Midnight Confessions Ep. 77: "PROJECT 1981 / Lucio Fulci: The Godfather of Gore"

This week starts PROJECT 1981 where we'll be looking at horror films released in 1981. We start with two Lucio Fulci classics: THE BLACK CAT (1981) and HOUSE BY THE CEMETERY (1981). Plus Rev. Phantom talks about his picks for the Top 10 Fulci movies. Remember to bring some candy for Bob.








 

Like "Midnight Confessions" Facebook Page: Midnight Confessions Podcast

Follow us on Twitter @MC_Podcast!

Subscribe on iTunes! - Midnight Confessions

Visit our archive stuff - MC_PodcastVault

We're now on Stitcher! - Stitcher Version

Midnight Confessions Ep. 47: "Hoodoo the voodoo like we do?"

Blaxploitation month starts now! This week the MC crew review THE HOUSE ON SKULL MOUNTAIN (1974) and my 800th review, SUGAR HILL (1974). Plus the Top 5 Movies involving Black Magic. Yamma, yamma, yamma, yamma.











 

Like "Midnight Confessions" Facebook Page: Midnight Confessions Podcast

Follow us on Twitter @MC_Podcast!

Subscribe on iTunes! - Midnight Confessions

Visit our archive stuff - MC_PodcastVault

The WTF? Worst Films Extravaganza Presents: Amityville 3-D (1983)

DIRECTED BY
Richard Fleischer

STARRING
Tony Roberts - John Baxter
Tess Harper - Nancy Baxter
Lori Loughlin - Susan Baxter
Robert Joy - Eliot West
Candy Clark - Melanie
Meg Ryan - Lisa
Neill Barry - Jeff

Genre - Horror/Supernatural/Ghosts/Haunted House

Running Time - 105 Minutes


PLOT
A journalist named John Baxter (Tony Roberts) and his partner Melanie (Candy Clark) expose shenanigans after they learn some old couple are doing fake seances inside the infamous Amityville house to make a quick buck. Thinking that the stories about the house are just fabrics of someone's imagination, John decides to buy the house while he separates from his wife (Tess Harper). But soon people start dying around him - including the real estate agent who sold the house. Melanie believes something is wrong with the house, but John is in denial and doesn't believe anything is wrong. But as soon as his family, especially his daughter (Lori Loughlin), is threatened, John involves a paranormal expert (Robert Joy) to stop the evil of the Amityville house.

REVIEW

I've made it pretty clear that the 1979 version of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR is pretty overrated and not as great as many horror historians have claimed. Yes, I get why it was popular, but the film adaptation doesn't do much for me other than being an average haunted house flick. Honestly, I prefer the 2005 remake, which I find more entertaining. But 1981's AMITYVILLE II: THE POSSESSION is the franchise's highlight, taking aspects from THE EXORCIST and using them in fun ways. Unfortunately, AMITYVILLE 3D just takes the series downhill quickly, with cheap visual gags, annoying characters, and a weak story. While I'm sure the series does get worse than this installment - at least from what I've heard - AMITYVILLE 3D was made to capitalize on a then-fading fad while boring the audience at the same time.

The screenplay is pretty much what ruins AMITYVILLE 3D, at least for me. While I'm not the biggest fan of the first film, at least the story somewhat interests me and the drama between the characters is worth investing in. Same goes with the second film. But this installment is just lazy in terms of its storytelling. For one, there's no sense of continuity with the other films. Why is there a well in the basement all of a sudden? Why is it holding some sort of demon that has never been mentioned before? I mean, the idea to have a visual evil presented is a good one - IF ANYTHING WAS DONE WITH IT! Hell, the film has bigger villains in the form of flies that seem to harm anyone they come across. But we get astral projection at one point for a dead character, and these flies actually leaving the house to attack someone at their workplace inside of an elevator - what are the rules again? If things were more explained, rather than the filmmakers just being focused on the visual gags, maybe I'd like this sequel more.

I also gotta say that the characters are either uninteresting, or just plain annoying. The John Baxter character, in particular, deserved to be sucked down that well in the basement from the first frame. I get that characters have to be somewhat skeptical about the supernatural occurrences around them to up the tension and suspense along the narrative. But this dude was dense as hell! People are dying around the guy and not once does he believe what his friends and family are telling him - THAT THE HOUSE IS EVIL! How many people have to croak before the dude gets it? It's only when a certain member gets killed that he finally realizes his home is haunted! Well no shit.

The other characters aren't much better. John is going through a divorce, or a conscious uncoupling, with his wife Nancy. She's kind of a clingy nag who becomes a bit mental by the final act. Daughter Susan is extremely cute, but there's not much to her besides that. Melanie is better than John and actually sees things for what they are, but more could have been done with her character. Susan's best friend, Lisa, is the only character I genuinely liked. Why? Even though she had the expository dialogue about the house's history, at least she had a personality. Although I did find it really dumb that she, Susan, and two guy friends decided to do a seance inside of a haunted house. Because, you know, that just makes the evil weaker and stuff...

Dumbasses.

It also doesn't help that the story is pretty much nonexistent for the most part. The narrative is pretty much glued together by the 3-D gags and special effects that are shot while trying to do a teenage version of the original story. What makes things worse is that the evil isn't just inside the house, but can travel outside of the house to do bad things. For example, a bunch of flies attacks a character inside a work elevator, while controlling the elevator to make it crash with the character inside. There's also a car that's miles away from the house, whose doors just happen to lock on their own before bursting into flames. And then a character drowns in a lake outside of the house off camera. So now the house can't possess people, yet it can travel out of its source to attack people anywhere?? Maybe the filmmakers felt that this would bring some freshness to the AMITYVILLE franchise. But it just goes against its own logic - logic that was set up for two straight films without much of a problem. It's a haunted house movie that wants to be a slasher flick to bring in a younger audience. It doesn't work.

The 3D effects could have saved the film by using the visuals as a distraction to the weak story. I mean, those opening credits - where the words fly towards the screen - could have been cool in three dimensions. Watching flies travel towards the screen, as well as hands, a flashlight, a skeleton, stream, a Frisbee, a demon popping out of a well, and people being thrown towards the screen could have been a lot of fun wearing 3-D glasses. But unfortunately, I watched this in 2-D. Sure, some of these effects made me laugh a bit. But they look a bit hokey and distracting without that added effect. Still, I can tell the producers were trying to make it work. I'm sure if I were wearing special glasses, I would be having a blast with these dumb visuals. So I can't hate the film for that.

What I can hate the film for is that fake looking demon that comes out of the well. GREAT special effects, guys!  The Ghoulies looked more realistic than this thing. I doubt this "demon" scared anyone back in 1983. I probably would have died laughing. Maybe that's the demon's power - death by laughter. In that case, he's doing his job right.

The direction by Richard Fleischer, best known for directing 1954's 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA, 1973's SOYLENT GREEN, 1984's CONAN THE DESTROYER, and 1985's RED SONJA, is okay at best. I can't judge his work on the 3-D stuff, but I'm sure Fleischer used them to the best of his ability. But honestly, Fleischer's direction is pretty much TV-movie level. There are attempts at tension and creating this bleak atmosphere at times. But Fleischer had to deal with a terrible script that no one was going to be able to salvage. So it was going to be a lost cause either way. But the film isn't an eye sore, so there's that.

The acting was a mixed bag as well. Tony Roberts had a terrible character, but he made it work as John Baxter. I was more distracted by whether he looked more like Will Ferrell or Ron Perlman, rather than his acting. Tess Harper didn't do much for me as Nancy, although I found her traumatized act in the final act of the film pretty funny. Lori "Aunt Becky" Loughlin was good in her role as the cute daughter, Susan. She was pretty endearing and charming. Robert Joy didn't get much to do, but he was pretty good anyway. Candy Clark seemed to be trying too hard at times as Melanie, but I thought her exit was memorable. And Meg Ryan, before all the botox and plastic surgery, is pretty much the best actor as Lisa. I really dug her spunk and she seemed to be having a blast making this film. I'm not surprised she eventually became an A-lister soon after.


THE FINAL HOWL
AMITYVILLE 3-D is probably not the worst AMITYVILLE installment, but it's still pretty bad due to it being kind of a bore to watch. The film isn't scary and the special effects are unintentionally funny. The story is bare bones, hoping the dull visuals would compensate for that. And the acting is a mixed bag for many reasons. I'm sure some will get a kick out of AMITYVILLE 3-D, but it didn't do much for me. This film deserves a "For Sale" sign, in my opinion.

SCORE

1 Howl Outta 4

[SEQUEL SEPTEMBER II] Amityville II: The Possession (1982)

DIRECTED BY
Damiano Damiani

STARRING
James Olson - Father Tom Adamski
Jack Magner - Sonny Montelli
Burt Young - Anthony Montelli
Rutanya Alda - Delores Montelli
Diane Franklin - Patricia Montelli
Moses Gunn - Detective Turner

Genre - Horror/Supernatural/Ghosts/Haunted House

Running Time - 100 Minutes


I think I've made it pretty clear on this blog that I'm not a fan of the successful and overrated 1979 film, THE AMITYVILLE HORROR. I don't get how this supposed true story about a haunted house that drove people crazy enough to murder their own members of their family has become so darn popular, that it spawned multiple sequels, books, and even a recent documentary. While I'm sure the story itself and the novel that grew from it frightened people at the time, I just roll my eyes at the whole "franchise" now - especially when many have proven the story was pretty much made up for publicity.

Out of eight original films and a 2005 remake, I've only really been a fan of two of them [although I'm sure I'll enjoy some of the other films after a re-watch, as I remember some of them being sort of guilty pleasures at times]. One, being the Ryan Reynolds remake that I actually enjoyed more than the James Brolin/Margot Kidder original that bores me to no end. And the second one happens to be the film I'm reviewing here - AMITYVILLE II: THE POSSESSION. Whether or not it's really a prequel or a sequel [I'll get into that issue later] to the first film, it doesn't really matter. What does matter is that AMITYVILLE II takes what the first film had set up and really kicks it in the ass. It's rare for horror sequels to be better than the first movie. But AMITYVILLE II happens to be one of those exceptions. Screw the Lutz family! Give me some of that Montelli drama any day of the week!

PLOT
Supposedly taking place before the events of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR, we witness the story of the previous family that had lived in the house - the Montelli's. Right from the start, things don't look all that great - especially when the patriarch, Anthony (Burt Young), is nothing but a Debbie Downer who takes out his anger physically and verbally on his wife (Rutanya Alda) and his children. It's his eldest son, Sonny (Jack Magner), who feels the blunt of it, causing tension within the family. The kid may be smiling on the outside, but he's miserable emotionally and mentally due to his abusive father.

As the family moves into the house, the demonic spirits that live inside begin to prey on every weakness the family has. Things move around by themselves. The spirits draw on walls, calling the family "pigs". The spirits sexually touch the mother, who has been feeling sexually deprived for a long time. The eldest sister, Patricia (Diane Franklin), starts feeling seduced by their presence. And Sonny begins hearing demonic voices telling him to kill through his Walkman.

Slowly but surely, the house begins to possess Sonny, as he's the angriest of the entire family. Now under the influence of evil, Sonny wastes no time molesting his sister, confusing her sexually. He also gets more violent with his father, who the demons want dead. Delores [the mom] and Patricia begin seeking the guidance of a local priest, Father Adamsky (James Olson), to bless and cleanse the house. However, his holy presence just makes things worse - eventually making him realize that Sonny is a vessel for the house's evil. Can Adamsky exorcise the spirit out of Sonny in time, or is the entire Montelli family doomed?

REVIEW
THE AMITYVILLE HORROR is a slow paced, subtle thriller that wants to be scary. However, it ends up feeling dry - presenting a boring tale that's less about George Lutz being possessed by evil and more about the Church's feelings on the matter [which was presented in a pretty bad light]. AMITYVILLE II: THE POSSESSION doesn't waste time on those sort of things. It just wants to creep you out through striking visuals, gross special effects, and a fast paced narrative that will keep you entertained for 100 minutes. In that sense, this sequel is a winner and a much needed improvement over the 1979 overrated "classic".

The first two films in the franchise are really presented differently due to each being a product of its time. The first film, which was capitalizing on the demonic craze that took over pop culture and the news during the 1970s [THE EXORCIST, THE OMEN, etc.], wanted to create a haunted house story in which the evil was everywhere and couldn't be stopped by any force of good. This sequel is an obvious product of the early 1980s. The special effects are more elaborate and gross. The presence of evil is more subjective and concentrated on one single individual [Sonny], giving it strength to prey on the other members of Sonny's family.

We don't see the evil really in the first film. Sure, George Lutz is possessed and treats his family like a grade A jerk. But you never really feel a true threat to the Lutz family. They were also allowed to escape the house, which seemed to destroy any evil influence on them. In this film, the evil is more powerful, angrier, and truly a threat not only to the Montelli family, but anyone preaching the word of God. The fact that when the night Sonny must murder the rest of his family, the house shuts itself so no one can get in and get out, make AMITYVILLE II must creepier and bleaker than its predecessor. I think it also helps that this film is loosely based on the Ronald DeFeo Jr. story, in which DeFeo murdered his entire family in 1974 - claiming he had been possessed by an evil spirit from within the house that made him do the deed [although there hasn't been any proof]. But really, AMITYVILLE II just feels like a better haunted house/possession film than the original THE AMITYVILLE HORROR. It's not just because we really see the effects of the situation, but because more is done with the situation that makes us invested in it more. The sequel doesn't take itself as seriously, making it a bit more horrific, yet fun, as well.

I think Tommy Lee Wallace, who had written the screenplay, was also influenced by other films that were very popular at the time. The possession element is obviously a take from 1973's THE EXORCIST. In fact, the last minutes of the film are pretty much the greatest hits of that very film, where the priest going against The Church to exorcise the spirit out of Sonny, who pretty much talks dirty at him and reveals the priest's sinful thoughts about Sonny's younger sister, Patricia [Father Adamsky wanted to deflower her, but Sonny got there first]. There's even the obligatory scene where Father Adamsky wants to the spirit to enter his body to save Sonny. While it's inferior to THE EXORCIST on every level, at least it works within the context of the story and leaves the film on a downbeat note.

Wallace also turns AMITYVILLE II into a slasher film of sorts at times. While not a traditional one like HALLOWEEN or FRIDAY THE 13TH, you can clearly see some of the tropes being used. We get the first person point of view by the villain. We see members of the family being stalked and bothered by the evil presence. And we get the chilling scene of Sonny going after each member of his family with a shotgun, killing them one by one to satisfy the demonic force. It's not really a surprise since Wallace was part of the creation for the 1978 HALLOWEEN that he would present some of the story in such a way.

There's also a subplot similar to POLTERGEIST, which was released a few months before AMITYVILLE II. I'm sure POLTERGEIST wasn't an influence for the house being built on top of a burial ground of sorts. But it's interesting that both films had a similar reason for the demonic spirits around the same time.

I also gotta admire Wallace for taking things to the lengths that he does within the narrative. The main character actually murders his family in the middle act, which one would believe could be a character's thoughts or dream. In fact, Father Adamsky [who was actually seeing this violence in his sleep] wakes up startled in the next scene and decides to go to the house to check up on things. Then we learn that the events we witnessed really did happen, leading to the entire third act of the film. I think the fact that the murders weren't fabricated makes their timing more shocking and effective. I liked that it wasn't placed at the end, which would have been very predictable.

I also feel the sexual content must have really made some people uncomfortable back in 1982. The evil spirit sexually caresses the matriarch, Delores, who hasn't been with her husband that way in many years. And then the spirit, now possessing Sonny, seduces his sister Patricia into getting naked and eventually having sex with her. Incest is always a touchy subject, but it's a subject that's usually implied or teased, rather than actually accomplished. But the incest really raises the drama for Patricia and Delores. Patricia, who feels it was wrong to sleep with Sonny, still feels attracted to him in some way. And Delores, noticing how Sonny would caress Patricia, is not only repulsed by the sin, but almost seems jealous that her daughter is getting some action while she's in a dry spell. Add in the fact that Father Adamsky is revealed to also have lustful feelings for Patricia, an underage girl, and you got yourself a twisted soap opera that I was entertained by.

There's also some other subject matter, like Anthony Montelli being a real bastard to his family. The guy wasn't even possessed, and he was ready to whip his children with a belt because of the mess the house made in their presence. Hell, he even treated Father Adamsky like crap. I get that he was an atheist, but some respect would have been nice. Who would want Sonny to spare this asshole? It's no wonder he was the first person to go. I also found the scene where the younger sister covers her brother's head with a plastic bag as a joke. It was a bit morbid, especially since something like that can kill someone. I'm guessing Wallace put this in the story for shock value. Well it worked.

Do I have any issues with the story? Oh, absolutely. While I think Wallace was cool in using other films as an influence on the screenplay, it does come across as a bit derivative of better films. I have nothing against unoriginality [who can be original these days?], but I felt that the inspirations were a bit too on-the-nose. THE EXORCIST moment played out exactly like THE EXORCIST. Did the house really need to be built on a burial ground like POLTERGEIST? And what was up with the transformation that almost resembled something out of AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON? In fact, much of the ending tended to rely on the presence of other films in order to finish the story. Honestly, much of the final act [which I didn't hate] had a much different tone and feel to the hour that came before it. It was like watching two different films that really didn't go together. Was it a complete failure? Not at all. But some of it felt forced just to capitalize on the horror trends that were still popular at the time.

I also didn't have much sympathy for the characters, which probably made the film more entertaining on a superficial level for me. The parents weren't that likeable. Anthony was an abusive prick, while Delores was too passive about the situation that made her hard to root for. The children weren't developed all that much. Sonny was only interesting once the demon possessed him. Patricia was just a tool to have someone pure being corrupted by the evil around here. Even Father Adamsky was revealed to be a pervert by the end, even though he was a good match for Sonny. I guess we weren't supposed to care about any of these people since they were nothing but lambs to the slaughter anyway. Still, I found the Lutz family more likeable, even if they were as dull as watching paint dry.

By the way, when does this film even take place? It's supposedly a prequel to THE AMITYVILLE HORROR, which is obviously taking place in the 1970s. But we see 80s cars, 80s fashion, and even a Walkman that throw away any sort of time continuity between the first two films. There's still a debate whether this film is really a sequel and not a prequel, although the events in this film reveal what happened inside of the house before the Lutz family had moved in. Call it a big goof, I guess.

The special effects in AMITYVILLE II are definitely a step-above anything presented in the first film. While a brutal film, the film isn't particularly gory until the end. Obviously influenced by Rick Baker's and Rob Bottin's works on AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON and THE HOWLING respectively, While the work of Glen Robinson, John Caglione, Stephen DuPuis, and Ed French don't come close to the imagination of Baker and Bottin, the visual spectacle of watching Sonny being possessed is quite interesting. Mainly, the special effects are just skin bubbling underneath the surface on the hands, neck, and even face. The biggest effect happens at the end, where Sonny's face begins to erode into a demonic form that was hiding underneath the shell. Not sure if it was actually needed, but I can definitely admire the hard work that went into it. Other than that, it's not really a violent film. Even the scene where Sonny shoots down his family is more implied than anything, with blood splatter here and there.

The direction by Damiano Damiani, in his first and only English speaking movie, is pretty damn good. With editor Sam O'Steen on his side [he edited ROSEMARY'S BABY], AMITYVILLE II: THE POSSESSION flows better than expected. The picture looked good. The shot scales, composition, and framing were on the mark. The pacing is well done, as the film breezes by. And there's a ton of style visually, with Damiani's love for first person point-of-view shots and 360 degree overheads. It's a visually engaging film that feels more kinetic than the first one.

The acting is good in AMITYVILLE II as well. Burt Young, of ROCKY fame, is fun to watch as the abusive father, Anthony. He's pretty much Uncle Paulie, but with more Ike Turner in him. James Olson is a very good actor as Father Adamsky. He had some ridiculous dialogue at times, but he made it work for his character. Jake Magner carried the film very well as Sonny. I really like the conflict Magner displayed, although he was more fun to watch as a possessed shell for a demon. Diane Franklin is really cute, and quite convincing as the innocent Patricia. And Rutanya Alda is a bit melodramatic for my tastes as Delores. But she wasn't in the film all that much to be annoying, so I'll let it slide.


THE FINAL HOWL
I honestly consider AMITYVILLE II: THE POSSESSION the best installment of a pretty uneven franchise in terms of quality. It does have continuity, tone, and even some character issues. But it's a more entertainingly twisted version of the first film, now with influences from THE EXORCIST, AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, and even a bit of POLTERGEIST towards the end. The possession angle is played with well, the direction is very strong and stylish, and the actors really elevate what could have been a piece of pure schlock. It's a sequel that may turn people off due to issues of abuse and incest that play a big role in the narrative. But along with the 2005 THE AMITYVILLE HORROR remake, AMITYVILLE II is probably the only time I don't regret spending time in this stupid haunted house. Compared to the first film, this sequel is the Extreme Makeover: Home Edition the franchise really needed at the time.



SCORE

3 Howls Outta 4

The Conjuring (2013)

DIRECTED BY
James Wan

STARRING
Vera Farmiga - Lorraine Warren
Patrick Wilson - Ed Warren
Lili Taylor - Carolyn Perron
Ron Livingston - Roger Perron
Shanley Caswell - Andrea
Hayley McFarland - Nancy
Joey King - Christine
Mackenzie Foy - Cindy
Kyla Deaver - April
Shannon Kook - Drew
John Brotherton - Brad

Genre - Horror/Supernatural/Demons/Haunted House

Running Time - 112 Minutes


PLOT
Based on true events, THE CONJURING depicts one of the paranormal investigations conducted by Ed (Patrick Wilson) and Lorraine Warren (Vera Farmiga). This case, from 1971, involves Roger (Rob Livingston) and Carolyn Perron (Lili Taylor) - who move into a house they bought in Harrisville, Rhode Island with their five daughters. Even though they ignore warnings from their dog, who refuses to enter the house and would rather bark at it, the family soon realizes that their new home isn't exactly perfect. In fact, it's being haunted by some demonic entity that slams doors, create scary moments in the cellar, and even possesses people.

The Warrens, who are dealing with some issues of their own due to past investigations, decide to take the case and head to Harrisville to help. When they learn and confirm to the Perrons that the demonic entity is feeding off of their life force in order to possess the living [it wants to recreate past events through new bodies], the Warrens do everything they can to stop this evil force and save the Perrons from more trauma.

QUICK THOUGHTS
+ I really loved the cast, especially the actors playing the two couples. I've always been a fan of Patrick Wilson and he's great here as Ed Warren. The beautiful Vera Farmiga is probably a bit better as the haunted Lorraine Warren. I thought Wilson and Farmiga had fantastic chemistry and hope they both return for the sequel. As for the Perrons, both Rob Livingston and especially Lili Taylor are great in their roles. It's nice to see Taylor in a haunted house film that doesn't suck for a change [THE HAUNTING remake can blow me]. Plus, Taylor had the most to work with and she performed all like a champ. The supporting actors, especially the actors playing the daughters, were very good. John Brotherton, as Officer Brad, had some nice comedic moments, as did Shannon Kook's Drew. I think the cast was really good here and came across as completely believable.

+ James Wan does it again when it comes to directing a great film. I thought THE CONJURING was a step above both DEAD SILENCE [probably my least favorite Wan film currently] and INSIDIOUS [can't wait for that sequel]. While there was a lot of INSIDIOUS touches in this film, I thought THE CONJURING was filmed with more subtlety that was greatly appreciated. I loved that Wan took a fairly predictable premise and still managed to make me jump at times. The 70s look of the film was groovy, and the sense of dread was thick. I loved the demonic moments where the hands came out of the closet, jumped off of the closet, and the "Hide 'n' Clap" moments that made me chuckle. The film also had a lot of cool angles that never wore out their welcome. I think this was Wan's strongest film so far as a director.

+ While the story was predictable and you can see things coming a mile away, at least it's executed really well. The characters were interesting, inviting, and very likeable. Each character had a role and they all enhance the story forward. I also thought the paranormal story actually made sense, keeping the audience involved through smart details rather than focusing on some stupid, unnecessary twist. Even elements from THE EXORCIST, THE AMITYVILLE HORROR [which was a case the Warrens actually investigated], and even POLTERGEIST didn't feel forced. In fact, I thought these cliche moments added to the story due to making them feel fresh within the context.

I do wish we gotten more time with the Warrens, as most of the story was focused on the Perron case itself. Their lives seem incredibly interesting, and their relationship was so well told that you wanted to see more of them. I'm not too down on the lack of Warrens here since I'm sure THE CONJURING will become a franchise of sorts, which will probably allow the series to explore the characters a bit more.

- I hear THE CONJURING received an "R" rating due to its scares. The funny thing is that I didn't find the film fear-inducing. Sure, it was creepy at times. And some moments made me jump just out of surprise. But I never felt scared or anything. And the audience I was with laughed at the scary moments rather than being frightened by them. This doesn't hurt the film in anyway [I had fun with THE CONJURING], but I still don't understand why the MPAA rated the film the way it did.


THE FINAL HOWL
THE CONJURING continues a pretty good horror year so far in 2013. It's your typical haunted house/demon possession movie, but it works really well and will keep you entertained for two hours. The performances are solid, the story is well-told, and James Wan directs the film with a nice subtlety and detailed eye. I honestly don't have any complaints about this throwback to 70s haunted house movies [besides wishing it were a bit scarier]. Sure, it may be "unoriginal" to some. But it's not about the ingredients - it's about how you cook them.



SCORE

3.5 Howls Outta 4

House on Haunted Hill (1959)

DIRECTED BY
William Castle

STARRING
Vincent Price - Frederick Loren
Carol Ohmart - Annabelle Loren
Carolyn Craig - Nora Manning
Elisha Cook Jr. - Watson Pritchard
Richard Long - Lance Schroeder
Alan Marshal - Dr. David Trent
Julie Mitchum - Ruth Bridges

Genre - Horror/Suspense/Ghosts/Haunted House

Running Time - 74 Minutes


As I had mentioned in an earlier review for 1959's THE TINGLER, director William Castle knew how to promote his movies by presenting gimmicks that only worked for their respective films. THE TINGLER, which is about a creature that grows on one's spine and will kill its owner if they can't scream, used a gimmick called Percept-O - where certain theater chairs had devices that released shock waves onto those audience members whenever the Tingler creature would appear. Because of these crazy gimmicks, Castle would have huge successes on his hands. It also helped his films are usually good.

Prior to THE TINGLER's release was the release of the iconic HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL. Most people are probably more familiar with the 1999 remake [which I like quite a bit] and its 2007 average sequel. But the 1959 version of HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL is considered one of the best haunted house films ever filmed, and deemed influential in the horror genre. It was the first collaboration between Castle and star Vincent Price. It also had an interesting take on the 3D gimmick called Emergo! - which involved a fake skeleton "coming out" of the screen during the point of the film [at the end] where the skeleton emerges from an acid pit inside the house's cellar. It would hover over the audiences' heads, attempting to scare them. Sounds like a fun concept, and it actually helped make HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL a box office success.

Unfortunately, Emergo doesn't happen as you watch HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL at home. But unlike THE TINGLER, the gimmick probably doesn't enhance the viewing experience all that much. It's fine, since HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL still manages to be a good time after all these years, even if it isn't a perfect film.

PLOT
Millionaire Frederick Loren (Vincent Price) has invited five strangers to join him and his wife Annabelle (Carol Ohmart) at a haunted house party in celebrate Annabelle's birthday. The incentive for these guests - $10,000 if they stay the night inside this House on Haunted Hill...and survive. The guests include a jet pilot named Lance Schroeder (Richard Long), innocent Nora Manning (Carolyn Craig), drunk journalist Ruth Bridges (Julie Mitchum), and doctor David Trent (Alan Marshal). Trent, in particular, wants to test his theories on what trauma and fear can do on the human mind if the rumors about the haunted house are true. Also in attendance is Watson Pritchard (Elisha Cook, Jr.), who has spent a night in the house before and is afraid to be inside again due to the ghosts that haunt it.

As the guests roam the house, they encounter some strange phenomena that can't be explained or believed. They also have to deal with the tension between Frederick and Annabelle, who despise each other and seem to be implying each other's deaths. Nora, afraid for her life, decides to leave. But the doors and windows close by themselves, trapping all the guests inside. If this just a game? Or is this house really haunted?

REVIEW

HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL is considered by many to be William Castle's crowning achievement as a filmmaker, although I personally prefer THE TINGLER over this one. It's not a perfect film and is definitely cheesy and schlocky. But it's also a lot of fun, with cool moments that will make you jump or laugh, never boring you at all. Even without the Emergo! gimmick, the film succeeds for the most part.

HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL was inspired by Shirley Jackson's novel, The Haunting of Hill House - which would also later inspire 1963's THE HAUNTING and 1973's THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE. What could play out as a modern reality competition program on television, the guests intend to stay the night to win $10,000 [although each person has their own agenda as well] but have to face obstacles such as ghosts, guns, bloody ceilings, a bickering married couple, and an animated skeleton who rises from an acid pit in the cellar. It's like being in one of those funhouses at a local carnival, expecting weird things to pop up and disorient you at every turn. I won't really discuss the narrative any more than that, since I would be spoiling things if I got too much in depth with this film. So for those two people who haven't watched the original HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL, you're welcome. I will say that the 1999 remake does play with the concept of the $10,000 survival prize a bit more, but the original is still a fun ride.

What really makes the film work are the characters. Nora, in modern horror terms, would be considered the film's Final Girl. She's innocent, naive, but sweet and good hearted as well. She also seems to be the main target of the ghosts in the house, probably due to her supposed pure nature. She's also the smartest one in the group, as she realizes she's way over her head and wants to leave the house, not caring about the money. Unfortunately, the house closes itself so she's locked in. But at least she has common sense. Lance, the jet pilot, is pretty much Nora's best friend in the house. He obviously has a crush on her and is the only one who is willing to believe her stories about seeing ghosts. He also catches the eye of Annabelle, which causes a tiny bit of tension between him and Frederick - although it's never really explored to add some needed drama between the characters. Ruth is a columnist who enjoys drinking, which aids her skepticism over the entire situation. She also has a puddle of blood dripping on her wherever she goes, which takes a while to gain a reaction out of her. Dr. David Trent is there to study the behavior of the other guests in terms of how they embrace fear. He also has a very personal relationship with one of the other characters that no one else is aware of, which leads to the fun conclusion of the movie. And Watson is pretty much the guy who's already been through the terror, warning the others about what's about to happen. He also likes to drink, as it helps him cope with the memories of what happened to him.

The best characters, however, are the Lorens. Frederick and Annabelle waste no time showing their lack of affection towards each other, having fantastic banter [the dialogue is really great for these two] and always implying murdering each other eventually. It seems Frederick sees Annabelle as a golddigging wife, while Annabelle sees Frederick as an easy means to a rich life once he's dead. Their relationship is the catalyst to the events that occur in HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL. The reason the guests are because of the couple due to Annabelle's birthday party. And Frederick seems to want everyone there, almost as if he plans on killing Annabelle and needs alibis. The entire relationship is twisted fun.

I do think the ending of the film is pretty lame though. The special effect moment is cool. The twist, while interesting, doesn't really work as well as it should since it comes out of nowhere. And the very end itself is just weak, in my opinion. It's as if the film didn't know how to end and relied too heavily on the gimmick. Everything before the final moments are effective, and the ending doesn't really match up to the level of anything before it.

The film is also very dialogue heavy. So those expecting a lot of ghosts and murder will probably want to look elsewhere. But when the spookier moments do appear, they're pretty cool. Ghosts pop out of nowhere, looking more hilarious than scary. The scene where a ghost tries to wrap Nora with rope from outside the window is pretty neat. The skeleton is cool looking for its time, and probably the most memorable "effect" of HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL. We also get a hanging, a bloody ceiling, people boiling in acid, and a decapitated head in a suitcase. So while there's a lot of talking, there are also those moments where you'll either be creeped out, or just enjoy while laughing at them.

The direction by William Castle is very good here. It's a black and white film [at least the version I watched - there is a colored version out there], so the film has to rely on a lot of shadows and light. HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL succeeds in doing that visually, as the way certain scenes and objects are lit play a trick on your eyes at times. The pacing is pretty good and never feels long [it's only 74 minutes long]. There are cool "boo" scares and pretty creepy moments. There's also a ton of atmosphere that we don't really get in horror these days, which is what Castle always excelled at. The Von Dexter score also aids in the mood and tone of the film. I really enjoyed the visual presentation.

The acting is good as well. Vincent Price, without a doubt, is the best actor in the film as Frederick Loren. It's one of Price's most famous roles of his awesome career, as his voice mesmerizes you every time he speaks. He also maintains his massive charisma and makes Frederick somewhat sympathetic, even when you know the character's intentions are less than pure with his creepy mannerisms and delivery. Just as good is Carol Ohmart as Annabelle Loren. Her banter with Price is fantastic, as you can really taste the dislike the two actors have for each other through their characters. Ohmart is also very sexy and it's easy to see why the men in the film would do what she says. Carolyn Craig is good as Nora. She doesn't do much but scream and look cute, but she does both well. Richard Long is good as Lance, playing off Craig really well. Elisha Cook Jr. was kind of annoying as Watson, but I can understand the performance since he was playing a specific character. The other actors are fine as well. A good cast overall.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE USING THE $10,000 I WON FOR THERAPY

- Whoever stays inside the haunted house all night will be given $10,000 if they survive. I never got any money when I stayed over Neverland Ranch! What the hell? That pain was so not worth it...

- Frederick, although throwing his wife Annabelle a birthday party, hates her guts. Sounds like this marriage is just fine.

- Nora found a decapitated head in her suitcase. I guess Al Snow stayed there during a prior visit.

- Annabelle supposedly hung herself, which shocked the other guests. Ted Stryker must have told her about his drinking problem again...

- A skeleton rose from the acid pit inside the cellar. Um...Fatality?

THE FINAL HOWL

While not William Castle's best film, in my opinion, HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL is still a fun, imaginative movie that still deserves love after 53 years. The acting, especially by Vincent Price and Carol Ohmart, is very good. The direction has a lot of atmosphere. The story is simple, yet it works and creates memorable moments. The ending is pretty bland and more could be done with the "win $10,000 for surviving the house all night" concept. But overall, it's an entertaining B-movie that's a pleasure to watch.



SCORE

3 Howls Outta 4

The 550th Review: The Amityville Horror (1979)

DIRECTED BY
Stuart Rosenberg

STARRING
James Brolin - George Lutz
Margot Kidder - Kathy Lutz
Rod Steiger - Father Delaney
Don Stroud - Father Bolen
Natasha Ryan - Amy Lutz
K.C. Martel - Greg
Meeno Peluce - Matt
Michael Sachs - Jeff
Val Avery - Sergeant Gionfriddo
Helen Shaver - Carolyn
Murray Hamilton - Father Ryan

Genre - Horror/Supernatural/Ghosts/Demons/Haunted House

Running Time - 117 Minutes


A few years ago, I reviewed the 2005 remake of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR that stars Ryan Reynolds and Melissa George. I remarked that it was one of the better modern remakes of the '00s [still stand by that] because it took what the original film had done and slightly improved on its flaws. Many scoffed at me because I preferred the remake over the original, since a lot of people cherish the 1979 Stuart Rosenberg adaptation of the 1977 best-selling novel of the same name. For the life of me, I still don't understand why the original film is so damn loved. And as I noticed, some of those naysayers are now on the same boat as me. Why is THE AMITYVILLE HORROR held in such high regard as a classic?

I guess it may have to do with it being "Based on a True Story". The Long Island, New York house that's the inspiration for this horror story has become iconic due to claims by George and Kathy Lutz that the house was haunted with evil spirits. The story about the previous owner, Butch "Ronnie" DeFeo, is believed to be true, as he murdered his entire family in 1974 with a shotgun while they slept. Apparently DeFeo claimed that demonic voices and forces inside the house were telling him to kill. Whether the guy is suffering from schizophrenia or supernatural forces really made him kill is still yet unknown.

What has been disputed is the Lutz's story. Did their 28 days of hell in Amityville really happen? Or did they just want fame and fortune? Whether it's true or not, their story has created one of the most popular horror franchises in the horror genre for better or worse. And during a period with supernatural horror was at its peak with films like ROSEMARY'S BABY, THE EXORCIST, and THE OMEN really sucking in audiences, a film adaptation of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR was, without a doubt, going to grab a huge audience as well. And it did, becoming a massive success and creating a ton of sequels and the earlier mentioned remake.

The problem is that, unlike the other supernatural films I mentioned, THE AMITYVILLE HORROR doesn't really hold up that well and doesn't effect me in the way it was probably intended. To be honest, I felt the same way about the film when I was kid. I see some of the charms that so many love about this film, but I personally feel this film is overrated as hell and not all that good. Let's see why I won't be chopping wood anytime soon.

PLOT
At exactly 3:15 AM on November 13, 1974, a young man named Ronald DeFeo murdered his entire family with a shot in Amityville, New York. He claimed that demonic voices within the house had taken control over his mind and ordered him to kill his family, and plead insanity. While doctors believed he was schizophrenic, many in the neighborhood believed the house to be haunted.

A year later, the house is back on the market for a very cheap price. Newlyweds George (James Brolin) and Kathy (Margot Kidder) Lutz buy the house and move in with Kathy's three young children and a family dog. As the family settles in, they unknowingly receive a visit from the local priest, Father Delaney (Rod Steiger). Delaney enters the home ready to bless the house, but is attacked by a swarm of flies and starts feeling nauseous and physically ill by whatever is inside the home. When he tries to warn the Lutz family about his suspicions, the reception goes bad each time.

Soon enough, George begins to feel sick himself, complaining of the house being cold even though the thermostat is above room temperature. He constantly chops wood for the fireplace, growing more distant and deranged each passing day. The family thinks George is coming down with a bad case of the flu, not realizing that random objects are moving around inside the house and demonic voices exclaiming, "Get out!" are echoing throughout the home.

Kathy slowly catches on, as her daughter Amy (Natasha Ryan) suddenly has an imaginary friend named "Jodie", who does bad things and forces Amy not to do anything. Friends are also creeped out by the house, random strangers pop up, and the history of the previous owner is learned by a local cop (Val Avery) who witnessed the terror that occurred a year prior. As George descends deeper into madness and begins looking like Ronnie DeFeo more and more each day he stays inside the house, the family begins to realize they need to escape this haunted house before history repeats itself.

REVIEW

THE AMITYVILLE HORROR is consider to be one of the best "haunted house" films to ever be made. Unfortunately, I disagree but that's only my opinion. I find THE AMITYVILLE HORROR to be overlong, boring, and not at all scary. I felt this way when I was eight-years-old when I watched it for the first time, and I feel the same way 23 years later.

The strengths and weaknesses of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR stem from the culture surrounding its release and how it has changed today. THE AMITYVILLE HORROR did big business because the 1970s were a time of conservative religion and fear that weak-minded folks were going to fall into the hands of Satan and his evil. Any project [film, television, books, etc.] involving the Devil or evil spirits was going to make a lot of money due to the culture's fascination with the subject. While ROSEMARY'S BABY pretty much started the craze, it was THE EXORCIST that really gave it its power. THE AMITYVILLE HORROR just jumped on the bandwagon and did well for itself because of it. I've read and heard that to truly review THE AMITYVILLE HORROR, you need to judge it by when it was released instead of modern times where the world view and pop culture compliment the film less. That's a fine opinion, but I still believe I would have felt the same way about the film in 1979 that I do in 2012. The film, no matter the reasons behind its creation, isn't all that great.

The narrative is pretty basic, to the point where you're just sitting while waiting for things to happen. The story does have memorable moments obviously. After all, many future films have parodied the walls bleeding blood, scary eyes outside of a window, and demonic voices telling people to get out. While cliche, these moments work for a reason because we expect things like this in a horror film. But between these moments, you're stuck watching a family drama unfold that isn't all that captivating. And that's the issue with THE AMITYVILLE HORROR - it wants to be a scary film, but also wants to portray conventional family values in the form of a soap opera. Can these two things work? Absolutely, but only when the people behind the storytelling understand how to merge the two together to create a single entity. Since the script wants to follow the book as close as possible, while exaggerating things for a movie going audience, it never maintains the balance it needs to not be boring.

As many characters that are in this film for two straight hours, we barely know any of them on any deep level. Sure, George and Kathy Lutz are likeable enough. But I honestly know nothing about their true relationship outside this incident. They seem to be a loving couple at the start, but I always got the impression that George was sort of distant with Kathy, who was more affectionate and willing to let things go just to maintain a sense of happiness in her life. She keeps saying that she really wants her marriage with George to work, as if it's implied that maybe this couple isn't as happy as the film would like us to believe. Why would she say this in almost a doubtful way if they were a solid couple? Also, Kathy's children don't seem to have a bond to George in any way. Daughter Amy claims that Jodie doesn't like George, and never defends him to Kathy or Jodie. I'm not expecting George's stepfather relationship with Kathy's children to be perfect. But usually it's on good standing if the mother marries the guy. It would have been nice to see what their relationship was like prior to moving into 112 Ocean Avenue, especially when I'm watching these two people for 95 percent of a two-hour film. That's why I'm never invested in George's slow descent into madness because you barely know the guy before the change. Hell, he could have been a serial killer before marrying Kathy. He doesn't look like the most friendly guy on the planet, as he's a bit standoffish. And the fact that Kathy just lets things happen without doing anything to change them until it's almost too late makes her weak in my eyes. But unlike the other characters, at least they do stuff that at least keep you somewhat interested. They're just not that interesting as single characters, working only when they play off each other.

The children, besides Amy, don't get enough to do [unless you count Greg getting a window slammed down on his hand, which doesn't break any of his bones for some reason that's never explained]. Amy's only real purpose is to introduce Jodie, her so-called "imaginary friend" who likes to sit in a rocking chair and trap babysitters in Amy's closet. Oh, and Jodie is a flying demon pig for some reason. I guess she was tired of Miss Piggy taking the spotlight, so she turned evil or something. I don't know why a pig would be one of the lead spirits inside of this home. Maybe Jodie was a Wonder Twin in a past life. I have no clue. It's a funny image though, which does raise the entertainment value of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR. I honestly thought the Jodie from the remake [who is human in that version] was integrated better into the story than this demon pig was. Maybe if the demon pig deal was given more time, it could have really been something pretty cool and terrifying. But we barely see it and it just comes across as silly. There had to be a reason why Jodie was a pig. But the story never tells you [I believe the novel does give the pig issue a lot more detail than the film does].

The Church stuff that's added to the film also left a lot to be desired. I understood why Father Delaney was in the story and I'm more than fine with his role in the narrative. If you're going to have an evil house, you need a force of good [usually a very religious person who has power in his faith] to balance it out. And I liked that he was effected by the evil of the house the moment he tried to bless it. It made him nauseous and gave him flu-like symptoms. It also attacked him with flies. It showed that his religion and the faith he had in it was a big threat to the evil living there. However, I didn't understand why it continued to effect him after he left the house. He got sicker. It tried to crash his car while he was in it. He even went blind because he spoke against the evil inside of a church. How did this evil leave the house and do this? It's never established how powerful this home is. Kathy's sister, who is a nun, was effected by the house as well. But all she got was nauseous. The Lutz family got affected in different ways, but once they left the house, the evil stopped hurting them apparently. So why was this priest such a threat that the evil wanted to destroy him? It doesn't make any sense and seems like the reason this even happens is to give Father Delaney something to do once he's introduced.

What I did find interesting within the narrative is how religion is treated in THE AMITYVILLE HORROR. In THE EXORCIST, it stands up against the forces of evil. While evil isn't truly dead by the end of the film, at least it wins the battle for the most part. In this film, religion tends to be treated as something worse than the evil inside the Amityville House. When Father Delaney tells his fellow priests about his suspicions about that house and how it made him ill, the other priests think that Delaney may be losing his mind and don't want to pay any more mind to the issue. For a man as respected in his parish and in the community as Delaney, wouldn't the other priests at least go along with the story? Even when the man goes blind, it's almost treated as an afterthought - like that sort of thing happens all the time. For men of faith, they sure seem more political than anything. They would rather turn a blind [no pun intended] eye to the matter rather than investigate. While I think the narrative is hurt by casting both the evil and the religious sect as villains, at least it's interesting to see the point of view the filmmakers had on religion here. Instead of trying to help a family deal with a spiritual crisis, they would rather cover it up and let it continue. Honestly, besides the house itself, the priests in the film have more personality than the people we're supposed to care about. I didn't really feel much for the Lutz unit, but I was disgusted by how the Church acted here. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Speaking of the house itself, it's honestly the only character in the film that has any sort of personality. It can make its walls bleed. It can clog up its toilets with black gunk. It can move objects at will. It can produce images, like demon pigs and a face hologram of George Lutz. It can make psychics go orgasmic through the vibes it projects. And it can even speak to people so they can get scared off and leave. The house is the most interesting element of this film and it's the reason why the franchise keeps going back to it. This is a creepy ass house - one I wouldn't want to go near.

Also, this film is full of open-ended subplots. What was the deal with that detective? He spies on the Lutz home and then follows one of the priests to see what happened to Father Delaney. Then he disappears and is never mentioned again. Why is he even in this story? To tell the family what happened there previously? I'm sure this could have been done a different way, even if this is exactly how the Lutz family claimed it happened. Also, what was the deal with Delaney and Kathy? They seemed pretty close and concerned for each other. But whenever he felt there was trouble, he would barely try and warn her about it. So he made a few phone calls, but they never went anywhere. He could at least risked his life to warn her. Nada! Also, nobody wanted to be inside this house. Wouldn't the Lutz family have asked about the reasoning more than once? And when strange things did happen, why didn't the family start to think that maybe it was time to move out? Things like that tend to bug me, even if it's close to the "true story".

While the narrative is pretty predictable in terms of its beats and certain moments that need to happen in order for the story to be told, at least it has moments you'll remember once the film is over. While most of these classic images were cliche before THE AMITYVILLE HORROR was even released, at least they're used well and pick up the film's pace to grab your attention before you start falling asleep. Generic, but memorable.

In terms of terror, there's not much here. Sure, the house gives off a creepy vibe [as well as a creepy look - when the windows are on, it looks like an evil face staring back at you], but you won't have nightmares over this movie. Still, the scenes where DeFeo murders his family are pretty messed up, especially when he shoots the children in their sleep. And I like how they're edited in as the Lutz enter the home for the very first time. It's a striking contrast and also a possible foreshadowing of what will happen to the Lutz family. The red eyes outside of the window are pretty creepy too. But nothing is really that scary at all.

The direction by Stuart Rosenberg was hindered by a lame screenplay, but I did enjoy his visual presentation. It looks like a TV movie at times, but it's still competently shot. There was definitely mood and atmosphere sprinkled throughout the film when there needed to be. The editing was tight and I liked how certain shots were framed and composed. Some shots were done with the use of filters, which worked for me. And I thought the final act had some nice tension, even if it was fairly predictable. Rosenberg, who directed the much better COOL HAND LUKE, isn't to blame for the film's mediocrity. He made the most of visualizing a script that really doesn't accomplish much. He took the job seriously and I respect that.

The acting is mostly good. James Brolin is good as George Lutz, giving a subtle performance throughout the film. His beard during the 1970s was truly epic and just awesome on its own. But Brolin does a good job with the material. I like his presence. Margot Kidder was also good as Kathy. She hit the emotional notes nicely and looks good with an open shirt and no bra. No wonder Superman wanted her all those years ago. Natasha Ryan was also quite good as Amy, the daughter. She had a creepy quiet vibe about her that I felt the film needed more of. All the other supporting actors were fine in their roles as well.

However, Rod Steiger really takes the cake as Father Delaney. Talk about Overacting 101...and probably 102 as well. The dude was way too much in his role. I thought Al Pacino and William Shatner were hams. Steiger, an Academy Award winner, has them both beat. The guy overacts and yells every line in the film. That scene inside the church had too much volume going for it. I thought everytime he started to go off, the man was going to have a stroke or something. A pretty bad performance by Steiger, but an entertainingly bad one. He should have drank decaf before each take.


THE FINAL HOWL

THE AMITYVILLE HORROR is probably one of the most overrated horror films ever. While the direction is good, the acting mostly solid, and the horror cliches used as well as they could be, the "true story" is just a bore for the most part besides when things start turning supernatural and horrific. The film is way too long and not much happens that keeps you captivated. But the memorable moments the film does have keep the film alive in the hearts of many and they have a certain charm to them. And while I think the film is mediocre, I never wanted to turn it off. Let's just agree that THE AMITYVILLE HORROR is average at best and move on. And if my house begins to bleed because of that, I'll just have to deal with buying tampons and plugging that bitch up.


SCORE

2 Howls Outta 4

The Amityville Horror (2005)

DIRECTED BY
Andrew Douglas

STARRING 
Ryan Reynolds - George Lutz
Melissa George - Kathy Lutz
Jesse James - Billy
Chloe Grace Moretz - Chelsea
Rachel Nichols - Lisa
Isabel Conner - Jodie DeFeo

Genre - Horror/Supernatural/Haunted House
 
Running Time - 89 Minutes

Score - 2.5 Howls Outta 4


In 1977, a bestselling book written by Jay Anson called The Amityville Horror was on the bestseller list. Dealing with a haunted house on Long Island, New York, the "true story" of George and Kathy Lutz captivated a lot of people. Apparently, a family called the DeFeo were brutally murdered into that Amityville house in 1974 by the eldest son Butch "Ronnie" DeFeo. Butch had murdered them all with gunshots, without a neighbor hearing them. Butch claimed that demonic forces inside the house told him to kill his family. No one is sure whether that's true or not.

A year later, the Lutz family moved into the house because it was sold for a cheap price. Eventually, the Lutz family were also terrorized by these demonic forces inside the house. They lasted 28 days living there before leaving in the middle of the night without their personal belongings.

Due to the popularity of horror films dealing with the Devil or demons, like ROSEMARY'S BABY, THE EXORCIST, and THE OMEN, THE AMITYVILLE HORROR was turned into a film in 1979 starring James Brolin and Margot Kidder. It was a huge success, spawning 8 sequels that no one really needed.

However, things didn't add up once the popularity of the story set in. Apparently author Jay Anson wrote the story without talking to the Lutz family, pretty much fabricating the entire thing. The smaller characters involved, such as the priest who supposedly was a victim inside of the house, claimed he sensed no evil inside the house. Even Butch DeFeo's lawyer claimed that Butch and George Lutz created the story themselves in order to cash in on book and film rights, eventually leading to Lutz admitting that only some of the story was indeed true.

So why a remake of a "true" story in 2005? Because Michael Bay needs money and after putting some in his pocket after THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake of 2003 [which I actually liked as its own film and not a remake], he decided to recreate THE AMITYVILLE HORROR for a newer generation. Starring Ryan Reynolds and Melissa George, the remake has more to do with the 1979 film than with the Anson book itself. Is it needed? Absolutely not. But I can't say that I didn't like it.

PLOT
Butch "Ronnie" DeFeo murders his entire family in 1974 in a house settled in Amityville, New York. In 1975, contractor George Lutz (Ryan Reynolds) and his new wife Kathy (Melissa George) find the very same house for sale, deciding to buy it as a new start for them and Kathy's three kids. The moment they move in, however, they are all subject to supernatural things occurring in the house. Especially George, who becomes more crazy and menacing by the day, and little Chelsea (Chloe Grace Moretz), who's imaginary friend Jodie (Isabel Conner) happens to be one of the DeFeo's who was murdered a year prior. Kathy begins to understand what's going on in the house and what it's doing to her family, knowing that once their 28th day there, George will kill all of them.

REVIEW
The 2005 version of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR is surprisingly pretty good entertainment. I had put it off for two years because I hate the remake trend that Hollywood is high on these days, but I gotta give credit to a remake that actually does some good things. I liked the original THE AMITYVILLE HORROR but it's far from my favorite horror films. While the performances were good, I thought it was a bit too slow, boring, and not at all scary. Personally, I like AMITYVILLE II: THE POSSESSION more than I do the original, but that's just me. And while THE AMITYVILLE HORROR (2005) isn't going to be a classic like the 1979 original, I actually enjoyed it more than its counterpart.

One of the major reasons I enjoyed this version a bit more was Ryan Reynold's portrayal of George Lutz. In the original, I didn't really find James Brolin scary as he turned from nice husband and father into crazy serial killer. It just wasn't that effective for me for some reason. Ryan Reynolds, I thought, did a much better job with the role. While the change was a bit too quick and unbelievable, I'll admit, I thought Reynolds handled it with class. The dude was pretty chilling when he turned evil. I'm so used to the guy doing comedies and making sarcastic jokes all the time that it was quite a shock when he played it homicidal. The look in his eyes and his body language was extremely effective and I bought it. VAN WILDER was gone. This dude was freakin' nuts. Especially during the scenes with him and his trusty axe with Billy (Jesse James) holding the log. If he was my stepdad and he acted like that with me, I would have ran away. I'll be damned if that dude chopped my hands off because he's not all there. His parenting skills gave me the creeps! Reynolds made the film for me. I've always been a huge fan of the dude and this portrayal made me a bigger one. Great job, Mr. Reynolds!

I also loved the cinematography of the film. Very crisp and clear, you can see every bit of detail in the film. Shadows were great. I loved the browns. Reynolds' bloodshot eyes were as clear as day, which made him more intimidating. It's just an extremely beautiful looking film. And the sound was crisp too. Technically, THE AMITYVILLE HORROR is a very well-made movie. Very professional.

I also liked the fact that the film was very quick paced. Not so much the quick cuts, which annoy me more and more as I see them, although they weren't so badly done here. But the original was just very slow and it kind of took out of that film. I don't mind setting up things like atmosphere and mood, but it just took too long to do it. This film moves at a brisker pace to get its point across, while still maintaining some atmosphere and mood. The "boo" moments are more effective here than in the original as well, although I wasn't scared at all. But at least there was an attempt here with great imagery and well timed jump cuts, so I'll give the film its due.

The main problem with this film is the story itself. The script wasn't that well-developed, leaving me not really caring for these characters except for George and maybe Kathy. I mean, they did things that made me scratch my head. Why would you even buy a house where some maniac murdered his entire family? Especially when it's being sold cheap? Doesn't that tell you something? And when the daughter, Chelsea, kept trying to kill herself because Jodie told her it would help her see her father multiple times - don't you think maybe it's time to change the child's environment? And Kathy wondering why George is acting strange after she saw refrigerator magnets that read "KETCHEM KILLEM" - um, I would have left that place right there. I mean, none of these people couldn't have realized that something strange was inside that house. I mean, Kathy saw George practically abusing her own children. Do something, lady! They just didn't feel like a family, like in the original. They felt like random people put together in a house to suffer and be tortured one-by-one. I mean, that's fine in SAW II, but not in a film like this.

And the writers tried to scare us with this story about Native Americans being tortured in that very house hundreds of years ago and they're the ones who are possessing the families who live inside the house. I mean, how many times can I see a film about an "evil" house that doesn't involve Native Americans? I was expecting the short lady from POLTERGEIST to pop up and tell me that there's an Native American burial underground underneath the house's foundation. It's not scary. There was no reason given to make it scary. Seeing children get verbally abused and animals being killed [poor dog] doesn't scare me either. It pisses me off. It's sad because there's a great ghost story trying to be told here. It's just that the right person hasn't been able to make it effective enough. Plus, it doesn't help that we've already seen this before. The unknown is what makes us scared. What's the point in trying when we've already know what's gonna happen?

The direction by Andrew Douglas was okay. He loved angles and nice sound tricks to "frighten" people. But too much cutting ruined his momentum, as we never got to see something long enough to identify with it. But the film, again, looked nice and was quite gloomy to look at. I've seen worse.

And the acting was very good. I already mentioned Ryan Reynolds, but Melissa George handled herself very well. She was quite the looker and she reacted to things very believably acting-wise, not script-wise. The child actors didn't annoy me, which was a plus. And babysitter Rachel Nichols was also good in a sassy way. She was fine by me. Honestly, the acting was the best part about this film. Too bad the script didn't allow the actors to do more than they were capable of.

THE FINAL HOWL
THE AMITYVILLE HORROR (2005) is one of the better horror remakes out there. At a short running time [89 minutes], beautiful picture, and good acting [especially by Ryan Reynolds], this film is definitely worth a rental if you haven't seen it yet. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a harmless film that should have never been made. To be quite honest, that's more true than the actual story this was inspired by. Now someone call Ty Pennington and destroy this house with a wrecking ball. Maybe that'll stop any more stories about Amityville from being told.