MovieChat Forums > The Amityville Horror (2005) Discussion > This or the old version?

This or the old version?

posted 13 years ago by dinemellon
39 replies | jump to latest

Recently, my interests in horror movies grew immensly, and I plan to watch some of the most famous horror films... Exorcist, Poltergeist, the lot...

The Amityville Horror is also one I'm very interested in. But I don't know which one to pick: This one, or the old version from 1979. I have seen neither one of them.

Which is the better one? Mostly, which one is scarier? This is most important part for me. Acting and all that jazz do matter, but for me, it's all about scaryness (is that a word?).

So, I pose this question to all who have seen both movies: Which one can you recommend?

[–] ActionJunkie007 13 years ago

What kind of horror do you like? Personally, I used to find the original scary as hell as a kid, but nowadays, its pretty tame and aside from the eerie music, I dont find it that scary at all anymore. The remake is VERY SCARY, lots of jumps and frightening visuals to mess with you! One of my all time favorite remakes, and I definately prefer it to the original. In every possible way.

"1...2....guess who's coming for you..."

[–] MaximSinclair 13 years ago

Take the remake, much MUCH scarier and very high in tension with some really good scares! Make sure you watch it at night to get a better atmosphere too.

The original is very long and boring and is rather comedic than scary. The Book is very good as well, better than the original film, but if you have to pick a film version, take the remake, but you should check out the book too.

[–] norman-dostal 8 years ago

This one isn't scary at all

[–] Braxton611 13 years ago

I would definitely go for the remake. The original may have been good when it came out, but now it is boring and a bit cheesy. The remake actually has some creepy stuff in it, and the acting is a thousand times better. Anybody who says the original is better probably just can't get past the fact that this one is a remake.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] norman-dostal 8 years ago

You're nuts. Brolin and Kidder acted circles around these people!

[–] PrincessMagical 13 years ago

Nothing tops the original. People who say the new one is better are completely out of their minds. The original is a staple in horror.

Your chains are still mine, you belong to me! - The Phantom Of The Opera

[–] speedolitec 13 years ago

I still prefer the original, but I thought this was a decent remake, although I could've done without some of the way too obvious effects.

[–] Moondrop_C 13 years ago

You might be better off watching both and making up your own mind. I can't compare the scares in the two versions because I haven't seen the remake from start to finish yet, but now have a DVD of it, so I'll be watching it soon. Personally, I've always found James Brolin as interesting as wet paint, while I kinda like Ryan Reynolds, but that's got nothing to do with how scary the movies are.

Nobody else can know what you might find scary.
I, personally, found the remakes/reboots of Halloween and Friday the 13th not the least bit scary, while others seem to think they were terrifying. Go figure; that's how it works, though.

[–] Starduster (268) 6 years ago

Actually I agree about watching BOTH.
As remakes go, there were things I liked about the remake. There were also things I liked about the original.
Its true that nobody can determine what a particular person may find scary.
I simply liked to see a different "take" on the story.
I thought both were well acted.
Both contain a rather "manufactured" version of the story.
I DO believe the house was haunted, at least at one time. The problem is that the book added things to make the story more interesting. then the movie embellished a bit more.
TRULY, a lot of haunting s are scary to the people experiencing them. That doesn't always translate to the big screen. That is why we end up with embellishments which ends up making the story fictional in a number of aspects. Then the story is no longer believed.
One thing is for sure. The Defeo murders DID happen and there were many weird and unexplained aspects to the story. So the fact that there continued to be weird happenings in the house might not be too surprising.
There seems to be rumor that the land was an old Indian burial ground. That aspect was never discussed. Poltergeist explored the ideas of building a house on a grave site.
Maybe there is something to that story as well.

[–] OnlyRocknRoll 13 years ago

The re-make never should have been.

Check your posts for errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation. They reveal your ignorance.

[–] worldsoblue 13 years ago

Only saw bits of the original but recomend then watch the remake. Seems cheesy the old ones that is but still classic and can't top that bc then the remakes seem like lalala samething just new. The only scary thing is Ryans wicked body and well facial hair, so do watch but watch the original also!!

[–] megansmith-257-288551 12 years ago

The old one was a LOT scarier, trust me.

Ryan Reynolds was great in this one, and the special effects were better, but the old one really creeps you out, maybe because it is like going back in time.

[–] LinkGoku 12 years ago

How can anyone say the original was scarier? It was slow, predictable and the actors were just okay.

In this version Ryan Reynolds was a lot more menacing, it was a lot creepier all around and it was never boring.

"Why don't you write an anti-glacier book instead?" - Harrison Starr

[–] bizzniss 11 years ago

That's a silly statement! You must be young or just slow. WHY ARE PEOPLE SAYING THE ORIGINAL ISN'T SCARY TODAY? It's from freaking 1979!!!! This is why no one respects today's generation. They simply make dumb arguments.

I guarantee that by the time any of you ever saw this movie, you've already seen a hundred replicas that copied it first. Then you have the nerve to say "the original isn't scary". See how STUPID that sounds?

[–] norman-dostal 8 years ago

Reynolds is a big goof. Only young ignorant people like remakes because they don't know any better or have less refined tastes

[–] dalldorfw 12 years ago

Hard to say; both are really, really bad