Ever since the release of Jay Anson's 1978 novel The Amityville Horror, the story of Kathy and John Lutz and their haunted experiences at 112 Ocean Avenue have become a part of pop culture. Whether you think their story is complete mumbo jumbo or that it might be true, few deny that Anson's novel is compelling and creepy. It was a massively successful page-turning best seller in the '70s, which gave way to the 1979 feature film adaptation starring James Brolin and Margot Kidder. That film was followed by a whole slew of follow-up sequels. More than a quarter century has passed since the Lutz story first came to light, and it is still hotly contested. Books and documentaries continue to analyze its reality or debunk the validity. Now, in 2005, Hollywood has decided to take another stab at doing Anson's novel justice. While the original film was a big success, it is incredibly dated with cheesy acting and effects and strays heavily from the novel.
The new Amityville Horror stars Ryan Reynolds as George Lutz and Melissa George as Kathy Lutz. Jesse James, Jimmy Bennett and Chloe Grace Moretz play their three children, Billy, Michael and Chelsea, respectively. It is directed by first timer Andrew Douglas from a script by Scott Kosar. The story, as the Lutz legend goes, has George and Kathy Lutz moving with their three children into a large house on Long Island Sound in the mid-Seventies. The house is steeply discounted because of the grisly events that occurred there one year prior when 23-year-old Ronald Defeo murdered his entire family in the middle of the night with a shotgun. The Lutzes decide that they can deal with the house's past and move in. Almost immediately, strange occurrences take place, from Chelsea's new imaginary friend to sounds of "Get Out!" and George constantly being awakened at precisely 3:15 a.m. each night. Little by little, the plot escalates and the house begins to take control of George Lutz.
The ultimate irony of this new film is that, from its inception I have been hearing that it was intended to be a closer adaptation of Anson's novel. After getting sucked into the lore of the Amityville legend, I picked up a copy of the book and read it before seeing the new film. To my surprise, the new film shares very, very little with the novel, changing almost every detail and retaining only the thinnest outline of the novel's story. As it turns out, the original film from 1979, which is by no means a good film, is actually more true to the Anson novel. Screenwriter Scott Kosar has taken enormous liberties with the source material for this new film and, with that, sucked every ounce of subtle and creative terror from what could have been a classic horror film. In its place, the makers have delivered a typical, run of the mill cheap scare fest that should provide the kind of disposable entertainment audiences seem to flock to in recent years. Quality and cash flow do not coincide, so this is what we are left with.
From about ten minutes into the film, the story of Amityville goes sour. Crazy events happen so quickly in the house, such as the ghost of an Indian drooling blood behind the little boy when he goes to the bathroom in the middle of the night, that you can't possibly buy the family remaining in the house. Instead of little occurrences happening that could almost be explained away, we have loud bangs, crashes and voices in the background. I'd be getting the hell out of that house the second I heard voices saying "Get Out!" and a little girl appeared in the corner of the room hanging from a noose. But that's just me. George Lutz also changes personality almost immediately when they enter the house. Suddenly he's cold, disturbed and violent. There isn't a slow build, it's just an immediate thing. George is in the house? Then he's crazeeeee! He leaves, he's fine. The first title card says Day 1, then it's suddenly Day 15. What happened to all those events in between? Either the cutting room floor or a terribly incompetent script.
Separate from the context of the ultimately silly film, there are some decent jumps. They are not particularly clever or distinctive, but they are loud and sudden and will take audiences by surprise. Like a theme park ride that doesn't need a story for set up, these jolts should please audiences momentarily. They stand alone and don't make the accompanying film any better, but they are something. Unfortunately, there's this bad film in between each of the scares.
The acting isn't the problem in the film. Ryan Reynolds does a good job and, along with Blade: Trinity, he's now sufficiently proven he has a much broader range than the Van Wilder shtick of his past. As George Lutz becomes violent, and eventually homicidal, Reynolds is scary. He's not exactly Nicholson in The Shining, but he does a nice homage.
Melissa George is fine in the brief part she's given, but she doesn't have much to do. Again, going back to the book, her character had some really interesting moments and her arc as a character was fascinating. Here, she's just supposed to look scared and be a loving mother on occasion. Reynolds is the focus and you mostly forget that the Kathy Lutz character matters at all.
The worst part of this new Amityville is the Indian burial ground plotline. I won't give away major plot details on this, but I just couldn't believe how unnecessary and stupid this plot device was. Somehow the makers decided that the hauntings and mythology behind the horrible events of the Defeo murders weren't enough. They felt it necessary to explore another myth of the Amityville lore, that the area was once an ancient Indian burial ground. Enter cheesy ancient Indian torture sequences. Good Lord, give me a break. At best, this was fodder for a sequel.
Director Andrew Douglas offers up the kind of frenzied, style-for-style's-sake directing we see entirely too much of today. Of course, Michael Bay, who serves as a producer on this, is one of the originators of this whiz-bang flashy style exhibited by Douglas, so it's probably to be expected. In contrast, I loved the remake of Texas Chainsaw, which Bay also produced, so I had some hope that this might follow that trend. That was a genuinely scary film, with a great look and a strong female character driving the story. This is just visual masturbation: Quick cut editing, swinging camera pans and jarring images of spook house scares.
Amityville Horror is an extreme disappointment. As a fan of the book, I'm surely more critical than average audiences, but I'd think anyone would see through this cookie cutter horror film. This is a bad film any way you look at it. My familiarity with the novel mostly frustrates me because I know how much potential there was and how much they screwed up a great story with genuine scares in favor of a film that offers nothing new. I know that you have to make changes to adapt any book, and there are even a few in this new film that I understand, but don't just make changes to be different. I never thought it could be possible, but the 2005 Amityville Horror is an inferior film to the 1979 version. Neither is good and fans of the book will be let down to see that, for the second time, Hollywood has taken this highly filmic and compelling novel that has stuck with readers for years and turned out a completely forgettable film.
http://uk.ign.movies.com
The Amityville Horror was the ticket.It was both terrifying and funny, and there were many chilling moments. His transformation from good guy step-dad to menacing, red-eyed villain was nicely done. As for Phillip Baker Hall, as the priest, he brought good chemistry to his character, and I admire him greatly as an actor.
8/10