The Amityville Horror Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Katch 'em, kill 'em
George & Kathy Lutz and Kathy's 3 children are moving into an elegant Long Island home. What they don't know is that 6 gruesome murders were committed there the year before - Ronald DeFeo Jr., the oldest son in the family, murdered his parents, his 2 brothers & 2 sisters by shooting them with a .35 caliber in November of 1974. No sooner are the Lutzes moved into the house than they begin seeing horrible things - the ghost of Jodie DeFeo, horribly disfigured bodies - and hearing ghostly voices throughout the house. George seems to notice it the most, and it isn't long before he becomes a danger to those around him. When the local priest, called in to bless the house, comes charging out in horror after being swarmed by flies, he issues a dire warning to Kathy - 'Leave that house'. But will they be able to escape before the house and its vengeful spirits take control of George - and make him into a deadly menace?
| Ryan Reynolds | George Lutz |
| Melissa George | Kathy Lutz |
| Jesse James | Billy Lutz |
| Jimmy Bennett | Michael Lutz |
| Chloe Moretz | Chelsea Lutz |
| Rachel Nichols | Lisa |
| Philip Baker Hall | Father Callaway |
| Isabel Conner | Jodie Defeo |
| Brendan Donaldson | Ronald Defeo |
| Annabel Armour | Realtor |
| Rich Komenich | Chief of Police |
| David Gee | ER Doctor |
| Danny McCarthy | Officer Greguski |
| Nancy Lollar | Librarian |
| José Taitano | Stitch |
5.80 out of 10 (12553 votes)
Visitor Reviews
this movie shows that good ideas in Hollywood have become scarce
posted on 28 Aug 2009Ever since we hit the 2000 year mark it seems to me that most horror movies have exactly the same feel. I've seen most horror movies in the theater that were released since the 2000s and I now cannot differentiate one from the other. The Amittyville Horror was the very latest "scary" movie I've seen on the big screen and it makes me want to never see a horror film again. This movie (along with plenty of other 2000 horror flicks) makes me think that if I ever go to see a scary movie in the theater again it'll be just another terrible remake using the same tactics they've been using for the last five years. One of these tactics that I find quite notable is the fast-forward-twitch. Where a character in a horror film is fast-forwarded and blurred to seem as though they are twitching or moving insanely or maniacally. THIS EFFECT HAS BEEN USED IN EVERY SINGLE HORROR FILM I'VE SEEN FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS! When I saw that this effect occurs in Amittyville I decided that I'd had enough. Apart from that, there's nothing really interesting about the film in the first place. It's predictable, typical, unoriginal, and forgettable. I actually went to the lobby of the theater for 15 minutes during the movie and when I came back and asked my friend what I'd missed, she said exactly what I thought was going to happen. My point - don't waste your time on this film, not even to rent it. If you see a poster of it or an advertisement of any kind, just keep walking and save yourself the disappointment.
Did children make this awful movie?
posted on 22 Aug 2009Warning contains spoilers!! This was a terrible excuse for a movie. The whole thing was like watching the original on fast forward. Only worse! The acting was on par with high school play's. Ryan Renolds is nice to look at, I guess. Melisa George has a huge upper lip. The scene with Phillip Baker Hall and the fly's made me burst out laughing. The directing was particularly bad, there was not a single scene with any substance. To be honest I don't like Michael Bay films and I probably should have known better. If one must watch a bad horror movie rent "House of the Dead" or "Blade 3". Both out on video now. So go to Blockbuster and waste $10 there.
How to completely mess up the third act
posted on 22 Aug 2009When it comes to horror, I have learned to degrade my aspirations. Regardless of what could be done in a genre that has no boundaries theoretically, I'm already satisfied if a movie manages to make me jump every now and then these days. In the first two thirds "The Amityville Horror" delivers just that, fast pacing and some pretty effective jumps by using some cheap shock effects. Since this is a remake it is forgivable that it doesn't come up with anything remotely new or original. There's the ever so familiar haunted house, Dad losing his mind, heads shaking à la Jacob's Ladder, weird shadows moving fast and making insect sounds and the more than overused spooky little girl (really, having such a kid in another horror movie is idiotic and didn't even make much sense in this particular movie). Still, all that makes for an uneasy atmosphere and there's one scene in the bathroom that's set up gloriously, toying cleverly with a classic childhood fear (going to the toilet in the middle of the night in a dark and spooky house).So far the movie would get a straight 7 from me. Then somebody decided to add a background story, an explanation that's so silly and underdeveloped, it virtually ruined the whole movie (Ketchem, my ass). Characters start to act all weird (Kathy Lutz is a bit too patient with her raging husband, the kids go back and forth from being close to madness to feeling very comfortable in the house, Kathy continues to ask Father whatshisname for advice after he has run away from the house crying like a girl), which makes the whole third act seem as if it had been rewritten more than once and then edited into a mess. That's more than a tiny flaw and it keeps the movie from being anything better than a 6.
Frieghtening.....and good for a laugh
posted on 22 Aug 2009This is one of those films that you don't think about too much before or afterward. To quote Ghost World, it was so bad it was good. I enjoyed this movie like I enjoy any of the Godzilla sequels. Watching the main character (George) slip into insanity, kill his dog, and weep to slides of his family while puking in his basement was a sick enjoyment that reminded me of my guilty pleasure of watching Godzilla leave his trail of destruction from Tokyo Bay right into the heart of the model city. This film to me was both a guilty pleasure, but a guilty pleasure that could have had a lot of potential to become a proud pleasure.One thing that sticks out in my mind (and the same goes for "Ringu") is the colourization. Both those films should be in black and white...I honesty would have enjoyed Amityville Horror a lot more if it had been a colourless film. Without colour suddenly the audience is immune to realism...it would be more authentically 1974....it would have forced the audience to ignore the factual inaccuracies and accept the fact that THEY'RE NOT LEAVING. It just would have looked really cool...like an old haunted house horror movie with great effects and some good acting. As it is the film is a disappointment partially because of the direction. When making a conventional horror move for some reason the director basically says to himself; "Fuck creativity". This is the wrong attitude.The opening scene of the film was great; I liked the flashes of creepy light and splattering blood as well as the real old news footage of the event. It would impress documentary fans for a brief minute. I found myself laughing most of the way through Amityville Horror...I was laughing in pleasure and in mockery. You'll probably really dig the main character George (played by Ryan Reynolds who've I've just seen in this movie--he reminded me of Ben Affleck only Reynolds was a better actor). The rest of the cast is pretty mediocre and I laughed a lot at the little kid who keeps on talking like an annoying possessed kid "Jodi likes this....Jodi hates that....Jodi loves him....Jodi thinks hes a bad guy". The kid was a bad actress but shes great for a cheap laugh (in mockery) and, hell, at least it wasn't Dakota Fanning. Horror fans will enjoy it but not horror buffs. Its my own guilty pleasure.
Surprisingly effective...
posted on 22 Aug 2009Ryan Reynolds stars as George Lutz, who moves his family into a dream home on Long Island only to discover the house holds a terrible, haunting secret. If you've seen the original 1979 AMITYVILLE HORROR, any of its sequels or rip-offs, or especially, Kubrick's THE SHINING, you know the rest. George begins to hear voice, the family seems ghosts, and at times, people seem "possessed". I expected far worse- there's been a glut of inept, nonsensical horror films released in the past few months (DARKNESS, CURSED, THE RING 2) but the 2005 AMITYVILLE HORROR is actually well-paced, and effectively scary, with a surprisingly believable performance by the former VAN WILDER, Ryan Reynolds.
A horror with a "Shining" performance.
posted on 14 Aug 2009After having heard some things about this film,and at last getting round to seeing it,i feel this is a very low-par rip-off of Stephen Kings The Shining,that saved by one or two good performances. The Plot:Widow Kath Lutzs feels its time for her three kids and her boyfriend George to move house.Kath and George end up finding a house at a really great price(due to a family of six being murdered there!),but due to them being scraped for cash they end up taking the place,and over the next 28 days ,the family start having mental breakdowns.When the house shows that it has "voices" trying to get George to repeat the murder of a family,by killing his own. View on the film:I have to say that the performance by Ryan Reynolds and Rachel Nicols are the things that save the film.I was very surprise how Reynolds was able to strip-away the "comedy" side of his past roles,and do a very good dark and isolated performance,while Nicols only has a supporting role as a hippieish-rock girl baby sitter.She is able to give a a good and slightly edgy performance.Sadly the film is one of the most un-horror horror films i have seen!.The story is a very poor take on other horrors from the past (Ie:The Shining),and it gives you hardly and build-up to them getting the house,and the only jumps was when the music suddenly kicks in!.It also has one of the worst endings i have seen for any film. Final view on the film:Apart from some good performances,this is one of the least scariest films i have seen.
Pretty ridiculous
posted on 10 Aug 2009I guess this wouldn't be a bad horror movie if you had never read the book by Jay Anson, or seen the original movie. I HAVE read the book and seen the original movie and have seen footage of the real George and Kathy Lutz discussing their supposed experiences in the home in Amityville and this movie was nothing like it with a few exceptions. If I were George Lutz I think I would be ready to sue the makers of this movie. I don't recall anywhere seeing, reading or hearing that George Lutz attempted to murder the family as is portrayed in this movie. Also the Dafoe murders were not accurately portrayed. There was no Jodie Dafoe. The 2 daughters were Dawn and Allison. Dawn was 17 and Allison 12. Allison was the younger and was killed lying facedown in her bed, not shot in a closet. She was also on the 2nd floor, not in the upstairs bedroom, Dawn the older sister was killed there while lying face down in bed. I read that the home may have been built over an Indian burial ground but the scenes in the basement with the preacher and the indians was absurd to say the least. This movie did not scare me at all, at times I was just left shaking my head most of the time. If anyone is interested in what really happened in Amityville should read a good book called "The night the Dafoes Died" instead of watching this mind numbing movie.
About par with other Horror movies of current...(sigh)
posted on 06 Aug 2009The new Amityville Horror suffers from too many cheap "BOO" type scares. Loud screeching noises, Loud crashing noises, MTV style editing (for those with ADD) and a strobe light going haywire. (maybe its supposed to be lightning but I have never seen lightning that had a strobe effect....go figure). When will Hollywood make a REAL Horror movie again? I'm talking about movies that build tension. Movies that create unsettling moods. Movies where if you blink you don't miss something. The only scares in the new Amityville Horror are "jump" scares due to Extremely loud sound effects. NOTE TO NEW FILM MAKERS: Sometimes an image in your mind can be scarier than what is shown on the screen. Think Rosemary's Baby. If they would have shown what Rosemary's baby looked like it would have ruined the whole movie. Amityville Horror shows you everything and then some. Leave your imagination at home. You wont need it here. Thank you MTV for inspiring new filmmakers to screw up Horror. If your under the age of 25 or so, you might love this movie. I found it to be quite numbing to my senses and by the time it was over my head was pounding. This movie will look dated in a few years....or so I hope. I'm ready for a return to Horror movies that people over the age of 30 can enjoy.
What a bore!
posted on 04 Aug 2009With all of the resources to reprise the original idea and turn it into a wonderful re-read of this true story of possession, the remake is as boring a remake can be. I wasn't scared. And as soon as I finished I went back home and watched the original again on DVD. No comparison. Lots of chills. I find it hard to believe that no one can come up with a better idea than remaking an already wonderful original. I saw "Emily Rose" the other day: that's powerful! That's new! Horror needs new ideas, and if someone dares remaking a classic they'd better do it by innovating not plainly re-filming the original. This one, in addition to a poor screenplay, employ a directorial style that is completely deja-vu. And that in its attempt to chill ends up boring you.
And I thought remakes of bad movies was a good idea
posted on 02 Aug 2009I have always been a strong believer that Hollywood should stop remaking the good movies and remake the bad ones. Take a long, close look at what went wrong and attempt to make it right. After seeing the dismal remake of "The Amityville Horror" I think perhaps I need to rethink my stance.I am not a big fan of the original film. I always found it more silly then scary and never could figure out why a family would wait 28 days of going through everything they went through before fleeing. This version doesn't do anything to clear that up. For that matter this version does very little.The new version seems less like the original and somewhat more like a ripoff of "The Shining." We just watch and watch as the father (here it's Ryan Reynolds as George Lutz playing way over his head) goes crazier in each scene. There is no character development whatsoever. The family moves in and he starts changing. It all happens so fast we have no time to care about him or the other members of the family. At a brief 87 minute running time it appears the director cared more about shocks then his characters.Speaking of the directing, it's been a long time since I have seen such sloppy direction in a major movie. The director wants to make his audience jump every few minutes but cheats in how he achieves (or attempts to) this. Whenever he wants a scare he simply has a chord of music blare on the soundtrack unexpectedly. Or a loud noise jolts through the theater speakers. I have an idea. Why not create a situation and achieve the scares through that. I detest when an audience is manipulated by a filmmaker. And I have never felt more manipulated in a movie then this one.Now let's speak of the script. There are several changes from this version to the original. I have no problem with that as long as they make sense to the story or add to the fear level. How about a scene where the priest comes to bless the house and the wife has to chase him to his car? That's right. The priest is literally running for his life to get to his car. Do you think maybe the wife might get the idea something is very wrong and get her kids the heck out of there no matter what her husband says? Phillip Baker Hall as the priest looks like he just wants his paycheck so he can move on to a better project.As it stands this new "Amityville Horror" may be the worst in the bunch of "Amityville" movies from the 80's. It's hard to imagine anything worse then "Amityville 2:The Possession" but this just might be it. And the third film at least had some good 3-D effects. What worries me most is that this film will spawn remakes of the bad originals and, God forbid, make them even worse.As I said at the top maybe I need to rethink my position that only bad movies should be remade to try and improve upon them. After seeing "The Amityville Horror" perhaps remakes should be abolished altogether.
Pleasantly surprised!
posted on 02 Aug 2009I'm puzzled by some of the extremely poor reviews on this movie. Ladies and Gents, please understand that the purpose of The Amityville Horror was to generate some cheap scares. The entertaining original had its flaws as well, but was creepy enough to be remembered...not in the category of a Halloween or Exorcist, but in its own little cheap schlocky niche. Fast forward to the remake. 2005 Amityville is fun to watch, and its R rating allows for a few more chills (as opposed to the PG13 garbage that has been released lately). AH2005 isn't a "thinker", and it doesn't take you through crazy plot twists....but it does make you jump. Quite a bit. It's campy and has decent acting by Van Wilder and crew. What more could you ask for until Land of the Dead comes out in June?
Horror at its best
posted on 31 Jul 2009Well, I haven't seen the original so I cant compare but for Overall Horror, its the best I've seen in a while.I was uncomfortable from 15 minutes in. The House was horrible and evil looking from the outside and it gave such a great feel. The shadows and sound effects were great and the Girl on the Roof scene was amazing...I was tense, hot, worried and scared. Not screaming but the dark, glass shattering atmosphere was superb. I didn't jump but for a movie to make me feel so uncomfortable, its something I wont forget for a while.The Characters - Not one of them put a foot wrong. Star of the Show was Reynolds, I didn't think he could do it but I hated his character by the end of this Flick! He was horrible and the Character change throughout the Movie was incredible! Melissa George was surprisingly good too...8 out of 10 for me, the first hour was fantastic and fast paced, last 30 minutes weren't as good and it slowed down but still, it was good. I am glad it wasn't "Toned down horror". This is proper Adult material! See it!
SO SCARY and SICK minded !!!!!!!!!!
posted on 21 Jul 2009hello guys did anyone think that this was sick minded i thought it was really good though i rated it 9/10 because of the horror of this film what was your favourite bits mine was the bits with Jody in them i thought she was really freaky laugh out loud some one please reply???????? lots of love Danielle xxx p.s i don't like it when the dog gets chopped up by an axe and the man gets possessed!!! i went into the cinema and watched this film and i was the only one screaming in it i was that scared (my worst horror is the ring 4 sum reason!!!!!!!!!! me and my friends were all huddled up under her coat but i was watching it i PROMISE!!!
I'm truly and utterly disgusted.
posted on 17 Jul 2009For the love of God (or the Devil if you prefer) please stop 'remaking' horror films! It's simply a way for greedy studio executives to cash in on gullible moviegoers, who they just know are going to spend their hard earned cash on watching these high profile horror films.You're lucky if these so called 'remakes' retain five percent relevance to the original movies they're meant to, in essence, be. And to make matters far worse, some of them would actually be quite good movies on their own merit if they were stand alone films (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre springs to mind, I quite liked that).If someone wants to make, as in this instance, a haunted house movie (and in the case of 'Dawn of the Dead' a zombie movie, etc), then just make a damn haunted house/zombie/vampire or whatever movie and stop pretending they're ridiculous, stupid, pathetic, pointless f****** remakes of classic films! If you hadn't noticed, this review was brought to you by a very p***** off horror movie lover.
Disgusted
posted on 17 Jul 2009It was 31 years ago this month that Ronald "Butch" DeFeo went through his home in Amityville, Long Island, and shot his family in cold blood. His parents, Ronald DeFeo, Sr., and Louise, his brothers, John and Marc, and his sisters, Allison and Dawn. You will notice that none of the children are named "Jodie." Keep this in mind the next time you watch THE AMITYVILLE HORROR remake.Actually, that's just ONE of the many things they got wrong.I sat down to watch this movie curious to see what way they have retold this story. But they didn't retell it. They trashed it.Never in my life have I been so disgruntled as a movie viewer. You see, I can't watch movies as an average moviegoer; I watch them as a writer. And, as a writer, I think that if you are going to write a story that is "based on a TRUE story," you gotta get things right! You gotta get your facts straight! The more appropriate term for this movie is "based on actual events." That's Hollywood code for "this basically happened but we changed it a bit." Instead, they say it was based on a true story! Saying that means the movie strove to be as ACCURATE as possible. But it wasn't.First of all, NONE of the DeFeo children climbed out of bed and hid in the closet while Ronnie was shooting up the place. ALL of them were murdered in their beds. NONE of them, strange as this may be, heard him shooting. (This is based on police reports and historical records. The neighbors didn't even hear him shooting.) Only one of the daughters awakened during the rampage and tried to block the barrel Ronnie had pointed at her; she was STILL shot in her bed.Next, we see the Lutzes moving in. Guess what? They hadn't been told of the house's history prior to taking up residence. (I saw the real estate agent telling the story and I thought, 'Yeah, right. Like THAT would happen.') Scratch that from the movie. Now nowhere in this movie do we see George getting up at 3:15 a.m. to check the boathouse, as the real-life George Lutz did, like clockwork, at 3:15 a.m. Instead, he sees a child hanging from the rafters. Okay, where did THAT come from? None of the children had hung themselves. Sheesh! Moving on. There's no sounds of a marching band keeping George awake, no nun getting sick upon entering the home, none of Kathy and George's friends freaking out over the place, no lion moving all by itself in the living room, no red eyes in the window that Kathy sees and no image of a demonic pig in the upstairs window that George sees. (Actually, he DOES see Jodie ... the DEFEO child that didn't exist).You know, they often say that truth is stranger than fiction. This is so true. I read THE AMITYVILLE HORROR and saw all the movies. I've gone over articles, reports and message board postings. The things I read scared the you-know-what out of me, compared to the so-so reaction I had with the original movie and the disgust over the remake.If the writers, producers and directors wanted this baby to be accurate, why didn't they embellish ACTUAL events?? How about when Harry accidentally hung himself when trying to escape on the first day the family moved in? (He lived but he'd been seriously spooked.) How come we didn't get to see Kathy levitating off of her bed or George seeing a hooded ghostly figure on the steps pointing at him? Something could've been done leading to George discovering hoof prints running away from his living room window in the snowy ground outside or what about how Kathy and her children were running through the house, screaming as SOMETHING chased after them, while George remained paralyzed and oblivious in his bed? We don't get to see the front screen flying off its hinges. (FYI: It was the SCREEN door, not the front door.) We don't see the blood coming out of the walls or the goo clogging up the toilets. And WHERE was the red room in the basement?? The writers decided to fabricate some story of a torture chamber to explain away the house's morbid disposition, but the fact that a "red room" existed seems to be egregiously overlooked. When the George in the new movie started pounding away at the wall, I thought, 'Well, FINALLY, we see the red room.' But, ah, that didn't happen. Sorry, folks, but George ends up taking a trip in La-La Land to find out the house's sordid past.OK. It's a movie. I'll grant you that much. But the movie is SUPPOSEDLY a true story. My question is, where is the truth? Where is the stuff that REALLY happened? We see a priest there to bless the house. Okay, that much is true. We see a voice telling him "get out." But the stream of flies knocking him down off a stool?? C'mon!! I guess they decided to take the priest being slapped and turn it into a priest hitting the ground because of an army of flies knocking him off the stool.Oh, and George didn't kill the dog with an ax. Scratch that, too.Hollywood was a little bit too Hollywood with this one. When I read about the real-life George Lutz suing the team involved with this movie, claiming it portrayed him and his family wrong, I was skeptical. Hadn't seen the movie yet so I didn't know what to think. Now that I HAVE seen it, I can understand why. If I was George Lutz, I'd sue them, too.
what?
posted on 03 Jul 2009This movie was the most LAME remake. Not only did this movie embellish more than Jay Anson did in the book...but they made George Lutz look like a raving idiot!! Little do most people know but I am an ANTI-HAUNTING person...I do not believe the Lutz's story...but this movie made them look like straight out ass*****! Maybe next time Hollywood will not embellish so much!!! Stick to the facts and the story will get 100 times better. There was no John Ketchum....cause history has proved that neither Ketchum nor the did the Indian tribe mentioned in the movie ever have been privy to that long island ground. (do your research!) And the other falsehood the Amityville Horror 2005 made you believe is that Jodie was really Allison Defoe. That is so far from the truth it is actually funny!! Jodie was really a pig that befriended her...and had nothing to do with the deceased DeFoe children!!! Tell Hollywood to get it right and that we aren't listening!!!
scary but not too involving
posted on 29 Jun 2009This remake of an older horror classic (1979), though inspired on true events (that should make it more fascinating) lacks certainly on suspense. It never gets to be riveting, though ninety minutes of many shock scenes combined together, and doesn't have any character involvement. Melissa George, in addition to being incredibly attractive, also more than she was in "Derailed", is the only one acting decently, whereas Ryan Reynolds is not believable.. The contact lenses he had every time he was possessed don't get him to be frightening. I expected a bit more from producer Michael Bay (The Texas chainsaw massacre)..
Good old fashioned horror film!
posted on 29 Jun 2009Now, it's been years, and I mean YEARS since I saw the original "Amityville Horror", but one thing I do remember, is that I thought that film lacked something. Not only was it not scary, but I remember being bored out of my tree. Now, years later, Hollywood remakes the original, and they did a great job in my opinion! "The Amityville Horror" tells the story of the Lutz family, who in 1975, move into their dream home in Amityville, New York. Unfortunately for the family, they are not aware of it's dark past, and slowly, George Lutz begins to fall prey to the evil spirits in the house, tearing his once happy existence apart.The story is basically the same as the original (from what I remember), but with the new advances in special effects technology, the horror that the family lives through comes to life. I really enjoyed the film, and genuinely jumped out of my seat a few times. Another plus for this film is seeing the vintage KISS posters and shirts in the film. KISS have always been one of my favorite bands, and seeing them in the young sons room was an added surprise.Definitely not one of the best horror films around, but horror fans may wish to take a look, as they may be pleasantly surprised, as I was.
Satisfyingly CREEPY.1
posted on 27 Jun 2009I'm a big fan of scary movies, but very critical as well. I enjoyed this flick from start to finish. It was so good from the beginning that the teenagers didn't have time to start acting stupid and loud. I'm looking forward to the DVD and will watch this one a few times. It stayed scary and creepy all of the way through and didn't get goofy or unrealistic at really any part which most scary movies do. The numerous scenes at the boat house added a lot of suspense to the movie. Most would agree that there is something creepy about water at nighttime. The acting was very good by all parties involved. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes to be creep-ed out.
Bad remake of 'the shining' steals Amityville Horror's good name
posted on 30 Aug 2009I am giving this a 4 out of 10 only under the condition that it is seen for what it is, a movie in an of itself which in fact bares little resemblance to the true story from which it borrows the name. People who like the original story (the book, not the first movie) will be very disappointed.The main mistake, in my opinion, was the writers/producers trashed many good elements of the original horror story and substituted them with cheap scares and cliché' rip-offs from other well-known horror movies (The Shining, Darkness Falls, Dark Water, to name a few). The original story (book) was disturbing and creepy enough, and a true artist would be glad to capture this threatening atmosphere in a psychologically unsettling movie.It is necessary to discuss the book a little in order to explain why this movie falls short. In the original story, George and Kathy Lutz move into the infamous c.1925 Dutch Colonial house on Ocean Avenue in Amityville, Long Island, and almost immediately experience tension and uneasiness that leads to domestic problems. Then there are some very unsettling supernatural occurrences, typical of the frightening hauntings and poltergeist activity we occasionally read about and lose sleep over. The demonic/ghostly/poltergeist activity increases, becomes more malevolent and nightmarish. The local priest is earnest but suffers extreme demonic thwarting of his own. The 5 year old girl has an imaginary friend, a talking pig named 'Jodie' who seems only mildly disturbing at first to the parents, but soon it becomes apparent that the child's imaginary friend is probably some kind of demonic entity, a dark, menacing presence with glowing red eyes. When the children become the main targets of the malevolent demonic activity, targeted to die,the family struggles to flee. The overall story has a growing, brooding nightmarish feeling while staying matter-of-fact in describing the bizarre occurrences.Now, let's talk about the movie. Here, instead of a believable 1925 Dutch Colonial house, we are given a Victorian seaside resort that looks like it was built in the 1890s and told it was the oldest house on Long Island, built in the 1600s as, out of all things, a Jesuit sanitarium where American Indians were confined and tortured to death. I'm already sickened by this un-authentic agglomeration. Instead of an imaginary talking (male) pig, the little girl's friend Jodie is a girl ghost who was murdered in the house previously (possibly a rip-off from 'Dark Water'). The imaginary playmate is not the threatening demon / pig /hooded boogeyman of the original story, but much more like little Danny's imaginary friend 'Tony' in the Shining -- Jody instead sorta becomes a good 'spirit guide' that helps the child escape axe-wielding dad.The house seems to show grizzly scenes from its overly-sordid past as a direct rip-off of the resort hotel does in "the shining.' Even George Lutz, who in the original book strove desperately to save his family from an enemy he couldn't fight or even see, is instead transformed (in this movie)into an axe-wielding "here's Johnny" maniacal killer rip-off from The Shining. I don't know, but I'm not scared of a man threatening me with an axe (ever hear of a deranged person? that's all it is). Rather, I'm scared of menacing demonic entities I cannot even see or fight threatening my loved ones. The only 'monster' in this movie was George Lutz.This movie made the usual mistakes of other bad horror movies (Boogeyman, the Tooth Fairy (darkness falls), etc) of using sudden, loud thrashes of sound and light (over 400 times) in order to startle people since it has very little power to truly scare anyone.Also, the idea of Jesuit priests torturing American Indians in a hospital so that they become demonic entities simply is not credible. In truth, the Shincock Indians believed the area was swarming with demons, and that's good enough. No need to bring in the torture asylum. John Ketchum, portrayed in this movie as a 1600s Jesuit priest, was in fact a semi-famous colonial-era practitioner of demonic arts and was eventually charged with witchcraft -- far more scary than a (supposed) religious hypocrite.It is my hope that someday, someone will produce an Amityville Horror movie that sticks to the original unsettling story, rather than try to cram every horror cliché into one cheap-scare B-minus piece of crap.Don't waste your time/money on this movie. Read the book instead, and it will scare the hell out of you.