The Amityville Horror (Remake)

A Review by Nick Peron

So a number of years back I wrote a review of the original Amityville Horror . My assessment of the film was that it was boring, and the prince of evil was more of a practical joker in poor taste over anything else -- If you ignore the whole killing your whole family thing that is.

A few years back Hollywood decided that Amityville Horror needed to be remade (of course it did!) I avoided it like the plague because Michael Bay had his filthy little fingers dabbling with it. This was back in the day before Michael Bay had his name attached to every horror movie remake, so you had a choice and you could do such things. Now, I never wanted to watch the remake -- the original was bad enough -- but this time I had no choice. There are two things to blame for this:

1.) Wal-mart, and

2.) Myself.

There is a story here, sit back and listen well, so a few weeks back when I was on my most excellent vacation (Which you can read all about in my review of Howard the Duck ) I spent a lot of time doing sweet eff-all at my parents home. At one point in the vacation, I decided, I need to get some fucking movies. Now, my parents live in a small town located on Vancouver Island, it's about 1 or 2 hours away from anywhere remotely interesting, and has all the trappings of a small town: meaning, it's selection is fucking limited. The only source of movies I could go to and purchase something that was going to be potentially enjoyable was Wal-Mart. As I've previously stated, I don't mind Wal-Mart, and I shop there with no shame or guilt, because they sell (among everything else) movies on the cheap.

Wal-Mart always has a selection of value pack movies that you can get between two to four movies for the price of one. We aren't just talking about those poorly made movies bundled together (Such as what our very own Rhonda Baughman is presently slogging through as I write this, and she has my utmost sympathy) But we are talking about popular Hollywood movies. So if you didn't give a shit to buy the super-special edition of the first two Terminator movies, and wanted just the two movies with no frills, you could by them both together. So I'm looking around, and I happen to catch a movie 4-pack which had the 2nd and 3rd Poltergeist films . I'm like "Fucking deadly, I need these movies!" My rational at the time was that purchasing these movies separately, -- depending on what ever-fucking special edition hand job you're buying -- will set you back about $20.00 (Canadian.) Why spend possible $40 bucks on two movies, when I can get the same two, with two OTHER movies for only $16.99? No brainer.

But, what are the other two movies? Let's take a look here: The Legend of Hell House -- Okay, Roddy McDowell, not bad... And.. Amityville Horror.... The original? No, no it's not, it's the Platinum fucking Dunes remake. I buy it anyway, and this is the part of this little confession that I blame myself for what happened. If I'm going to buy a movie, I'm going to watch it. Period. The only exception to this rule is my copy of Sixteen Candles which I got stuck with when I purchased the Breakfast Club . I haven't watched this movie because I'm not a girl. Secondly, I am also very anal about watching things in some sort of sequence, I cannot watch a set and not watch the movies in the order they are placed in.

Oh, and I know what you're thinking: Why don't you just watch the good movies first? Thanks Captain Obvious, but don't you think I've already thought of that? The fact is, I can't, I tired God damn it. I stood there in front of my TV, it's warm glow radiating on me as I stood there in my underwear, open DVD case in one hand, a double of Jack and Coke in the other. There was a film of cold sweat all over my body as I struggled over the task at hand. I down my drink in three quick gulps and slam it down on the table (spooking my poor cat in the process.) and with my free hand I grab for Poltergeist 2, It's then that I black out. I snap back to reality when I hear the familiar roar of the MGM Lion and musical chords, signifying to anyone who cared that this was indeed an MGM DVD. To my horror, not only do I realize that I have put in Amityville Horror, but I am also naked. What the fuck?

Okay Amityville, this round is yours. Needless to say, this movie had two things working against it already:

1.) I thought the original sucked

2.) Did I mention the Michael Bay thing?

I was going to give the movie until strike three before I turned it off.... And this is where the movie blind sided me: It wasn't that bad. That's right, a fucking Platinum Dunes remake was better than the original film. I know, I need a drink also. What really helped were those creative liberties they do in reinvisionist remakes. You know what I'm talking about, that totally different thing they put into each movie, that is completely out of line with the original? The things that hardcore fan-boy assholes like me get up in arms about every fucking time they do it, like we never expect it to happen? These are what saved this movie from suffering the same fate as the original.

As an interesting aside, George Lutz (the real live guy who the movie is based loosely on) went and saw the remake, and called it "drivel" and was in the process of suing the filmmakers, before he cacked out from heart disease in May 2006. This coming from a guy who pretty much cashed in on the Exorcist gravy train in the 70's with your "Satan possessed my house" story, like your opinion matters. Lutz's original tale was fabricated as well in that it relied heavily on certain creative liberties as well. If you ever follow the "true" story about the Amityville house, when people asked Lutz what really happened in the house he would response with something to the effect of "It's too horrifying to tell." Wow, great line, Lovecraft. Considering nobody else who has lived in your former home since has ever experienced paranormal phenomenon, the law of averages says that the only thing that could have been haunting the Amityville house was bullshit.

Anyway, before I get an angry letter from the Lutz estate, let me get back to reviewing the 2005 film remake based on his tale....

Original VS Remake: The Cast and Crew

The original cast in the film featured James Brolin (playing George Lutz) and Margot Kidder (playing his wife Kathy) and some annoying kids. The remake however stars Ryan Reynolds (As George) and Melissa George (as Kathy, obviously) and some annoying kids. The remake has slightly less annoying children, and Melissa George totally blows Margot Kidder out of the fucking water, by having a stronger female role and for being a lot more attractive.

Kiss-Off:

The movie is full of Kiss posters and t-shirts, and I am at a loss as to why. Okay, yes the movie is set in 1974, and yes Kiss was a popular band back then, but why so many references? Was Gene Simmons the financial backer to this movie? It's also used as a heavy handed characterization of Billy Lutz (played by Jesse James.) You know, he hates his step-dad, wants to be a rebel, so you know how much of a rebel and an outcast he is because he listens to Kiss.

The Gore the Merrier:

That's the other thing about this remake, it's infinitely more gorier. The original hardly had any and when it did, it was scares. The best example I can give is the opening sequence where they show Ronnie DeFeo Jr. killing his family, there is hardly any blood. Usually with remakes, they ramp up the gore at the expense of the more subtly scare tactics. Stephen King once said that if he couldn't scare some one it wasn't beneath him to settle with grossing out his reading audience. Guess some people in Hollywood took his words to heart and went for the gross out model. Surprisingly this movie actually has a balance of gore and suspense. Which beats the fuck out of the original. My grandma told stories about her youth that had better pacing than the original Amityville. Thankfully the remake doesn't suffer from this unfortunate flaw.

Sex Appeal:

I'm going to give the remake points again for being better than the original, this time with the sex appeal. I usually ride a movie for hiring a bunch of pretty faces that have no right playing the characters that they are portraying. Reynolds and George are very much Hollywood pretty, but at least they are believable in their roles. Watching Brolen and Kidder being erotic (the school girl sex scene from the original) felt wrong, like you were walking in on your parents. They are bland, boring and unexciting, like a tired worn out marriage. This doesn't sell the fact that they are a remarried couple that have just bought their dream house and are fucking in love with each other. They had all the energy of stroke victims. The remake however, it's almost fap worthy, that's how much energy these two have. Don't get me wrong, this is a far cry from Kim Basinger and Mickey Rourke from 9 1/2 Weeks , but it certainly is a fucking improvement. If a sex scene makes me feel like Ham when he walked in on Noah, then you fucking failed at your sex scene.

Hot Baby-Sitters and Fingering:

One of the more absurd elements in the movie is the casting choice for the baby-sitter in the remake. The chose Rachel Nicols to play the role of Lisa the babysitter. Yeah, Rachel Nicols. Pure Platinum Dunes right here: cast a really hot woman as the baby-sitter and fill her entire moment on camera with sexual innuendo. The baby sitter in the original was a bland, boring blond girl with braces and she gets trapped in the closet, and bloodies her fingers trying to get out. She is such a bitch that you don't really care to know her character and cheer when she gets trapped in the closet, but like just about everything with the original film, it's boring. As for the remake, well thank you Platinum Dunes for mind fucking me on this one. The babysitter walks in and she is drop dead attractive. Sex with this woman would probably be not unlike kissing the gods, the kind of attractive that if she were to fuck you, you'd probably die of a heart attack. Where the fuck did they find this babysitter anyway? My experience tells me that all babysitters wore sweats, had bad hair and were possibly made of ham. My initial thought was that who the fuck in 1974 would hire this girl as a babysitter? I was waiting for the scene to end with Mr. Lutz making sloppy passes at her, you know "So, can I give you a ride anywhere?"

Later on in the scene, she's alone with the 12 year old kid who obviously has a boner for her, doing that thing with her tongue, and I'm wondering if I should be arrested for watching it.... Anyway, the icing on the cake is when the babysitter gets trapped in the closet, because of course this is when the freaky shit starts to happen. Now the original, they just settled for the annoying babysitter to be locked in the closet by herself, banging frantically for help, not the remake though. In this version not only is she locked in the closet, she's also visited by the ghost of a little dead girl. Now that isn't enough, oh no, next the ghost girl proceeds to make the babysitter finger fuck her gaping head wound.

What's the (Back)Story, Morning Glory?

The biggest problem with the original film is that it doesn't go very far to give a credible reason why the house is haunted. You're just left to just understand that the house is possessed, and that's that. Which, if this was a movie that had a social commentary or some kind of implied meaning (IE, Michael Myers in the original Halloween ) then okay, fine, don't explain it to me, because the "why" isn't important. However, the central focus of this movie is apparently the house, so you better tell me why it's fucking haunted.

The remake does this of course, explains that the home used to be owned by a missionary and that he used to torture Native Americans in the basement. Makes sense, and it's based on some historical fact, it's not something that they just pulled out of their asses for the movie (No seriously, I looked it up.) That's the fatal flaw of the original, and let me tell you something else it totally fumbled the fucking ball when you have a haunted house story that has a history where Native Americans were tortured and killed, and you don't roll with that. Are you fucking kidding me? Nothing makes a haunted house (well haunted anything, really) movie work more than a bunch of pissed off spirits that were Native American.

All Things Come to An Ending:

Now I don't really recall how the original ended, but I'm sure it wasn't very memorable, I think James Brolin's character smashes open the wall in the basement, sees the "Devil's" face and it turns out to be him or something, and then Margo Kidder comes in an rescues him and they run away, the end. The remake, however has Ryan Reynolds chasing after his wife and kids with a shot gun and an axe. There is this great scene where he's about to chop Billy up with the axe and his wife points the gun at him, and he just grabs it and puts it to his temple.

It's a more suspenseful ending, and it was more entertaining movie.... Damn you Michael Bay, damn you.

The Case For: The case going for the remake of the Amityville Horror is that it's not boring, as I stated ad nauseam above.

The Case Against: They totally didn't do the window frame landing on the finger bit, which was possibly the only enjoyable part of the original movie.