The Amityville Horror | | Cast : | James Brolin, Margot Kidder | | Director : | Stuart Rosenberg | | Studio : | Mgm/Ua Studios | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen | | Released Date : | July 27, 1979 | | DVD Released Date : | July 17, 2001 | | Language : | Unknown (Dubbed), English (Dubbed), French (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), English (Original Language), Spanish (Original Language) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | August 04, 2005 | | Summary | For God's sake, get out! | Content
 | Where do I even begin? After seeing the brand new horror epic, The Amityville Horror, with more of a mysterious background to it's story, I decided to just go see it for the heck of going to see a new horror film (hadn't seen one in a while). I had seen bits and pieces of the original, which I had thought looked stupid with the top windows on almost all the time, even in the daytime making it look as if the house had eyes (it's trademark). With bleeding walls, and a pit to hell in the basement, I was wondering where they were going with all of this, but then again, it was movie, so what could I expect?
After seeing the new one, I was surprised to find out that the films were based on true events. Thinking this was rediculously unbeleivable, I took into consideration that maybe it was wasn't a lie. Doing some research, I also found that the new one barely even followed the supposedly true story, and that the old one was much more accurate to the Defeo and the Lutz stories, so I figured I would rent the old one and see just what really did go on in that house where the Lutzes claimed black fluid was oozing from the toilets, the walls were bleeding blood, and that there was a pit to hell in the basement. Now if that doesn't take the cake.
112 Ocean Ave. was a seemingly normal and happy place. The Defeo family of six had just moved into the large house the year of 1974, along with their oldest son Ronald who was 23. But merely 28 days after moving in, a grisly murder was commited in the house by Ronald, who killed all four of his brothers and sisters, and his parents. With a full confession, Ronald "Rodney" claimed he heard voices coming from inside the house saying to "Katch em', Kill em'", which was scribbled all over the inside one of Rodney's books.
One year later, George Lutz (James Brolin) Kathy Lutz (Margot Kidder) and her three kids have finally found a house at an almost affordable price. Being a contracter, George knows a house such as 112 Ocean Ave. is not supposed to be priced $80,000, but more around $120,000. With a price neither can refuse, the Lutzes buy the house only to find that the reason why the house is so cheap is inevitable. The houses past is still haunting amityville, and hell is about to come alive inside of the Lutzes, the ghosts of the Defeos, and the demons who have taken the house for themselves.
Down to the same exact time and number of days, the Lutzes were running for their lives at the same times that the Defeos were being shot by their son Rodney, leaving everything they owned except for their car, behind. There was no way it couldn't be true. There were too many things affecting not just the Lutzes, but the Defeo family, the Lutzes friends, and the realtors who were selling the house. The house ended up going through 4 realtors in one year. None of them wanted to even go near the house again.
Like many others after the first two familys, there were plenty more making sensational claims, all turning out to be ablysmally fake, but none is as mind boggling as the Lutzes, who past lie detector tests, would not go back for their personal belongings, and refused to even live in New York anymore, and moved to a different state. Even the kids said the exact same thing as the parents, and no brainwashing seemed to have been taken place. All said the same thing, and no stories were changed during investigation. It seems to be another one of those things that will be left unsolved...for a while.
As for the movie, I would suggest seing the new one better. The acting and suspense in this one seems to fall short each time of what it's really trying to achieve. I give it four stars because of accuracy to the true story, but if not, it would've gotten three stars. It's got some pretty scares, and effects, such as the pit to hell, and the bleeding walls. The ending is probably the best part. As the film tries desperately to do things, it ends up stopping on one subject, and going straight to another very fast without much being solved, but in a true story, there isn't much solved anyway for this poor family. See it. It's definitely cult classic that will continue to move on in history. |
| Rating | | | Date | July 27, 2005 | | Summary | Maybe If I'd seen it 20 years ago.... | Content
| I like old movies, I really do. I've enjoyed Hitchcock and many others, from Cape Fear to Jaws to Phantom of the Opera. I'd expected much more from the Amityville Horror than what I got. It isn't frightening and the length of it succeeds only in making it more boring.
The storyline essentially follows a family as they move into a house with a tragic history. Every family member is affected, hearing voices and behaving strangely. The father especially shows signs that the house is "getting to him". It's a good idea for the story, but the movie takes much too long to get it flowing. The movie could easily have been condensed into an hour-and-a-half long drama without losing anything at all. The priest's involvement was scary at times, but the pacing was much too slow. The final climax, what should have been the highlight of the film, only satisfied me in that the movie was finally over. It was cheesy and dated. I must admit, that is understandable given its age. Yet I feel that even in the 1970s, the director could have found a more suspenseful tactic than having (gasp, no!) tar appear in the toilets. Although, I will admit, that had me cowering in fear - ha!
All right, so I cannot rate the Amityville Horror as anything else but a 1. It was boring, tedious, and I prayed for it to end just so my misery wouldn't be prolonged. I understand why it's like this, but understanding doesn't make it any better. I'm sure it was amazing 20 years ago, but today it just seems dated. If you want a scary movie today, rent the new 2005 Amityville Horror version. Much scarier, much more satisfying. I think it's the first time that they've ever improved upon the original.
Of course, they didn't have to do much. |
| Rating | | | Date | July 06, 2005 | | Summary | Delivers its share of scares, but ultimately doesn't hold up | Content
| The 1979 horror release The Amityville Horror earned a lot of money and a legion of fans by generating tension and delivering a solid Haunted House picture. However, under scrutiny the film does not measure up to several other classics of the era. Whether or not this is based on a true story is of little consequence, for the 119 minutes of the money it can be assumed that a family, the Lutzes, moved into a Long Island home in which a gruesome sextuple murder occured and was harrassed by a demonic presense. The aforementioned homidices are dealt with well in the script, and soon enough thereafter George Lutz and his wife move in with their three children. After some character buildup, the house begins to threaten the lives of the Lutzes and a local Priest.
As mentioned previously, there are several good sequences in this film, notably some of the "3:15" parts and the final night. Further, the house is great looking, especially when the attic lights make it look alive. However, the two subplots - the house's attack on the priest and George's money woes- do not work very well. The former starts out well with the accumulation of the flies, but never really goes anywhere. Instead the audience is privy to Rod Steiger yelling at the top of his lungs, going blind in a horribly cliched turn, and ultimately losing touch with reality. Aside from the initial "fly" scene there is no horror quotient in this entire series of scenes, and they serve no plot purpose either. As to Mr. Lutz's financial problems, while they add to his strained character and partially explain his reluctance to leave the cursed house, they never come to a head or matter all that much. Furthermore, the thought that the house would steal 1,500 dollars from a character's pocket seems a bit forced, especially when this serves no more purpose than to exacerbate the pointless money subplot.
Nonetheless, the movie could have succeeded without the alternate plots, but it never really comes together. Are we truly to beleive that a house which (supposedly) forced a boy to murder his parents and four siblings would think up torments like ooze coming out of a toilet or flies massing in the sewing room? The movie never goes all-out; I recognize that this was based on a book, but by not killing anyone (nay, even harming anyone beyond the priest's blindness) the film lacks teeth. Perhaps worth a look, but not a purchase. **/4 |
| Rating | | | Date | June 08, 2005 | | Summary | Interesting movie, fake true story. IT WORKS! | Content
| Based on the Amityville Horror novel, the movie attempts to do a more liberal take on it.
What I mean by this was that many things were changed. For one thing, the George in the movie didn't seemed nearly as worry about his debts as he was stressed by it. This took away the anxiety feelings of the novel. Also different is the particular way he acted. In the novel, he was really dependent on his priest to help him and frequently called him to update his status. In the movie, I see the priest a few times, but wasn't too sure of what he was there for as he didn't seem to be too connected with George.
Not much else about the movie's differences from the book bothered me, except for one other thing, Jodie. In the book, I thought the character of Jodie was done beautifully. The novel really made him seem like a sinister force and always kept me trying to think up what he might look like. The movie, on the other hand, bored me. Jodie had maybe one good scene and the other scenes confused me more than anything.
The ending in the novel was also much more sinister than the cliche "total chaos" ending in the movie, but the movie's ending was not that bad. Overall, the movie is okay, nothing special. I sure wish George had some emotions, though. A few times in the movie, I could swear that he was really one of Jim Henson's muppets as he never shows any emotions. |
| Rating | | | Date | May 30, 2005 | | Summary | get out | Content
| Great book and original movie. I loved this because it was scary even by todays standards. This was just a super cool flick. James Brolin is so better than Ryan Reynolds which makes this not the remake perfect. |
|
Picture 01 (20)
