God, why?


Once upon a time, there was a spooky-looking house, where a tragedy occurred. A young man killed his entire family as they slept. He was judged to be mentally unstable and imprisoned.

Later, another family moved into the house, and moved out shortly afterwards claiming it was haunted. A best-selling book was written based on their account of their time there. It was a cracking good read, but it has been fairly clearly shown since that it was wildly exaggerated- both the family's story of what happened, and the author's imagination playing a part in this.

A film was made in the 1970's based on the book- it added some more exaggerated touches, and left out some rather good bits. The film did pretty well.

Then, a remake was announced. Some hoped it would stay a little closer to the book, and be the film which the original wasn't. After all, the book had been so successful- why not return to that winning formula?

Instead, a genuinely nasty film was produced- although claiming to be "based on a true story", it had almost nothing in common with the original case or the book. Hysterical and unpleasant horror movies full of dodgy, hackeyed CGI effects are commonplace now, but this had something going on which most of those don't- it made a grotesque mockery of the original case of the family murder. These were real people, and their relatives and their friends are real people- still alive, and already having gone through the experience of having a terrible event turned into entertainment for the masses. Any of them unlucky enough to have watched this film will have seen a sordidly glamorised version of the mass murder carried out on screen, and seen one of the murdered children portrayed as a vicious, black-lipped ghost with a bullet hole in her forehead, trying to kill the new owners of the house.

It doesn't even work as a good scary movie. Nobody should ever watch this. I just can't say enough bad things about it.

The people who made this film should be ashamed of themselves. And yes, I'm looking at YOU, Michael Bay.

reply

I liked this movie.

Just call me "Orange Lightning" ZA-ZA-ZA-ZING!

reply

Well, read the book and see how it compares.

reply

AMEN!!!! I agree with you 100%.....this remake had ZERO to do with the book/original movie and was a complete MESS.....!

reply

Um. The little girl, Jodie, wasn't actually a victim. She wasn't even a family member because she never existed. She was based on the imaginary friend(or was she imaginary?) the Lutz's daughter made when they lived there. She didn't actually do any killing or anything she just scared the crap out of some babysitter. The other family members aren't even shown, they all have their faces covered.

It's called "based on" not "exact depiction of events". The book/events are the basis for the movie. What part of that do you not understand?

To say it had ZERO to do with the book and original movie is retarded. Last time I checked 112 Ocean and Amityville and the Lutzes and the DeFeo murders were all featured in the original book and movie.

I'm here to inquire about your spoons.

reply

Actually, they even screwed the address up...the remake had it as 412 Ocean Ave....

They couldn't even get THAT right.

reply

They did that on purpose so newer fans wouldn't go looking for 112 / 108 Ocean Ave. That was just one of many things they were hoping to placate Amityvillians with when the new film came out. It was indeed a conscious decision.

reply

From the goof section:
The actual address of the house when the Lutz family moved in was 112 Ocean Avenue. When George and Kathleen visit the house for the first time, the address is 412 Ocean Avenue. This is because not only is the movie not meant to be historically accurate in any way, but for legal reasons they were unable to use the house's original address. For the same reasons, the children's names have been changed from the original Lutz family names.

reply

DUDE!!!
surously...i love Michael Bay hes flippin awesome at making movies so idk what the hell ur talking about

LOVE not war

reply

Stfu- transformers? Hello?

reply

Although this movie was lacking and is purely fictional, I think it's light-years better than the snooze-fest that is the original. I agree with Margot Kidder's assesment of the original film, it's a "dreadful movie".

reply

I haven't seen this movie and I didn't know the ending, and then, in the first sentence, you spoiled it for me.

Thanks for the warning, by the way. The nonexistent warning you gave me.

reply

i found this movie really great.Watch this movie as a movie and not as a true story and you will agree with me

reply

Original poster clearly didn't pay attention in the movie, the little girl wasn't trying to kill off the new family, she was friends with the daughter, and thought the mother was a good mother. The bad things she did were due to the doctor in the basement, remember the daughter tells the mother "he makes her do bad things", and in one scene shes trying to warn Ryan Reynolds when he goes and finds the doll in the closet, but the doctor is holding her to the ceiling and she can't say anything, and at the end he pulls her through the floor.

And anyway, who cares about the original family, they're dead. This movie has no obligations to honour anyone's memories, it's a horror movie, not a documentary. We watch it to be scared, not to be educated.

reply

And anyway, who cares about the original family, they're dead.


Nice!


The Amityville Horror Truth forum:
http://www.amityvillefaq.com/truthboard/

reply

A lot of sense has been said in this thread.

To the person who had a plot point spoiled, it's not a good idea to go on imdb forums if you want to keep plots a surprise, it's kind of a given that people will be discussing important bits of the film! I do it meself but luckily I have a sheeiiite memory so it doesn't matter so much. tis easy to forget to put * * * S P O I L E R * * * at the top of all yer posts.

the amityville from the 70s was the first horror film i ever watched, must have been aged 5, i was well freaked out. didn't ask me dad if i could stay up late and watch telly with him for a little while after that...the bloody cellar and dog-rescue augh...creepy. and the lad getting his fingers in the sash window GROOOOOOO...bees? [getting antihistamine]

its cool that is references a real life situation but it'd prob be well boring and sad/depressing if it was a true-life film. crazy scenes and margo kidder yelping loony-like is a right boon, she has ace expressions for horror, kind of spacek-like to me.

i'm gonna get the new version of 'ville soon, cos it's Angel out of Home and Away in it...hubba hubba.

reply

We watch it to be scared, not to be educated.


Spoken like a true american.

reply

I lack the knowldge of all the backstory behind this film and story. I never read the book, never watched the original, and never knew the story, but this movie was pathetic. Absolutely atrocious

reply

I have seen the original. I haven't read the book. I've read some info online though. This movie, which I expected to be creepy and more in tune with the book, just pissed me off. I don't get pissed off at films really but it's a collection of one disappointing scene after another. If it doesn't matter that it isn't a "true story" or that it's "just a film" and we shouldn't care about any of the stupidity put into this tripe then the the makers of the film shouldn't purport it to be "based on a true story" or even based on the book. I'm just so sick of Hollywood using the "based on a true story" thing and then totally decimating the truth. They wouldn't know what the truth was if it bit them in the ass. I don't know if any of it is true but at least in the original, the story, dialogue and performances were compelling. I had to make myself sit through this whole thing mostly because I thought it would somehow get interesting but it never did.


The whole thing with the little ghost girl pissed me off the most. Aside from them making up a child who never existed, it was in incredibly poor taste to depict a murder victim child as a malevolent entity that is being eternally tormented and controlled by some evil spirit. And the murders of the DeFeo family do still matter. It doesn't matter when an event happened. The truth is the truth and a lie is a lie.

"Thanks for the Dada-ist peptalk. I feel much more abstract now."-Buffy

reply

To the person that said who cares about the original family they are dead that is insensitive. Not sure though if the person was talking about the Defeo people who were murdered or the Lutz family. But also its overly sensitive to take the movie too seriously. Especially since the events have been in the movie so its not the same as what happened. I think it would have been kind of creepy if the little girl was called Allison in this remake instead of Jodie. More insensitive to have the name of the original youngest daughter who was killed. But having the spirit in this movie be the ghost of the little girl who was murdered is more interesting than just the ghost being a pig.

The scary clown doll is hiding under my bed.

reply

They did it for the money. Oh, wait, now I remember. That's why they call it the movie biz. All movies are made to sell tickets, popcorn and sugar water (the obesity is free). Wait a minute. Obesity and diabetes cost us billions of bucks a year in health care costs. So that means we pay for the diabetes through ever escalating premiums and deductibles and. . .wait. . . so if the movies were free, no, wait. That can't be right. The movies cost millions because of the CGI effects and the super rich people overpaid to make them. I know I can figure this out, just give me a minute. . .

reply

I haven't read the book, and I have no recollection of seeing the original film, but this remake still bored the pants off me. There was no coherence whatsoever. The jumps of logic from one scene to another were sometimes hard to follow. The film was full of cringe-worthy, mildew-ridden tropes (evil preacher! murdered indians! torture items! rotten people looming around! bleeding walls! dead children in the closet!) but not one of these potentially scary things was explored in depth, just randomly shoved onscreen for cheap scares. The pace was choppy - iunno if it was the directing or the editing, but it definitely did not work - it was not slow but not fast enough either to work in any way. It felt like a movie directed by a one-year old: every time they picked something up in their hand to examine, something new and shiny stole their attention and they dropped whatever they were holding at the moment to gleefully waddle after *the new thing*. Literally, it felt like the director had difficulties to hold their attention on anything for more than what time it took to make a cheap jump scare.

I won't dwell into the story, because I don't know the original story. I liked the kid actors, but I was left feeling their talents and presence were left underused. Instead we got RR who was vague and the mother, who was okay.

I like my horror movies; I like many horror movies a lot. This, however, was dull, uninspired and a bit overdone at the same time (how does one even manage at that), drab, boring and irritating. It made me want to howl my frustration at the screen. Two thirds of the film gone, I knew I was wasting my time, but somehow still waiting for the resurrection that never came. It was just a long, slow, sticky slide to disappointment. One thing must be said for the film though: it made me feel things enough to want to write a bad review of it, just to save someone else from wasting a perfectly good couple of hours.

~ it may be that your whole purpose in life is simply to act as a warning to others ~

reply

you should have watched it in the theater, when i was leaving there was a man with a mustache complaining in horror, why the hell do they let us watch such movies. i was thinking why do you go to a horror movie. remind me of Halloween movies in the 1980s and screams in the theater, but there was no screams at this one, just silent horror. i know when to close my eyes without spoiling the movie.

reply

Well said. I couldn't agree more.

reply