We seem to be in the middle of a huge year for the Horror genre. We’ve already endured White Noise, Darkness, Boogeyman, The Ring 2 and Hide and Seek while we’ve got Cursed, Dark Water, Saw 2 and House of Wax to ‘look forward’ to. But while these films have been making waves at the box office, critics have been largely turning their noses up at them. Can the new remake of 70’s cult classic The Amityville Horror change that?

Based on the true story, the film begins by filling in some history. In the early 70’s, in the dead of night Ronald Defeo murdered all members of his family. He had claimed that voices were telling him to do so. Fast forward one year and the Lutz family spot what appears to be a bargain. A large house in Long Island for a ridiculously low price. They are briefly informed of the history but believe that ‘Houses don’t kill people’. Over the next 28 days, they begin to change their mind….

The original film which this was based on was a massive success and was followed by an unbelievable seven sequels! Yet it is seen by most as a shoddy example of the genre and as such, ripe for a reinvention. So The Amityville Horror 2005 hasn’t been greeted with the distaste that many remakes receive.

Anyone familiar with horror films will not only notice the original film in there. Look closely and you’ll see elements of The Shining, The Exorcist, House on Haunted Hill, The Ring, The Sixth Sense and Halloween among others. It’s got it all: a terrified priest, a spooky little girl, demonic spirits, a family falling apart, an ‘imaginary’ friend’ etc. So, anyone looking for anything groundbreaking best look elsewhere. But anyone looking for a couple of good scares might go away satisfied.

There are a number of genuinely creepy moments and plenty of over-done jumps. But there aren’t many surprises. The breakdown of the Lutz family isn’t particularly involving as each scene is more like an excuse for a scare and the film doesn’t really resemble a coherent whole. It sometimes feels a little episodic. The script is largely dire and the acting is average. Ryan Reynolds tries his best Jack Nicholson impression but it fails. All the filmmakers seem to want to do is invent various scenes which require him to be shirtless, and wet if possible.

Anyone familiar with the ‘real’ story will be aware that the Lutz family aren’t as innocent as they seem, with many claiming them to be fabricating the tale as a money-making scheme. But for undemanding viewers this isn’t nearly as bad as some of the drivel we’ve been getting recently. However there’s no denying that some of the early scares largely dissipate by the overwrought climax. If 2005 is going to be known as the year of the horror genre, it would be nice to see some truly groundbreaking and truly scary films released. Please.

More film reviews on LeftLion



Comment (0) Send to friend Print Add to Facebook Socialise