Ryan Reynolds’ Amityville Remake: Still Scary, Still Worth Watching!

by

These days, the Amityville series is often seen as a joke due to the numerous sequels, spin-offs, and films that have been produced using its name. Yet, despite this, some dedicated fans still criticize the 2005 version of The Amityville Horror. This movie is a remake of the original 1979 film, and it claims to be based on true events at the start. However, much of the story comes from Jay Anson’s 1977 book about the Lutz family moving to a house in Amityville, New York, where Ronald DeFeo Jr. had murdered his own family. The new owners reported experiencing strange occurrences, but there are many questions about whether the events described actually happened.

The 2005 remake of the movie closely follows the original plot, yet significantly alters key aspects, particularly the extent and intensity of George’s possession. This revised version plunges into horror more swiftly, propelling the narrative forward while sacrificing some of the eerie atmosphere and suspenseful buildup. The runtime is a brisk 90 minutes, and it makes full use of each second, often resorting to jump scares to convey messages. Despite some well-executed scenes and strong elements, the remake lacks subtlety, preferring to show rather than hint at the horror while slightly amplifying events, presumably to give the script a modern twist without straying too far from its historical setting.

I find the movie quite well-constructed overall, yet there are certain flaws that deserve attention, similar to an old house that seems too perfect. While I appreciate many of its visual aspects, elements characteristic of early 2000s filmmaking are challenging to overlook, with rapid flashes and harsh cuts being a significant issue. These aspects are particularly disruptive during flashbacks, detracting from the storyline at times and spoiling some moments intended to be more suspenseful. The team did an excellent job of making the house feel genuinely eerie, but it still maintains a somewhat cheesy vibe, which slightly affects its overall tone.

The visuals could be improved as they occasionally feature jump scares and comical moments that seem out of place for a horror film. It appears these spectral beings are more interested in socializing with the new residents to show off their impressive makeup skills than causing harm or instilling fear. Some scenes, such as the television displaying home movies, can be unsettling until an unexpected demon face pops up on the oldest child, prompting me to shout at my apartment in fright. The scene where she is pulled under the floor lacked convincing special effects. Certain moments feel low-budget, like when the mother seems to be struck by an axe, only for it to be revealed as a hallucination immediately. The babysitter’s repetitive “BANG-BANG-BANG” during her story is believable, but the film exaggerates this with excessive emphasis (I also found her claim of being bad at her job to be convincing). Lastly, Jodie DeFeo’s portrayal as a ghost is significantly different from the original version.

As a devoted fan, I must confess, I’m utterly baffled as to why she makes an appearance during the intimate scene, given she was killed by a gunshot wound to the head and hung. However, who am I to challenge the whims of the mysterious? Jodie, it seems, possesses a wicked sense of humor, compelling the babysitter to mimic the bullet wound on her forehead and reenact her demise. The girl should’ve been on the stage. It’s no wonder the Lutz family left her behind in the house with the malevolent spirits when they fled. Despite certain elements that seem out of place, there are instances, like this one, that prove quite effective. When George steps into the closet and fails to notice her suspended from the ceiling, bound at the top by massive, grasping hands (a predicament he’ll find himself in later in the bathtub; this movie has its unique quirks), that image remains etched in my memory.

As a gamer, I’ve got to admit, it was quite surprising to see Ryan Reynolds step into the shoes of George Lutz in this movie. It’s a stark contrast from his usual roles, almost like swapping out Shepherd Book for Dawson Leery. The humor is toned down, replaced by a simmering aggression that boils over at times, making audiences squirm as they witness an abusive side that chills you to the bone in certain scenes, especially when he’s not tossing around lines like, “How on earth did you get so unbelievably stupid?”

The character undergoes more than just a chill and some unsettling dreams. He’s pushed to his limits, vomiting outside on the dock and curling up in fetal position. The descent is steady, fueled by that blasted dog, whatever lurks in the basement, and these kids. It’s a harrowing journey that leaves you questioning who the real monster is: George or the house itself.

“These kids are out of control.” 

In a more casual and understandable way: Reynolds has an amazing rapport with the children in the film, making their interactions seem real. However, to avoid feeling guilty about shouting at and mistreating them later on, he chose to keep his distance from the young actors off-set. This meant they didn’t see much of Ryan outside of the scenes they shared, leading some younger performers to believe he didn’t care for them. But sometimes, difficult choices have to be made in the name of acting, or perhaps it was a clever way to avoid children altogether. I wish I had thought of that!

In the horror film, Melissa George portrays Kathy Lutz, a mother and newlywed wife to George, who yearns for a better life for her family. As tensions rise between her oldest son, Billy (Jesse James), and their new stepfather, she finds herself caught in the middle, trying to safeguard them from danger posed by her lover as events become increasingly chaotic. The character of Kathy is particularly compelling, and she becomes even more striking as she starts to uncover the mystery surrounding the house. An unexpected ally arrives in the form of Father Callaway (Philip Baker Hall), though his role was scaled down from the original script. This movie marks the first appearance on screen for Chloe Grace Moretz as Chelsea Lutz, the young daughter who can converse with the dead. Notably, she performed several stunts at a very young age, such as the roof walk. There’s also a younger brother, Michael (Jimmy Bennett), but he tends to be more of an annoyance.

As a fan, I can’t help but bring up Lisa, the character played by Rachel Nichols, who was originally a nerdy babysitter in the original movie and has been transformed into a seductive troublemaker in this version. It’s intriguing to imagine what prompted her costume choice for a child-watching job, but George seems to have a knack for such creative decisions.

This Lisa is seen taking bong hits in the bathroom, scaring the children with true crime stories, and engaging Billy in conversations about French kissing. Her frequent tongue-wagging antics are said to be a nod to Gene Simmons’ iconic move, as evidenced by Billy’s KISS poster.

Despite her poor performance as a babysitter, Lisa has a reason for being there, given her previous employment with the DeFeo family. Her curiosity about the house and possible fascination with death might explain her return, and she may even be in line for a grim fate that surpasses the original.

The portrayal of Lisa serves as an intriguing teaser of the expanded Amityville Horror lore, hinting at more stories yet to unfold, even if they don’t fully materialize, making it all the more interesting.

It turns out that the family pet is named Harry. Did you know there exists a website that reveals whether a dog dies in a movie or not? Yes, it’s really called doesitdogdie.com, and I occasionally tease my wife about it affectionately. In the original film, George goes as far as putting himself at risk to re-enter the house and save the animal, whereas in the remake, our protagonist mistakenly kills the dog thinking it was a demon. I’m giving him some leeway for this situation, because although the house deceived George, many viewers were very upset that the movie portrayed him killing the family pet. It’s likely he felt bad about it too, as he could still hear the dog barking even after it had passed (in reality, no animals were harmed during filming, and the crew loved Red, the canine actor).

The Amityville Horror remake proved successful financially, despite some viewers expressing skepticism. Critics weren’t shown the movie, which is often a warning sign, and most reviewers didn’t enjoy it. However, many found something to commend, such as the acting, visuals, and atmosphere. A minor controversy arose over the authenticity of the film, with the real George Lutz claiming that the studio shouldn’t have made another movie without his input, a claim that raises questions given skepticism about the events portrayed. Unfortunately, Lutz passed away before the issue was resolved, just over a year after the release of The Amityville Horror. It’s hard to believe he would have been a fan. The filming of the movie was accompanied by some eerie occurrences, such as a dead body washing up near the house and other strange events, which may add to its unsettling reputation.

As a gamer, I’d say: From a fresh director – Andrew Douglas, who had some music videos and documentaries before diving into films – he really came close to acing the daunting horror remake from the get-go. Most folks would probably concur that if a realtor won’t follow you down to the basement during a house tour, it’s time to high-tail it out of there. However, reaching a unanimous verdict on this movie might prove tricky. Personally, I found it entertaining and recommend giving it a go, but I get why others might not feel the same. Compared to other Amityville movies, it’s leagues ahead, and let’s face it, who wouldn’t want to see Ryan Reynolds, all muscled up and chopping wood, shirtless?

Read More

2025-04-16 00:41