Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Sexed up version of the bland original, October 12, 2005
In 2002, I happened to see the original Amityville house on Long Island (which was renovated to replace the creepy looking windows). That got me interested in the story and I finally watched the original horror film, which was so bland and lacking in suspense that I don't know why previews of that movie gave me nightmares as a child.
With today's film technology, I looked forward to seeing this new version. Signs were not good when the film's distributors refused to allow film critics to pre-screen the movie for the Friday write-ups. Roger Ebert created his "finger wave" category for the distributor's cowardice in facing the film critics.
While this film is a big improvement on the 1979 film, it still has a lot of cheap shots and comes across as manipulative. What it lacks in horror, they make up for it by spiking the scary music and quick jumps to startle the audience. Although based on a true story (whether it happened or was an elaborate hoax continues to be debated), so many instances strained credibility...such as the daughter walking dangerously on the roof. Yeah, right.
The scene I most like in this film, however, deals with the babysitter, as she adds much humor to the story. Because of her and having actor Ryan Reynolds walk around shirtless, showing off his well-sculpted body, its obvious that the makers of the film settled for a sexed up version for modern audiences to make up for the lack of suspense and true drama/horror. That also strains credibility, but its only a movie...one that's hard to take seriously from the get-go.
The truly horrifying scene takes audiences into the basement to discover the house's secret past that explains the haunting. It is the most graphic part of the film and the scariest. If this film had more of that, instead of trying to be a cheap imitation of "The Sixth Sense" (which is what I thought of everytime that ghost girl popped up unexpectedly for no other reason than to startle the audience), I would give it another star. As is, its an okay film for a few laughs and an improvement upon the original.
|
|
|
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
PIECE OF CRAP!!!, February 29, 2008
My first objection is that they didn't use the original house, instead opting for a house which lacks the sinister charachteristics of the original. But sadly, after viewing the movie, I realised this was only a minor flaw. What is the point of claiming the movie is based on a true story if you make up 98% of the movie? This so-called remake has little to do with the original, and even less to do with the book and the reported facts of what happened.
The first mistake was getting Andrew Douglas to direct. By his own admission he doesn't believe in ghosts. That's fine. You don't have to believe in ghosts to make an effective ghost story, but if you're making one that is based on a true story, you should at least hire a director who believes the story to be true. Douglas directs the movie with an utter lack of passion and interest. He just doesn't seem to care about the story nor the charachters.
I am huge fan of the original, but I do realise that even the original has it's share of flaws. But at least it sticks fairly close to the novel and the reports of what happened. The original also finds redemption in Lalo Schifrin's creepy and memorable score. However, Steve Jablonsky's score is anything but creepy and memorable. It's shamelessly weak, barely noticable, and utterly forgettable.
The only reason why this excuse for a horror movie even merrits one star is due to two nicely executed scenes: The babysitter in the closet, and the little girl on the roof. These scenes are brilliantly edited and handled with suspense and tension. But sadly, to suspenseful scenes in a pile of garbage does not a good movie make.
|
|
|
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Laughable, September 13, 2007
Pure trash that has absolutely nothing to do with the original movie, or the book, let alone what the Lutz family actually claimed happened in the house. Andrew Douglas took one of America's most pervasive haunted house stories, and a cult classic, and turned it into a cheesy daddy-goes-crazy slasher.
Furthermore, it's an assault on George Lutz' character, accusing him of everything from hacking his dog to pieces to trying to murder his family.
Seems kind of strange to make a movie about an (at the time) living family and deny the family access to the movie until its release, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
DVD ~ Jessica Biel
DVD ~ Chad Michael Murray
DVD ~ Wesley Snipes
DVD ~ James Brolin
DVD ~ Naomi Watts
