MovieChat Forums > The Amityville Horror (2005) Discussion > 1979 or 2005?

1979 or 2005?

posted 14 years ago by amarillo513
73 replies | jump to latest

Which one was better?

I like this movie, I do, but the original one was much better, in my opinion.

James Brolin made a far better George Lutz than Ryan Reynolds did. Brolin did a great job of actually looking pale and ill throughout the movie, as the real George Lutz was reported to be like. Ryan never looked or acted like that. He only acted like a jerk, which wasn't good enough. Melissa George is a cute, pretty woman, but Margot Kidder was better in the role. Melissa George even agrees the original was better. I read that somewhere, but forget. The role of the priest in the original was a big part of the movie, but in the remake, not so much. Not that I think the second priest could come anywhere near Rod Steiger's preformance. Oh, and the kids. I think the kids (the boys) played a little too much of a part in the remake. It was fine in the first film when they were just kinda there. As for the girl, the black-haired girl in the original gave off kind of a creepy vibe. The blonde girl in the remake, not so much. And Jodie being a mysterious pig creature was far better than Jodie being the typical creepy black-haired girl you seem to see in other movies. In my opinion, what you DON'T see in ghost films is creepier than anything the makers could put in there, which is what they did with the original. All you ever saw of any entity was the glowing eyes in the window and the face that looked back at George in the basement. I see alot of people seem to think the acting wasn't very good in the original, and I don't see how they can think that. I think the acting from everyone was just great. Especially Brolin and Steiger.

The music in the original was creepier. And there's no doubt that the whole "GET OUT!" scene was 100x better in the original. Even the dog was better in the original. Speaking of that, the killing of the dog in the remake was just so unnecessary, in my opinion. The only thing really weak about the original was the ending. Not much of a climatic ending, really. But really, I don't see what more they could have done.

So, what do you think?

[–] I_Call_Myself_Ulla 14 years ago

I agree with you, the movie from 1979 is so much better!
This one seemed like a parody of the original.

[–] piggeek 14 years ago

1979 better than 2005...?
You are fooled by your familiarity.
I thought 2005 was closer to being as creepy as the book.
I get a little tired of people pissing on new adaptations.
Sometimes the original is better; most of the time it was just first.

[–] dbrockskk1 9 years ago

Nope. 1979 is better.

suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

[–] norman-dostal 8 years ago

The 2005 was nothing like the book. Neither was the 79 version. The 79 is a superior movie in every way. Writing, acting, etc

[–] egoangel18 14 years ago

So the dog died in this one? I saw both films awhile back I can't remember what happened in which one. I just know that all the bs when Ryan Reynolds sees dead Indians & stuff isn't in the old one. And I liked the scene in the old one when they can't find the money. I felt like Ryan Reynolds & the original lead were like the same person. What were other major glaring differences between 2005 & the original?

[–] jumades 14 years ago

the dog died only in this new version, in the original movie the dog is not of the son of kathy, it's the dog of George.

[–] jumades 14 years ago

I think that the version of 1979 is better than 2005 like the book is better that the version of 1979.

in 2005 they have to show ghosts, they could'nt create fear only with the atmosphere of the house, like in the original movie.

[–] DrakeLee 14 years ago

This is actually one of those rare enough occasions where the remake outdoes the original by a long-shot. And that's probably because, in my humble opinion, the 1979 film just wasn't very good.

[–] Joey_Kerr 14 years ago

2005 is not a good movie at all. Its rushed and relies on CGI and cheep scares that weren't scary to begin with, which is not how to make a horror movie. Unfortunately kids are growing up with these movies, so they like them and pay to see them. Now that would be fine if they weren't so ignorant to the horror films in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, thinking them is outdated and not very good when in reality they are far superior to any horror movie like this remake. If you do some research you'll see that old horror movies were much bigger hits than horror movies of now that do make money, but are poorly talked about by the majority.

[–] norman-dostal 8 years ago

You have no taste in film. This one is a joke. When RR kills the dog, it's laughable

[–] DaveBond007 14 years ago

Man, I used to love the original, but the remake easilt wins hands down. Its creepier, with much better acting, and a very menacing George. Im so glad they made Jodie a ghost, instead of the pig faced creature that George sees in upper windows. Also, the jump scares are frightening! I remember being scared of the red eyes outside the window as a kid, but watching it now, its almost laughable. With the money thing, come on, the "house" stole the money? LOL. Pretty lame.

Ryan Reynolds chopping the wood with the kids, and George actually believing his kids were turning into monsters were great additions!! Overall, one of PD's best films, but then again, I think all of their films are amazing.

[–] norman-dostal 8 years ago

No just no. Only young ignorant people like remakes like this. No taste in film

[–] jumades 14 years ago

guys, we are calling this movie "remake" but this is not, this is a reinterpretation, remake is with the same script (The Omen,psycho, etc), sometimes when we call a movie "remake" we are wrong :)

[–] ajbzerosignal84 14 years ago

Neither.

The 1979 film is utterly dated, very cheesy, poorly filmed and written, undone by daft effects like the pig demon and is best remembered by being dwarfed by Stanley Kubrick's The Shining the following year.

The 2005 version is more slick and professionally made, but the acting is virutally all melodrama, feels rushed and it has an over reliance on cheap BOO-scares.
Worse of all, the filmmakers promised a more faithful version of the book when it was in production, and turned 180 on that by being the complete opposite and instead resorted to stealing elements of other ghost/haunting horror flicks like The Shining (George's homicidal behaviour and the day counter), The Ring (The spooky dead girl) and The Sixth Sense (That scene with the little boy heading to the bathroom at night)

The consensus on Rotten Tomatoes said it best "A so-so remake of a so-so original"

[–] axelblaze269 14 years ago

the original is much better and far creepyier. i did quiet enjoy the new one also but to much cgi and cheap scares and having just read the book i must say the 2005 is nothing like the book and i cant understand why people say its more like the book. but i do advicise the book to any one who enjoys these films.

[–] Lunchbox-3 14 years ago

I would agree with a so-so remake of a so-so original. The new production is slicker with more money behind it. The most obvious tonal change is that it came out in a time saturated by gory horror movies so it was obvious the material of the original needed to be "embellished" with extra gore shots, i.e. George's dream in the sacrificial chamber, and killing the dog. The only thing the remake has on the original is another 25 years of cliches to draw upon, and more gore shots. It's still tame compared to anything else being released on the market in 2005.

[–] fluffchop 10 years ago

best remembered by being dwarfed by Stanley Kubrick's The Shining the following year.

Hardly!

When the original movie came out it was a blockbuster. At the time it was in the top ten of all time.

[–] norman-dostal 8 years ago

Remake is correct. Movies are never remade with an exact same script. Remake just means same title, same basic story.

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

The 1979 version I actually sat and watched all the way though. It's not great by any standards but it's a decent and watchable movie.

The 2005 version, on the other hand, was something I turned off after half an hour. Too silly and not in the slightest bit engrossing. And why needlessly include an ex Home and Away bunny just for some 'glamour'? Margot Kidder didn't need to be a glamourpuss and neither was the real life Lutz woman. Typical modern claptrap.