The Amityville Horror (2005) (Movie Review)

The Amityville Horror (2005) If I had to make an average, I’d say that the new one is very good and the original 1979 movie is not bad. That’s an average of Good! In fact, the questions I’m asking myself are: do we generally prefer the one we saw first or not, regardless of whether it’s the old or the new one? It’s true that I saw the 2005 film before the original, which has a lot of useless stuff in it. Events that add nothing to the story.

The remake is shorter, more concise and more rushed too. We’re quickly in the thick of the action. No flies, no blood dripping from the house, no sister in addition to the priest, no marriage of the brother, no loss of money. No wall to knock down to see the Devil’s door either. In the old house, there’s no great conflict between George and the children, no animals killed, no escape by boat but by car. We don’t see the last little girl to be killed playing with the living girl. The original babysitter is the opposite of the hottie that is Rachel Nichols in the new one.

As for the original Amityville Horror (1979) it was awesome to see the Lois Lane actress (Margot Kidder) as the female lead. No great suspense in the first Amityville. Still, the idea must have been just incredible for the time. And needless to say, it opened the door to all the films inspired by it.

So… a must-see, but not necessarily a must-have, or a must-see again. On the other hand, it’s worth seeing the spin-offs, if you like this kind of film, of course. The Conjuring remains the best haunted house movie of it’s kind. Inspired by real events? Really??? In part probably. But we don’t really believe it, let’s face it! That said, it’s always interesting to do some research.

My Rating