Rating: 
Summary: CREEPY AS HELL FOR IT'S TIME
Review: This is a very, very underrated horror movie. One of the best "haunted house" movies ever made, in my opinion. When watching this movie, you have to keep in mind that it was made 25 years ago, before CGI effects and the like. With what was available at the time, this is a very creepy movie. This film didn't rely so much on effects as it did atmosphere. Watch the movie with the controvesy over the accuracy out of mind, and just sink into it and listen to the sounds, the music, and look at the sets and appreciate it for what it is. This is a great scary movie if you watch it as just that, a movie, and don't worry about if it really happened or not. The performances (with the exception of Rod Steiger hamming it up in every frame he is in) are excellent, the set design is awesome, the house is creepily beautiful, and the music is some of the most haunting that you'll hear. Plus, the puking Nun is a hoot! The grossest, most violent sounding vomit I have heard! Anyway, the widescreen print is gorgeous and so very appreciated by me, who has waited for years to have it in widescreen. Would have liked an updated sound, but I'll take what I can get! Love the movie, love the house, love it all!
Rating: 
Summary: Read the book, its soooooo much better!
Review: I don't care about if this was true or not, but the movie sucks compared to the book. Though it is still ok over all. For those of you who read the book, they changed the ending. For those of you who have not read the book, the ending is awesome, I'm amazed they didn't use it in the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: "IM COMING APART!"
Review: You have to be in the right frame of mind for this one to work. Great musical score and some great creepy moments make this a winner. Check out Amityville 2 too.
Rating:
Summary: It did happen!!
Review: I remember 20/20 did an interview with the real George & Kathy Lutz who are now divorced back in 2002, & the look of terror & trembling on George's face as he recalled those events was chilling, I had no trouble believing this guy, if it was a hoax, then he is the best actor I have ever seen, his interview made him tremble big time, either it happened or he is one hell of an act, having read the book, I can say the film did it justice somewhat, but some of the books scarier elements are missing in the film, the events are really out of order when comparing the book & film such as, the marching band George hears one night, in the film it happens once, in the book, more than once, him being drawn outside to the boat house happens every night in the book, but once in the film, him seeing the pig with lighted eyes happens more than once in the book, once in the film, the priest never loses his vision in the book, like in the film, & so on, this film though does give a glimpse into the horror that George & Kathy experienced, & is in many ways scary & convincing, the room full of flies, the front door being ripped off the hinges from the inside, the marching band, & George's weird behavior, the babysitter being locked in the closet is chilling at best, James Brolin gives a realistic performance as an unstable & unpredictable George, as does Margot Kidder as Kathy who in some ways makes you forget she was in "Superman", & Rod Steiger as the priest who becomes ill after being in the house & his ministry's refusal to accept his claims about the house, is in itself convincing, not to mention the basement scene, where one of George's friends' girlfriend becomes breifly possessed!!, the sequel or should I say Prequel "Amityville II the Possession" is just as scary & should be viewed before this one, if you want on hell of a scare!!
Rating: 
Summary: A Stinker....With Fond Memories
Review: My late grandmother read Jay Anson's book back in the late 70s, and when the movie version came out in theaters she was curious to see it. I guess she couldn't get anyone else to go with her and she didn't want to go alone, so she took me along, a 13-year old 7th grader who liked sci-fi and "strange" stories.I remember watching this film on the big screen when it was first released in 1979. And I do remember being scared during certain parts of the film. I'd ask my grandmother for money to go buy popcorn or a soda during intense scenes, much to her annoyance. But as the movie ended my grandma and I reached the same conclusion: this movie sucked! Having said that, I have to admit I was scared to death of going to bed that night. You see, my bedroom was in the basement of our house, and the basement was pitch black dark when the lights were out, which left a lot of room open for a scared 13 year old's imagination. So why did the movie scare me at that tender age if I thought the movie sucked? Well, it wasn't the bleeding walls (lame) or the pig with the glowing eyes (really lame) or the priest's problems (get a shrink already!) I think it had to do with the creepy malevolence of the house itself. The set design was pretty damn good. The house took on a character of its own and to this day I truly dislike houses that have "quarter moon" windows.
The score for this film is equally disturbing. It's the sort of soundtrack that almost made me sick hearing it, and I'd never look for it on CD, but I give credit to the composer because it was so wonderfully evocative and effective. So basically, the set design and the music are the only saving graces for this film in my humble opinion. I like Margot Kidder and James Brolin, but they vascillated wildy between campy overacting and uninspired wooden acting to such an extent as to generate unintentional laughter. Most folks might not remember this, but there was this weirdo "haunted house" craze going on in the late 70s with parapsychologist "experts" commanding the airwaves. Anyone remember a show called "That's Incredible!"? Even the Mike Douglas Show got in on the act with a "truthful expose" about the goings on in Amityville.....all sensationalist bunk. Hell, even The Waltons had a haunted house episode in the wake of the Amityville Horror where strange things happened in the Walton home one night. (It's called writer's block). Watching the film again some 25 years later on AMC, I was reminded again just how lame this movie really is. I only watched it out of a sense of nostalgia.
My son chuckled as he watched it with me, then grew bored and went to his computer.
Smart kid - wish I had one when I was 13. PS - The only thing dumber than this movie are the people writing reviews on Amazon claiming that "this really happened" or "you weren't there.....so you don't know what happened".
Get a life, folks.
Yes, the multiple murders occurred in the house in Amityville on Long Island, NY...but the story behind that is far different from anything released for pop culture consumption.
Rating: 
Summary: Smoke And Mirrors
Review: The Amityville Horror was supposedly based on a real life incident that happened to a family living on a Long Island suburb. As it turns out, those haunting claims were nothing more than an urban legend hoax, from which a book was written. When I sat down to watch the film recently, after some time since the last viewing, I was surprised at how hokey it was. It wasn't nearly as scary, as I had once remembered. George (James Brolin) and Kathy Lutz (Margot Kidder) thought they had found the perfect home to raise a family. But everything is not as it seems...and their new dream home soon becomes a hellish nightmare as the walls begin to drip blood and satanic forces haunt them with sheer, unbridled evil. Now, with their lives - and their souls - in danger, the Lutzes call on a Father Delaney (Rod Stiger) to assist them. If their plans fail, the family will have little choice, but to abandon the home they once loved. To be honest, the film hasn't held up, nearly as well as some of its contemporary cousins, that are now considered classics. Directed by Stuart Rosenberg, The Amityville Horror, lacks a lot of what made The Exorcist or The Omen special. the film seems about as staged as a movie can be. The acting from Brolin seems very wooden and forced. Even before all the wierd stuff starts happening, there's little reason to buy into Kidder and Brolin, as a married couple. Kidder just recalls her "save me" screams from Superman The Movie throughout. The effects seem like they were leftovers from a funhouse attraction. There are a scant number of good scares in the film--but not enough to overcome its many problems. The only extra on the current DVD of the film is your standard theatrical trailer. Unlike many MGM releases though, the usual collectable booklet, is not here. Viewers can watch the movie in either the full-screen, or widescreen format. I remember being freaked out by this film as a kid growing up in suburbia. I guess, now that I am an adult, I can not help but see through the obvious
Rating:
Summary: The book might have been a hoax, but it was a good hoax
Review: The last time I saw a story about the infamous house from "The Amityville Horror" on television I saw that the current owners had changed the telltale pair of quarter-moon windows that served as the house's "eyes" in the movie posters and the film itself. Doing so has made driving buy the house in Amityville, Long Island a disappointment (amazing how changing two windows can make such a difference in the look of a house). Unfortunately there is nothing that would serve the same function of turning people away from watching this film. I had read Jay Anson's "nonfiction" novel before I saw the movie, so I was keenly aware of any changes in the screenplay by Sandor Stern. But it was quickly clear that the biggest difference, which most affected the film, was that the documentary aspect of the novel (i.e., the idea that this was a TRUE STORY that had REALLY HAPPENED) was lost. The story is of the Lutz family, George (James Brolin), Kathy (Margot Kidder), and their three kids who move into this house in Amityville. Nobody bothered to tell them that a year earlier the house had been the scene of a mass murder, or that the place is built on an Indian burial ground. Either one of these things would explain why toilets start spurting black goo, flies start covering the windows, and blood starts seeping from the walls. Rod Steiger somehow shows up as a priest who tries to do a low-rent exorcism on the house, only to see the house win. Then comes the LAST NIGHT in which the Lutz's are driven from their home by the final cascade of evil things going bump in the night. Any movie in which a pig with glowing eyes is the embodiment of all evil is not going to fare well, and "The Amityville Horror" is just too cheesy to succeed. This is one of those films that might have worked better if the three name stars had been replaced by unfamiliar faces. Otherwise you are periodically distracted from the proceedings by thoughts of how low the film careers of Brolin, Kidder, and Steiger had sunk at that time. When George goes off the deep end and starts screaming it is rather laughable. The usual comparison of "The Amityville Horror" is with "The Exorcist," as a way of making this 1979 look bad in comparison, but a better comparison, and equally devastating to this film's reputation, would be to compare it with "Poltergeist," which does a much better job of driving a family (of much better actors) out of their happy home. Their are a incredibly long list of bad sequels to this film: a pair of theatrical releases, "Amityville II: The Possession" (1982) and "Amityville 3-D" (1983); a pair of television movies, "Amityville: The Evil Escapes" (1989) and "Amityville 1992: It's About Time" (2000); and some direct to video efforts in "The Amityville Curse" (1990), "Amityville 1992: It's About Time" (1992), "Amityville: A New Generation" (1993), and "Amityville: Dollhouse" (1997). Let me tell you that if you actually sit down and watch the original, these movies are not to be confused with potato chips, and you can stop after just one.
Rating:
Summary: It has not aged that well but is still very interesting.
Review: For over a decade now rumors have been circulating that The Amityville Horror was a load of bunk. Most of this is derived from a book called - The Amityville Horror Conspiracy by Stephen Kaplan. However Kaplan's book is a work of theory! Kaplan wrote his book because he was refused permission to visit the house by the owners - the Lutzes, because he turned up on their doorstep, albeit invited, acting as a parapsychologist ... but had a television crew with him. The Lutzes refused him entry because they did not want the media involved and instead opted for demonologists - Ed and Lorraine Warren to help them with their problems. When the story became big news Kaplan immediately set out to "expose" the case. Most of Kaplan's views on this hoax are based on the fact that the book is not entirely accurate. However the Warrens and the Lutzes also agree that much poetic license has been used by the book's publishers and writer. Kaplan also claimed to have been inside the house at the time of the haunting but was only ever in the house once - as a guest at a party after the fact. Whatever way you want to look at it Kaplan is one of two people to claim that he has evidence to suggest that this is one big hoax and his evidence can be refuted. The other is a "lawyer" called William Weber who wanted to write a book about a murder than took place in the house some years back when a man called DeFeo murdered his own family there. DeFeo claimed that "spirits" made him do it. Weber was invited to the house because he had defended DeFeo at his trial. Weber wanted to write his own book but was beaten to it and also did not get DeFeo off the hook. Weber claimed that he came up with the idea of a haunted house story with Lutz over a bottle of wine - but George Lutz does not drink. However we can not draw a positive from a false negative and it still well may be a hoax, but it has yet to be debunked. Contrary to popular belief - the Lutzes have never said that this was a hoax and it still stands today, mostly because a priest also witnessed the strange activity at the house. The truth be told that the book does stretch the facts and has made some things up. Since the movie is based on the book and also stretches the facts, well there ya go really. It is now mostly fiction, however if you read some books from Ed and Lorraine Warren you will get bits of the true story. The film has not aged well since its release and certainly is extremely boring in parts where nothing happens at all. However when things do get going they still carry the ability to shock. Just do not expect an action packed horror movie here and you will do fine. Certainly Amityville 2 and 3 have much more going on in them than this one. The Amityville Horror was written by Jay Anson in August 1977. The film was released in 1979. The Exorcist had been out since 1973 and the scenes from Amityville involving priests are nowhere near as good as The Exorcist and are extremely contrived from that movie. The Amityville Horror also features a detective type character that appears to have been lifted right out from The Exorcist also, down to little details like the moustache and the coat he wears. However if we are going to blaming spin-offs and rip-offs then we must also including Stephen King's The Shining, which came out two months after Anson's book with yet another mad axe-man ending! I believe that King was influenced by this story for his Shining but that is a matter of conjecture, but the similarities are striking. So before Kubrick was shooting Jack Nicholson chopping down doors to hack up the family, old George Lutz, played by James Brolin, was the original family hatchet man right here! All in all The Amityville Horror has the look and feel of a television movie. It can be prolonged in parts and you will be bored to death waiting for something to happen. Halfway through the movie, the priests become the central characters of focus however it feels as if they have nothing really to do with the film, nor do they have any impact on the ending. The same goes for the detective who ends up doing nothing. Truth be told there are very few horrors in this movie, but just barely enough to keep you alive and watching it. Again don't go expecting an action packed horror film and you will probably enjoy it a lot more.
Rating:
Summary: amityville
Review: Alright. The house was built on a Indian Burial Ground. For those of you who think this whole movie is a hoax it's not. I saw the house myself and I know someone who lives in Amityville, Long Island. She lived there her whole life and she is in her early 60's now. She herself told me the whole story was true. Most of the people who wrote reviews aren't even close to NY. So they really wouldn't know. Well The movie is mainly about a family (Lutzes) looking for thier dream house. They happened to love the Amitville House so they buy it and weird things start happening to them like nightmares and strange emotions and money being stolen. They have a priest and he tries many times to bless the house and everytime he's near the house or talks on the phone the house does something bad to drive him away. The Lutz have a dog that discovers this man made wall in the basement and that's where they find the gateway to hell and try to leave. The house with it's evil eyes won't let them escape, but thety break the door down and leave for ever. The little girl was very feverish and they left a babysitter with her and the babysitter got locked in the closet somehow and the light was turned off.
Rating:
Summary: Overrated mumbo jumbo
Review: This film was a big hit back in 1979. Truth be told, it's one of the most overrated films of all time. First of all, the events in the movie did not happen. That's ok, most horror is fiction, but the book upon which the movie was based is so much better than this poorly produced flick, you might as well read the book. The only saving grace is the wonderful, creepy score.
|
