ROTTEN TOMATOES: Critical Consensus: “Amityville Horror” Remake Just as Bad as Original Comments

Critical Consensus: “Amityville Horror” Remake Just as Bad as Original

by Senh Duong | April 15, 2005

Summary

The remake of the classic horror film “The Amityville Horror” must have scared off the competition, because it’s the only new film to debut in wide release this weekend. As the week went by, it scared off critics, too. The original film, released in 1979 and starring James Brolin (“Westworld”) and Margot Kidder (“Superman”), was based on an alleged true story. It grossed $35M and was the highest grossing independent film at the time. Critics, on the other hand, weren’t as enthusiastic towards the film. Back to Article

(1-31 of 31 posts) | Reply

craygyrulez writes:
on Apr 15 2005 02:02 PM

dis looks scary dude

(Reply to this)

halose7en writes:
on Apr 15 2005 02:33 PM

Since when have horror movies ever gotten a good review? Horror fans couldn't give a flying crap about the critics. All they do is drag the genre down. I say leave us alone and let us enjoy the movie.

(Reply to this)

The Senhman writes:
on Apr 15 2005 03:28 PM

Recently, critics did like The Ring, 28 Days Later, The Others, Dawn of the Dead, The Sixth Sense, etc... The ones they do like usually ends up being huge hits. Critics, on average, watch 200-300 films a year, so obviously they tend to look for quality and freshness rather than run-of-mill stuff.

(Reply to this)

The Senhman writes:
on Apr 15 2005 04:03 PM

28 Days Later was, at the time, Fox Searchlight's biggest hit. $44M isn't much compared to The Sixth Sense, but the budget for the film was only $8M. It put them on the map as a force in the independent film market.

(Reply to this)

The Merm writes:
on Apr 15 2005 05:16 PM

Yeah um i dont know how to break it to you but the guy who posted before you did not mention anything about critics not liking horror films and i think his point was that Ammityville was an unoriginal movie, the only thing that is ironic is that you did not have your facts straight yet were criticizing someone who did for having their facts wrong.

(Reply to this)

Stankton writes:
on Apr 15 2005 05:55 PM

In reply to this comment (#821441)
Yep, I misread a letter or to in that post... Well, time to delete it.

(Reply to this)

Now it's dark writes:
on Apr 15 2005 06:06 PM

People will still flock to see it.

(Reply to this)

The Senhman writes:
on Apr 15 2005 06:07 PM

In reply to this comment (#821442)
That's what I thought...it's all cool.

(Reply to this)

The Senhman writes:
on Apr 15 2005 06:09 PM

In reply to this comment (#821443)
Yeah, we must be in some kind of golden age for horror films or something - in terms of box office - because people are just eating it all up.

(Reply to this)

skletonkee writes:
on Apr 15 2005 07:06 PM

[b]a first for me[/b]
this is the first time i have wished failure on a film.....the filmmakers had an oppurtunity to tell two very awesome stories. Either about the original murders or about the Lutz' scams..instead they went the easy way out....when will these stupid studio's realize that a quality film will earn them much more money in the long run versus these quick paint by number films?

sure this film will probably do 30million and then it will fall off the face of the earth..while The Exorcist has grossed how much? over 200million? silly silly studios..

(Reply to this)

lancerbird13 writes:
on Apr 15 2005 07:45 PM

who cares about the reviews?? People are still gonna spend money on it anyway like every other horror flick and it will make a good profit.

(Reply to this)

Ophiuchus writes:
on Apr 15 2005 08:02 PM

In reply to this comment (#821439)
Wow. You really know what you're talking about. I'm impressed. If critics really do watch that many films, it's not wonder they get fed up with movies that just trot out the same old same old every time.

(Reply to this)

Now it's dark writes:
on Apr 15 2005 08:57 PM

In reply to this comment (#821445)
The special effects make horror films seem much less cheesy nowadays.

(Reply to this)

VICVEGA06 writes:
on Apr 15 2005 10:13 PM

I just saw it. It really isnt that bad at all

(Reply to this)

getluv writes:
on Apr 16 2005 01:32 AM

Amityville Horror is excellent. It's very scary - considering the horror pics this year have ben far from scary.

Originiality? - there is none, and who cares. many films these days dont have originality.

Critics are pathetic. Somy of the rottentomatoes came from people who gave the ring two a tomato. also alot of the rotteners hate horror films, and prefer arthouse films we have never heard of.

This movie is getting good word of mouth. Reynolds perfomance is excellent.

Also it effing scary!!! _ oops ive mentioned it.

Also the remake of "the texas massacre" was excellent. I heard one reviewer who walked out because it was too bloody. - hello its a horror film, what would expect butterflies and dolphins.

(Reply to this)

Sadistik writes:
on Apr 16 2005 05:07 AM

In reply to this comment (#821451)
the remake of TCM was a disaster (and a blasphemy to the original work). Blood and guts does not a scary movie make. Sure I like my Italian splatterfests, but a truly scary movie is one that works psychologically (i.e. The Shining, Audition) rather than things jumping out of closets to a shrieking violin soundtrack.

(Reply to this)

topher4 writes:
on Apr 16 2005 08:04 AM

Critics don't give good reviews to the Horror genre. In fact I think its rare for them to give good reviews to any genre outside of Drama, but thats just my opinion.

(Reply to this)

skletonkee writes:
on Apr 16 2005 09:01 AM

[b]critics dont give good reviews to horror?[/b]
Holloween, The Exorcist, Silence of the Lambs, The Ring, The Sixth Sense, The Omen, The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Poltergeist all recieved positive reviews. This film is the equivelant of an Ashton Kucher film. And nobody expects his low-brow crap to get positive reviews or dismiss the negative reviews because of the genre.

Craps crap. No matter what color it is.

(Reply to this)

Scott Weinberg writes:
on Apr 16 2005 10:10 AM

Just about every critic I know likes horror movies. Some more than others, of course, but even those who dislike the horror are intelligent (and professional) enough to gauge a film on its own merits ... regardless of its genre.

If lots of horror movies get bad reviews, that may be because there are SO MANY bad horror movies. Personally, I'm a sucker for the scary stuff. My favorite genre by far.

(Reply to this)

gowansy writes:
on Apr 16 2005 10:30 AM

Certain ppl are naming horror films that recieved good tomato ratings, such as the sixth sense, the ring, the others, 28 days later, the grudge, boogey man, and hide and seek... those i dont consider horror films , there effects and nice direction are boring me now.

What i do consider a PROPER horror film is: Nightmare On Elm Street, The Shining, The Exorcist, Amityville Horror, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Psycho, Alien...

Compare them to the new crap churned out these days. My point... sometimes a remake doesnt have any harm, you go and know what to expect. Ofcourse there not gonna beat the original but you already know that so why winge about it anyway? Also, I'd rather see a decent remake of a GOOD film, than see the shite thats being replicated over and over in cinemas these days (darkness falls, boogeyman, hide and seek etc.)

(Reply to this)

Tien21 writes:
on Apr 16 2005 12:48 PM

[b]can't always go by what critics say anyway...[/b]
There have been so many times when i have enjoyed a film and critics generally hated it. Plenty of those incidences where with horror films. A lot of critics hated SAW while many people who saw it really enjoyed it for what it was. I also liked House of 1000 Corpses while critics didn't. So you people who havn't seen this movie yet should stop saying how bad it is just because of what critics have said because...well thats just really stupid of you. The difference between audience and critcs reactions can differ GREATLY because the general movie going public doesnt go to movies to critique them, they go to have a good time. One last example and then i'm done :)

Diary of a Mad Black Woman, while not an excellent or oscar worthy movie, it got an A+ cinimascore and critics hated it. It did what it set out to do, and from what I hear that is what Amityville did. It supplies good ammount of scares and an intriguing story(while not very original I know). Most people go to see horror for these things.

(Reply to this)

getluv writes:
on Apr 16 2005 12:54 PM

i actually cant stand some of the old stuff. horror is by far my fav genre, i have watched the classics The Omen, Poltigeist etc.

My point being is thatnot all of them are good, original - yes, scary - sometimes but someimes you have to laugh at SFX. I laughed my way thru the Exorcist.

ANd really did Friday the 13th really need to have a part 6 or pt 2 for that matter. Studios are doing what they did then, and doing it now. Making sequels, and recycling the same ideas.

Original - even though many proclaim Saw to be original, it stilll didnt matter. the acting in some ways cursed the films, causing some of the scary moments to be laughable - i hope Saw 2, they improve on that.

The horror crowd, only want one thing - to be scared. i mean the bad horror films like Jeepers Creepers 2, Seed of Chucky are funny because its so bad its good- what other genre can that happen in - and horror fans love their B-grade $hit. Because horror fans love having fun.

The remake of TCM, can only resemble the first one (with a few things missing/moved/changed) - but it did deliver one hell of a fright. i think the intencity of the gore was meant to be the way it was.

I think critics should move on, and forget the past.

(Reply to this)

fhq writes:
on Apr 16 2005 03:13 PM

[b]trailer made me not want to watch this film[/b]
it looks too polished and over atmospheric by the look of the trailer, its like they are trying toO hard to make it look scary. It also depends on what type of horror movie they are trying to make, is IT just a jump/teen slasher like elm street/jason or a story driven suspence like the grudge/the ring/exorcist. and if you notice both of these types of movies have different looks and different pace. this movie seems to have a look of slasher/teen movie but trying to have a suspence/horrer story, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL WORK, IT MAY, BUT BY THE LOOKS OF IT LOOKS TOO PRE-PACKAGED. OH WELL I COULD BE WRONG, WE ARE OUR OWN CRITICS.

(Reply to this)

VICVEGA06 writes:
on Apr 16 2005 06:34 PM

Jesus, people, you all like to sound so smart and hear yourself talk, for christ sakes its a fucking movie. And you are all like "Oh they keep turning this shit out for the teens blah blah...." SHUTUP! Unless you are actually a producer or run a film company, who gives a shit how hollywood is run. And by the way, you shouldnt be judging a moive until you see it. This movie is honestly not that bad at all

(Reply to this)

darklydoug writes:
on Apr 16 2005 08:05 PM

In reply to this comment (#821438)
[b]Critics aren't the problem[/b]
It's true you shouldn't judge a film solely because a critic says something about it. On the other hand, its just as bad to not consider the opinions of other people. The best thing to do when reading a review is to see #1 what the movie is about? If it's being called bad, would I still want to see it despite #2 the evaluation of the film to discuss whether achieves what it attempts? and #3 what some different perspectives of the movie can be drawn?

If you like a mediocre or even bad movie, that's fine. Everyone loves a good deal of movies that were panned. Every critic has movies they rated well that most critics rated badly. The point is, why are people saying what they are saying? Is their merit to their evaluations? Maybe not everything we like is what is good. I believe there's great importance to that statement, i and suggest you get off your "us vs. those pretentious critics" soapbox. You can like panned movies and still like critics.

(Reply to this)

fight__club writes:
on Apr 17 2005 08:51 AM

In reply to this comment (#821438)
Its true, i never pay attention what critics say about Horror movies.

(Reply to this)

p0pnfresh2002 writes:
on Apr 17 2005 10:14 AM

[b]People were scared[/b]
I don't know about others who saw it, but in the theater i went to people were screaming at the scary parts. I mildly enjoyed the first one, but this was really good. They remade it, updated it, removed the slow not scary parts, and added better plot points like the Indian's in the boathouse.

(Reply to this)

verkpunk writes:
on Apr 17 2005 03:45 PM

In reply to this comment (#821438)
[b]hmm[/b]
Well if you consider this garbage horror, they you are the biggest pussy in the world.

(Reply to this)

Now it's dark writes:
on Apr 17 2005 08:24 PM

They should have genre specific critics. Or else it's like having someone who hates roller coasters review a roller coaster ride.

(Reply to this)

pennydinawoods writes:
on Apr 19 2005 05:26 PM

In reply to this comment (#821456)
You're kidding me when you're claiming films like Hide and Seek got a good Tomatometer rating.

(Reply to this)

pennydinawoods writes:
on Apr 19 2005 05:28 PM

In reply to this comment (#821465)
There are genre-specific critics, such as ones that review bad films and others that review horror films, but they're not mainstream critics like Ebert, (I daresay) Roper and (I apologize in advance) Rex Reed.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

The Amityville Horror

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links