CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › The Amityville Horrible
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Amityville Horrible

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 
Lame.

It had me until it started in on all the explanations with the indians and shit. Gee, never heard any of that before.

The acting was serviceable to terrible. That kid, Billy, ugh. the chick that played Kathy, hated her on 'Alias' hate her in this.

Van Reynolds is on the verge of becoming the new Shatner. Hammm-meeeee.


The jumpy moments were cool, but not enough to sustain this piece.

As usual, my problem with this recent slew of remakes is that the original is still fresh in my mind. "Dawn of the Dead" was the sole exception as that was a fucking fantastic movie.

The original Amity is not all that good, but it did create a spooky atmosphere where the new one failed to do. Using the original house helped too.

With all of that, the worst sin committed is that the tag line keeps saying it;s based on a true story. That's bullshit. The Defeos murders really did happen, but it stops there. The son killed his family not because he saw demons or ghosts, but because he hated his father and wanted his inheritence. They put the D in dysfuction as its revealed that Defeo Junior was a bully in school, constantly fought with his father and used heroin daily. Compelling stuff that needs to be told instead of all this made up bullshit with the Lutzes and their dime-store novel ghost stories.

For those that don't know, the Lutzes have recanted their story. The Histroy channel did an outstanding documentary on this phenomenon several years ago debunking this whole thing as the hoax it was. The Lutzes made it all up and made millions from it. Author, Jay Anson wrote the best-selling novel knowing full-well that it was total bullshit. As a book, its a great read, but asking the reader to believe any of it is distasteful.
post #2 of 31
Agreed. I was really let down, especially because I liked the Chainsaw remake so much. More hatred on my blog, if anyone cares.
post #3 of 31
Uh no. The Lutz's have never ever retracted their story. George hasn't. Kathy never did. And even Christopher their oldest son (Who hates George) hasn't ever retracted it. They certainly never did on the History channel documentary which I have on dvd and watched yesterday. They never even came close to admitting to a hoax. If anything I thought the documentary came off as more pro haunting.

Sorry for the geek out on amityville but it's seeming more and more that all these pro hoax people feel the need to bring up their hatred for the Lutz's every single time the movie comes up. You have your beliefs, stop trying to force it on other people. Hoax or not, it's still one hell of a story.

By the way, I thought the movie was alright.
post #4 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey9775
Uh no. The Lutz's have never ever retracted their story. George hasn't. Kathy never did. And even Christopher their oldest son (Who hates George) hasn't ever retracted it. They certainly never did on the History channel documentary which I have on dvd and watched yesterday. They never even came close to admitting to a hoax. If anything I thought the documentary came off as more pro haunting.

Sorry for the geek out on amityville but it's seeming more and more that all these pro hoax people feel the need to bring up their hatred for the Lutz's every single time the movie comes up. You have your beliefs, stop trying to force it on other people. Hoax or not, it's still one hell of a story.

By the way, I thought the movie was alright.
Sorry, Joey, but Zod is correct about the hoax.

I don't know about the film (I saw the original in a theater, thought it was only okay and have little or no desire to see the remake).

The evidence of a hoax is overwhelming. Here are just two websites (one from paranormal investigators) that point out some of the Lutz's story's inconsisencies:

http://www.ghostresearch.org/articles/amityville.html

http://www.zerotime.com/articles/amity.htm

BTW, as someone who has countless books on psychic phenomena and the supernatural, even I can see the holes in this thing...
post #5 of 31
At least it was better than that piece of shit, The GRudge...
post #6 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey9775
Uh no. The Lutz's have never ever retracted their story. George hasn't. Kathy never did. And even Christopher their oldest son (Who hates George) hasn't ever retracted it. They certainly never did on the History channel documentary which I have on dvd and watched yesterday. They never even came close to admitting to a hoax. If anything I thought the documentary came off as more pro haunting.

Sorry for the geek out on amityville but it's seeming more and more that all these pro hoax people feel the need to bring up their hatred for the Lutz's every single time the movie comes up. You have your beliefs, stop trying to force it on other people. Hoax or not, it's still one hell of a story.

By the way, I thought the movie was alright.
In point of fact, the Lutzes recanted SOME elements of their story, then later denied that they did so. At any rate, the whole story is full of holes you could push a demonic pig through, and so many of the people and organizations involved have refuted their supposed roles in the events that the thing was dead in the water twenty years ago. Why we're still debating the veracity of these idiotic and/or insane ramblings to this day is beyond me.
post #7 of 31
It's sad that the two brilliant moments of the film came out of trying to be serious. One had nearly everyone i watched it with ( a group of friends days before release) laughing uncontrollably: when the small dead girl in the closet puts the babysitters finger in the bullet hole in her head. Come on, how could you not laugh at that. The other great moment was when the dog is killed. I think Reynolds was supposed to sound sad at what he was doing, but he just sounded confused. He didn't scream, cry or show much remorse, just kind of made odd whimpering noises.

Other than that the film was complete garbage. Every horror film now has to have people move jittery, quick camera jumps or just have people in makeup look menacing (such as the dead people in the basement, they weren't mean, just there to try to look scary). I am sure such cheap thrills work in a PG13 romp, but an R rated crowd deserves a little better.
post #8 of 31
I wondered why it was really more of a remake of THE SHINING.
post #9 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayouradio
I wondered why it was really more of a remake of THE SHINING.
That's exactly what I thought of the original. It felt like they cooked up a cheap ripoff of Stephen King's book, and said it was a true story. God knows it wouldn't have made it on its own merits, so I suppose the hoax was a shrewd move. When you get right down to it, without the "true story" business, it's a very poorly constructed, unfocused, derivative horror story. They threw every haunted house cliche they'd ever seen into it, including three separate origins for the haunting (the DeFeo murders, demons living in the house, and the indian insane asylum).
post #10 of 31
For what it was, it was ok. I had a major problem with a lot of little nitpicky stuff. If I'm not mistaken, Jody DeFeo was a boy, the original address in both book and movie was 112 Ocean Avenue NOT 412, the house is built on an Indian burial ground, NOT the lame assed explanation they used.

It's no wonder Lutz is not happy with the movie, if the events really took place, there's absolutely no resemblance to anything in the remake, and if he and his family did make the whole thing up, it's still their idea and its been destroyed now.

*going to research DeFeo again*
post #11 of 31
A slight diversion from the film . . .

I'm no expert on the actual Defeo murder case, however, I have heard mention of the "seventh body" mystery . . .

Apparently, a recently discovered police photo negative revealed a seventh ( there were 6 family members murdered ) body in the basement ............. Now, the negative was developed and it was determined that the mystery body was indeed that of one of the daughters, who has been previously found in the upstairs bedroom .....

The belief is that the police conspired to frame ( or at least build evidence ) the Defeo kid, so for whatever reason the cops brought the Defoe girl's body back into the house, placed it in the basement, and photographed it ...

Witnesses, prior to the release of info about this body, claimed to have seen police carrying large garbage bags into the house at the time of the investigation ...

Does anyone know anything about this 'seventh body" mystery ???
post #12 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boys #22: elmie
A slight diversion from the film . . .

I'm no expert on the actual Defeo murder case, however, I have heard mention of the "seventh body" mystery . . .

Apparently, a recently discovered police photo negative revealed a seventh ( there were 6 family members murdered ) body in the basement ............. Now, the negative was developed and it was determined that the mystery body was indeed that of one of the daughters, who has been previously found in the upstairs bedroom .....

The belief is that the police conspired to frame ( or at least build evidence ) the Defeo kid, so for whatever reason the cops brought the Defoe girl's body back into the house, placed it in the basement, and photographed it ...

Witnesses, prior to the release of info about this body, claimed to have seen police carrying large garbage bags into the house at the time of the investigation ...

Does anyone know anything about this 'seventh body" mystery ???
Elmie, I came across this whole thing in my research last night at http://www.amityvillehorrortruth.com/ It's pretty much already been proven to be a fake. We may never know what, if anything ever happened to the Lutzes but there's just too much evidence against Ronnie Jr and this isn't a piece of it. There's also a link at that site to Ronnie's "official site" Lot of interesting stuff there includings supposedly handwritten letters from Ronnie to his ex-wife(?) who is behind the whole "seventh victim" scam. Go figure, the guy's been in jail for 30 years and he's been married twice. Some women are totally nuts. LOL

And what I found out was there was no real Jody, I still think I remember hearing that was one of DeFeo kids, maybe an unpublicized middle name or something.
post #13 of 31
Well if you believe the Lutz's, Jody was a demonic pig entity that had no ties to the Defeo's. Although, it is thought that Jody may have taken the appearance of one of the dead Defeo kids at some point. As far as the Defeo's are concerned, it's generally believed that their spirits have nothing to do with the hauntings, it's all the demons, evil sprits, indians, or whatever crazy idea you believe.

As far as the seventh body goes...yeah that's BS. It was created by Ric Osuna, one of the big skeptics of the amityville case and the worst. He sure as hell isn't as believable as Stephen Kaplan. You can find out all about Osuna on amityvillehorrortruth.com.
post #14 of 31
Thread Starter 
Actually, I thought the dead girl with the bullet wound was the films most inspired moment. Sickest thing I've seen in a long time.

Why does everything in a horror film nowadays have to be explained? Evil exists in the world just because. Why isn't that enough?

The Sawyer clan in the original and perfect Chainsaw got no explanation. They were shit-house rat crazy and that was that.

Dr. Loomis told us that Micheal Myers was just evil and needed to be stopped. That was it.
post #15 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Zod
Why does everything in a horror film nowadays have to be explained? Evil exists in the world just because. Why isn't that enough?
.
Because films without backbone or originality need to spell out "a" story to cover up the fact that there isn't one.
post #16 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Zod
Actually, I thought the dead girl with the bullet wound was the films most inspired moment. Sickest thing I've seen in a long time.

Why does everything in a horror film nowadays have to be explained? Evil exists in the world just because. Why isn't that enough?

The Sawyer clan in the original and perfect Chainsaw got no explanation. They were shit-house rat crazy and that was that.

Dr. Loomis told us that Micheal Myers was just evil and needed to be stopped. That was it.
Yes, but Halloween never claimed to be a true story. Yes, a horror film can afford to leave a question or two unanswered. But when you're claiming that the events depicted are fact, I think that you are obligated to make it all work.
post #17 of 31
Beyond a couple of decent scares, this movie is utter crap. A perfectly engaging ghost story was wasted in favor of contrived explanations and goofy "Thirteen Ghosts" S&M play.

Did anyone not think "Hey, Sixth Sense" when the little boy went to pee?

Melissa George's 12-inch wide hips gave birth to three kids? Please.

Where was all of the economic anxiety that humanized the characters in the book?

Since when is a demon pig not scarier than a little dead girl?

Way to waste your TCM remake kudos, Bay. You are once again a whore.
post #18 of 31
I agree that because it claims to be a "based on a true Story" blasting the film for the amount of bullshit it contains is legitimate. It would have sucked even if it did not make the claim, but by that "true story" statement the filmakers have opened themselves up for a whole world of well deserved hurt.
The really scary thing is that this Piece of Shit made huge jack over the weekend, so now we will probably get a whole "amityville" franchise.
BTW Michael Bay is going to make "The Hitcher". Someone stop this man before it's too late.
And the the whole Amityville incident has been so throughly debunked as a hoax I am surprised there are any true beleivers left.
post #19 of 31
I have a feeling this one will drop off the face of the earth (in terms of box office) next weekend. Hopefully that will end their franchise hopes. But then again, the thing only cost $19 mil to make.

We SO do not need a Hitcher remake. I'm now convinced that the success of the TCM remake is due almost solely to Nispel and Pearl and none of the production team or writers.
post #20 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Graham
I have a feeling this one will drop off the face of the earth (in terms of box office) next weekend. Hopefully that will end their franchise hopes. But then again, the thing only cost $19 mil to make.

We SO do not need a Hitcher remake. I'm now convinced that the success of the TCM remake is due almost solely to Nispel and Pearl and none of the production team or writers.
Actually, the success of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake is almost entirely due to Jessica Biel in a tank top. Admittedly, that makes up for a lot.
post #21 of 31
Heh, you may be on to something there. I thought about mentioning that myself, actually. I think the fact that her nipples magically never appeared no matter how wet her shirt got or how cold she got was a major box office hindrance.
post #22 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Zod
The Sawyer clan in the original and perfect Chainsaw got no explanation. They were shit-house rat crazy and that was that.
Aren't the Sawyer clan backwoods Sawny Beans who used to work in the local abatoir until it got shut down, turning their only way of life upside down thus turning them against society ? That's called backstory.

True, the backstory for Amittyville '05 was hokey, but no more so, and no more "explained" than Poltergeist. They looked in a book, found the stories, Reynolds saw some obviously sordid goings on through his demon's mind's eye...

Aside from a comendable devotion (which I think it's safe to say we all have) to horror, I don't honestly see the problem, or the need to hyperbolise about these pictures. Normally, the original picture is still there, repromoted by the studio to get the public's interest in the property again. Great. and in this instance, it's a property which isn't sacred to begin with.

So what do we have. Well, speaking objectively, we have a fairly generic (in the most literal terms), technically polished, diverting mainstream genre picture that's raking in comparative cash to fund (in money as well and industry faith) your beloved genre in future productions.

Kosar's a decent writer. Anyone who caught The Machinist knows this. Perhaps the biggest "fault" lies with the workmanlike direction that could have been anyone from Peter Hyams to Gary Fleder. But it got the job done. $19m of well paced production value up on the screen.

We're not talking the non-sensical White Noise or the sloppy, logic-shy Boogeyman.

I welcome inoffensive filler material for the genre, Like Amityville '05, TCM '03, The Grudge, Dawn Of The Dead '04 and their qualitative ilk. They boost the coffers and allow filmmakers like Pegg/Wright and Romero to get behind a camera and churn out the (hopefully) real gold. Because, and this is just the nature of show business, they're not going to greenlight themselves, from the accountants point of view, no matter how great and deserving they are.
post #23 of 31
Poltergeist did not claim to be "based on a True Story" in it's publicity.
Alos, Poltergeist was a very good movie and Amityville 05 a piece of shit.
And I disagree strongly that the sucess of Amityville 05 is a good thing for horror movies. It's sucess does not mean that George Romero will get green lights for his projects, it means more crap films like Amitryville 05 will get the green light.
post #24 of 31
You're wrong. Which is to say, about that end of the film business.

Romero's "resurrection" is quantifiably linked to the resurgence in mainstream horror produced by Universal and Platinum Dunes. Ask any script editor or agent who's influxed with requests by studios and specs from writers involving zombies. That means DOTD 03. That means TCM 03. That means The Grudge. That means this picture. Which I know rankles the geek fraternity, but, hey, complain away...
post #25 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by dudalb
Poltergeist did not claim to be "based on a True Story" in it's publicity.
No. But Amittyville did, and the "true" story involves Indians, hallowed ground, whetever. therefore including it in the picture I don't see as over stepping the mark. I don't get your point above.
post #26 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Straxboy - An Anthony Hickox Film
No. But Amittyville did, and the "true" story involves Indians, hallowed ground, whetever. therefore including it in the picture I don't see as over stepping the mark. I don't get your point above.
The house is supposedy built on an ancient Indian burial ground not the site of the fanatical Puritan's dungeon of death. ;-)
post #27 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Straxboy - An Anthony Hickox Film
No. But Amittyville did, and the "true" story involves Indians, hallowed ground, whetever. therefore including it in the picture I don't see as over stepping the mark. I don't get your point above.
Including that stuff is very much overstepping the mark, because much of it was debunked at least fifteen years ago. The local native americans long ago disproved the ridiculous "indian insane asylum" crud. Ditto, the Warren-inspired business that tragedy has befallen many occupants of that house; records show that, apart from the DeFeo murders, and the Lutz conspiracy, it's a thoroughly dull, ordinary house with an uneventful history. Nothing before the DeFeo's, nothing after the Lutzes. Therefore, we must take all of this as fiction. And if it were good fiction, that would be fine. Unfortunately, it's lousy fiction, and slapping "based on a true story" on it doesn't make it work any better.
post #28 of 31
I'm not defending this movie, but that is no more overstepping the mark than the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake did. The only thing that the Texas films are "based on" mildly is serial killer Ed Gein. He killed people and wore their skin, ala Leatherface. That's it, no more "true story" to it than that. It's all a marketing scheme. The Texas Chainsaw Massacres, Amityville Horrors, and the Blair Witch Project all used it, and it worked.

Anyway, this film was mediocre as hell. Not horrible, just blah. It's like they decided "Hey, it'd be cool to remake the Amityville Horror next!" and then when they actually started, they didn't know what to do with it.
post #29 of 31
Saw this Saturday night. I was really disappointed. A freind asked how it was and I told 'em it probably would have been "alright" if I hadn't already seen the original. Way too many inconsistancies. Come on, Harry doesn't die!! And where was the cool part where the kid's hand gets caught in the window! The coolest part was the babysitter. Man, she was hot!! And I have no problem with the actors, as I say all the time, There are no bad actors, just bad directors. My wife had bought the "Amity" DVD collection and luckily it came with two free tickets, so no money spent, no harm no foul.

The best thing that came out of going to see this movie is that they were pre-selling "Revenge of the Sith" tickets, got mine, tee hee hee hee.
post #30 of 31
Crap. Utter crap.

I was bored enough to see this a few days ago, and it was just about as mediocre as I had expected. It's mostly forgettable but there are a few moments that stood out, like the babysitter and the bullethole thing for instance, that was the only funny/interesting scene in the whole film.

I was also very impressed with Ryan Reynolds, he has turned into a G.I. Joe action figure! If the whole movie had just been two hours of him chopping wood I still would have bought a ticket.
post #31 of 31
Are you ready for it? Here it comes...

They shouldn't have called it The Amittyville Horror , they should have called it The Amittyville Borer !

GET IT!?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Creature Corner Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › The Amityville Horrible