MovieChat Forums > The Amityville Horror (2005) Discussion > just done a marathon session incl the 19...

just done a marathon session incl the 1979 version and this one


being a not-horror genre person, I preferred the 2005 one

it was interesting because you can actually compare 'horror techniques' from 1979 and 2005. the 2005 one moved faster. the 1979 spent a lot of time....not really doing much (in the same way as the first Alien film spent a lot of time not doing very much). psychological build up and stuff.

for me the two freakiest parts of the 1979 were the weird blue animal heads in the window, and when Margot Kidder had age wrinkles for 1 second

the 2005 one was just...well....more interesting. more varied. Ryan Reynolds did a good job trying to have the same hair and beard style as the guy in the 1979 one, and obviously his character went along the same "goes bad" lines

the lightning sound effects in the first on were slightly ridiculous. one of my peeves is that in r/l, the thunder sound never happens at the same time as the lightning. in 'ollywood, the sound and the light effects happens simultaneously. which it doesn't, ever

in 1979 a lot of the horror scenes seem to be the persons face, and you don't see what they are looking at until 5 seconds later, and then they aren't really looking at anything. drop some cgi effects in in 2005 and you see the subject more often

reply

When I first watched it a decade ago, I wasn't a fan of haunted house movies and hadn't seen the original 1979 version. But I decided to give it a try due to Melissa George and it didn't disappoint; it successfully piqued my interest in the whole Amityville Horror legend.

Some may accuse the film of ripping off aspects of "The Shining," but the original movie was released a year before "The Shining" while the books they were based on were both published in 1977. The difference is that “The Amityville Horror” was inspired by supposedly true events whereas Stephen King’s novel was purely fictional.

Of course this remake inspired me to see the classic version with James Brolin and Margot Kidder. What I like about that one is that it takes its time to develop the characters in what is essentially a realistic drama topped off with creepy paranormal happenings. It addresses dark, ugly stuff but it actually has a warm heart (recall what George does in the final scene). This brisk remake is like the Reader’s Digest version, unsurprisingly upping the ante with the (clichéd) horror elements; it thankfully offers interesting details on the backstory of the house.

I think they’re both worth checking out. If you prefer more depth you’ll favor the original version whereas if you want something faster and more modern you’ll appreciate this one.

Lastly, I enjoyed Rachel Nichols as the hippie chick babysitter and she was perfect for the role. The babysitter is haughty and scoffs at the diabolic history of the house but she leaves as a true believer. This was a great sequence that perked my interest at a time it needed it (as I was starting to get bored by that point).

reply