reynolds is quite affecting as the tormented protagonist in this beefed-up 'reimagining' of Jay Anson's bestselling book, though the slow accumulation of details doesn't build to a satisfying whole. Miles better than the 1979 version, however. Oh, and Reynolds gets this reviewer's vote as Hunk of the Year - his shirtless scenes are a highlight of the entire picture...