The Amityville Horror

George and Kathy Lutz are looking for a place to anchor down and raise a family. The Lutz's and their children (Kathy's from a previous marriage) settle on an impossibly cheap, large and beautiful shore house. But 28 days later the macabre and scary happenings force them to leave…leaving all their earthly possession behind. During the course of those 28 days, the family goes through all kinds of hell a room full of flies, demonic voices and a pig with glowing red eyes. What kind of past does that house have that would make everything horribly wrong. Based on a true story.

Real or hoax, you decide but "The Amityville Horror" has all the trappings of an excellent haunted house story. Too bad that the filmmakers falter a bit with a lack of character development that also ends up stifling the actors in the film, that would have helped out immensely. A creepy music score (the one rejected for "The Exorcist") and several good set-pieces help out but the end of the second act kind of gets stale. A good supernatural thriller.

George (James Brolin) and Kathleen Lutz (Margot Kidder) buy a "dream house" in Amityville, New York for a "dream price". Unfortunately, the price was low because just a year before, the house was the location of the Ronald DeFeo Jr. murders--he killed his entire family while they were sleeping. As a priest, Father Delaney (Rod Steiger), blesses the home, he realizes with horror that something evil is lingering there. The dream house is turning into a nightmare.

Sometimes our affection for or aversion to an artwork that we've been exposed to a number of times over the years is inextricably enmeshed with our historical, emotional experiences, whether we admit this or not. For example, I strongly dislike soap operas, or indeed any dramas that resemble soap operas. This is probably due to the fact that for years my only exposure to soap operas was when I was home sick from school as a kid. These were the days before cable television and home video. In the middle of a weekday afternoon, you either watched soap operas or you didn't watch television. Subconsciously, I associate soap operas with a feeling of illness.

Likewise, Jay Anson's Amityville Horror novel appeared when I was still a teen. I loved it. I can still remember reading it in one long sitting--something I rarely did--in the family car as we drove from Florida to Ohio to visit relatives. I was excited when the film appeared, and liked it a lot at the time.

So although I can see many faults with Amityville Horror now, I still have a deep affection for it that triggers my brain to go into an apologetic mode and defend the film. I just can't bring myself to give it lower than an 8 out of 10, and even that seems low to me. But I can easily see how audiences lacking a history with the film might dislike it. It is relatively slow, uneventful and meandering--with a modern perspective, the pacing and "subtlety" are reminiscent of some recent Asian horror. At the same time, maybe paradoxically, scenery chewing has only rarely had a greater ally.

Just a couple days ago MGM released newly remastered widescreen versions of Amityville 1, 2 and 3. I haven't seen the film look this good since seeing it in the theater in 1979, and it probably didn't even look this good then. The first thing that struck me was how incredible much of the cinematography is. Director Stuart Rosenberg had an amazing knack for finding intriguing angles for shots and imbuing them with beautiful colors.

Unlike recent trends, Rosenberg's colors are not narrowed down to a single scheme. For example, in some shots, such as some of the interiors of the famed Amityville house, we get fabulous combinations of pale greens and yellows. In others, such as many exterior shots near the house, we get intense combinations of fall foliage colors. There are also a number of beautiful shots of the famed "eye window" exterior of the house in differently tinted "negative" colors.

Rosenberg evidences a great eye for placing his cast in the frame and shooting scenes to create depth and symbolism via objects that partially block or surround the frame. He also has a knack for creating winding, receding patterns of objects that enhance depth through perspective. My affection for this aspect of the film has little nostalgic attachment, as I didn't pay attention to such things as a kid (I didn't start noticing them more until I started painting, far into my adult years), and the positive aspects of the cinematography were hardly discernible on the previous, ridiculously bad pan & scan VHS release.

Of course, most people aren't watching a film like this for the aesthetics of the visual composition. This is one of the most famous haunted house films, after all. The horror is handled somewhat awkwardly, occasionally absurdly, but it still works well enough for me, as understated as it is (I'm not referring to the acting, just the horror "objects"). Aspects such as the ubiquitous flies reminded me of similar motifs, such as water, in Hideo Nakata's horror films (such as Ringu, 1998 and Dark Water, 2002). The beginning of the film, showing the Defeo murders, still has a lot of shock value, despite its relative post-Tarantino tameness. Most of the horror elements are more portentous, but they're regular and interesting enough to hold your attention, as long as you don't mind subtlety.

Subtlety, however, was the furthest thing from the cast's minds. Brolin, Kidder and especially Steiger shout their lines more often than they speak them. "Overacting" is not in their vocabularies. Kidder comments on an accompanying documentary that the horror genre walks a fine line between intensity and camp. That may or may not be true in general, but in Amityville Horror, camp is frequently broached. For me, it has a certain charm. I'm a fan of camp and "so bad it's good"; Amityville's performances often attain both.

The commentary on the new DVD is amusing given the 1970s publicity that the book and film depicted a true haunting and the subsequent, thorough debunking by persons such as Stephen Kaplan. Hans Holzer, a parapsychologist who has been involved with the story since the early days, and the author of a book upon which Amityville II was based, provides the commentary. He presents himself as an academic, but he obviously seems to have little concern for "objectivity" or skepticism. He not only still talks about the story as true, he invents supernatural excuses for the DeFeo murders and then some, barely mentioning detractors such as Kaplan.

If you haven't seen the film yet, you should base your viewing decision on whether you have a taste for deliberately paced horror as well as a tolerance for extremely over-the-top performances. The film is historically important in the genre, as well.

After a gruesome mass murder takes place in a big house in a nice neighbourhood, the house is sold for a very affordable price to the Lutzes, an average stepfamily of five. Soon after moving in, strange things start occurring: doors, windows and furniture move by themselves, strange sounds are heard and the family members start behaving oddly. Especially George (James Brolin), the stepfather, becomes sullen and brooding over a couple of weeks, upsetting his wife Kathy (Margot Kidder) and her kids. A local priest (Rod Steiger) also notices something gravely wrong about the house, but doesn't seem to be able to help the Lutzes despite his efforts. As the eerie incidents keep getting more and more distressing, how will the Lutzes cope with the situation?

Based on Jay Anson's book about the experiences of the real-life Lutzes, the movie maintains a somewhat down-to-earth approach to the supposedly true story. It begins so slowly that I was already becoming quite disappointed with it, even though I'm generally supportive of creeping atmosphere in cinema. However, after a while it becomes obvious that it's actually better seen as a character study as opposed to horror: George's menacing change of nature can be seen as a reaction to the stressful life situation he's going through: raising a family, running a business, moving into a new house and getting the bills paid. The bearded James Brolin captures George's emotions very effectively, essentially carrying the whole film with his performance. Rod Steiger's character Father Delaney goes through an even more drastic phase of anxiety and Steiger plays the role with all the necessary intensity, especially during his desperate call for help in a degrading church. Margot Kidder's character receives less attention, but she does her job decently too.

The film quickly leads thoughts to other religious horrors of the era, such as The Omen and The Exorcist, but also bears a resemblance to The Shining, even though the latter only came out after it. A theme of a family man slowly losing his mind and, more obviously, an axe-swinging finale are more fascinatingly handled in Kubrick's film, but The Amityville Horror reaches a decent amount of suspense at its best too. The music by Lalo Schifrin is perfectly in tune with the atmosphere and when it finally starts in the last minutes of the movie, the action looks OK as well. The very ending comes across as rather abrupt though, even though the last shot of the family's car from afar suits the mood well.

In summary, I think The Amityville Horror is a watchable movie, but more so as a character study than a flat out horror. What the film loses in action and gore, it wins back in the actors' performances and music. When watched with this in mind, it may prove out to be an enjoyable experience, even if it's not ultimately quite as great as the horror classics mentioned in the previous paragraph.

This is the classic version about the infamous Amityville house with lots of screams and weird deeds in which a family falls into supernatural terror . The story starts with a grisly mass murder ; years later , a family moves to Long Island where is purchased a Victorian home , their house of dreams but they find only devilish horror and full of nightmares . Longtime ago, there occurred a grisly mass killing based on an allegedly real life occurrence in Amityville that turns out to be a haven for demonic forces . And now a possessed father (James Brolin) is plunged by demonic forces into supernatural attitude driving him to mistreat and beat the kiddies . The wife (Margot Kidder) begins experiencing frightening and vivid dreams of killings . Meantime ,the father is attempting to find out the bottom of events by ways of the cellar . While , an exorcist priest (a hysteric Rod Steiger who steals the show as scene-chewing ) tries praying to vanquish the malignant spirit , staggering from room to room with the doors mysteriously slam . And soon the poltergeists make their nasty appearance originating a lot of unusual rattles and creaks before deciding to utilize its powers to possess the father and attack the family .

The film contains restless terror and great loads of gore and blood and usual poltergeists phenomenon caused by the curse and the usual ghastly shenanigans result to be the cracking pipelines , wall ooze icky stuff, flies swarm manifest as attackers, and doors suddenly slam , among others . It is produced with acceptable budget by Samuel Z Arkoff (AIP)and well recreated with high grade special effects that are frightening and horrifying to spectator . It's actually halfway decent terror movie that achieved big success at the box office and it will appeal to ghostly and eerie events fonds. The picture packs a colorful cinematography by Fred Koenekamp and eerie musical score by Lalo Schifrin that will be used in the innumerable sequels . The original ¨Exorcist¨ film (by Friedkin) spawned a wave of demonic possession movies that continues unabated today as ¨Changeling¨ (by Peter Medak), ¨Amytiville ¨(by Stuart Rosemberg) are two further examples of this sub-genre . Following a great number of clumsy, stupid sequels directed by Damiano Damiani , Richard Fleischer ,Sandor Stern ( screenwriter of Amityville), Anthony Hitchcock.. And the bad followings just go on and on attempting to cash in on the success of the first movie . However , recently is made a good new adaptation by Andrew Douglas with Ryan Reynolds (James Brolin role ) , Melissa George ( Margot Kidder character) and Philip Baker Hall (Rod Steiger), though this is a new take on from previous film, it's one of the highest earning horror movie of the last years and like the¨ Amityville ¨ original became a box office biggie . Rating : Aceeptable and passable .

Excited about the remake I decided to go out and just but the original Amityville Horror. Being a huge horror buff, I just had to and besides I had only seen some of it's absurd sequels. hearing mixed reviews from friends and critics from terrifying to hilarious I turned it on with my boyfriend at the time and prepared myself for something scary. I must say that I was quite impressed. And although slightly disappointed in some of the films scenes ultimately I must say this is one old fashioned scary flick! I can hugely recognize the appeal it had in it's it's hey day. With the exception of Texas chainsaw Massacre, Evil Dead, the Omen and some others I rarely see what people did in their horror classics nowadays. Like The Exorcist, pretty damn boring and funny in my opinion. But getting back to this film. It builds a creeping mood filled with fright inducing suspense. The effects are simple but effective and the performances are somewhat over the top but necessarily wacky. The film's overall lasting appeal has little to do with the film's apparent campiness. it has more to do with the real terror inducing legend that inspired it. Like the Chainsaw remake the new ones looks to amp up the horror and intensity which would be greatly welcomed. Although a great horror classic Amityville's finale is somewhat anti climactic and after a long and impressively scary build-up it fails to deliver the end goods. But whoa some of the scenes from the imaginary friend Jody flying out the window, to the visitor at the door, to the voice in the house and just everything in the basement this film is all about delivering some authentic chills. 8/10