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?

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alteredtome 8 years ago

I also find the original much better. It's a movie that still haunts me to this day, just like The Shining. I've never been able to rewatch it, because of how much it scared me. A ghost story that frightening based on true events? Yup, I'll just be over here, huddled in a corner with a blanket over my head. I was actually afraid to watch the remake (reinterpretation?), because I wondered if it would be even more frightening.

Nope, not even close. It was way too spoon-fed, with everything having to have an explanation. Evil dude who tortures and murders people on an ancient burial ground? Seriously? Did the studio execs tell them to add that trope in? Plus, not knowing why it was happening was a huge part of the fear in the first one.

The scary part of the 1979 one was the slow break-down of their family. It let us get to know them so much better, which caused me to feel the terror and absolute helplessness they felt. And oh my gosh, Jodi was a pig? AHHH!! Like others here, I was waiting to see the part where the money disappeared. I don't know why that stuck in my mind after all of these years. Maybe it's because in the original, it was a moment when it was clear that the force was out to hurt them, especially because money problems were such a central issue for them.

The story just went too fast with the 2005 one, and the only scares I got were the cheap jump ones. In the original, I could relate to the fear the wife and kids were feeling because of George and the house. In this one, I just didn't care.

The only part I thought they did better was the log-chopping scene. That scared the crap out of me. Him coming for the family with a shotgun? Meh.

[–] the_butch 8 years ago

1979.

the 05 version tries way too hard to be creepy (eg. jodie is a girl with long black hair instead of a pig-like creature, the stupid ghost apparitions, the useless jumpscares etc.) and i hated the changes they made (the priest wasn't much of an important character, the dog dies, the pedophile babysitter etc.).

like others have said, i find things a lot more creepier when the naked eye doesn't see what needs to be seen. most horror movies nowadays rely way too much on "creeping" the audience out with pointless and stupid things.

i'm not hating on this version either (i thought it was above average), and not saying the 79 version is a classic, but i just prefer the 79 version. this story has potential of being a horror classic and i'm just hoping james wan makes a decent movie out of this story with his conjuring franchise since his first two conjuring movies have been fcucking awesome.

[–] the_butch 8 years ago

[–] fjk1138-731-161881 7 years ago

1979 version all the way.

-- The house has a creepiness to it that is not in the 2005 version
-- Lalo Schifrin's score is haunting as ever within seconds of the opening titles and just gets more intense from there
-- Jodie works better as a pig
-- Brolin and Kidder are classic actors from a different generation
-- The flies, the priest, and GET OUT!
-- Though it explains the "ancient indian burial ground" cliché, it leaves it more to the imagination
-- The subplot with the priest being challenged by his own clergymen adds better weight to "is it all real or not" mentality
-- It at least tries to follow the book
-- It still creeps me out all these years later

The problem with any remakes at this point is that they will have no shock value because horror movies have evolved and changed over the past few decades where nothing is really shocking anymore. Additionally the more this particular movie gets remade or redone (whatever), the more the story will drift away from the original concept and you are left with nothing but a title and few character references, which is what happened in the 2005 version and it loses its meaning to the point of being...well, pointless.