Change Your Image
DMCWriter
Reviews
The Amityville Horror (2005)
Disgusted
It 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.
That Darn Bill (2004)
A movie anyone will enjoy
You don't have to be into silent films or even the B/W films of yesteryear to enjoy this movie. It is absolutely hilarious and the ending is superb. I especially liked it because you don't need to hear to be able to enjoy it. It is also computer-friendly; I had no trouble viewing it with the program it runs in. The thing about this movie is that it is so much like life with that whole "luck FINALLY smiles upon me" but with some (hilarious) consequence. It wasn't overdone in any way and the pacing was excellent. The movie doesn't run too long, an added convenience. And even though I know how it ends, it's definitely something I know I'll enjoy watching again and again. It is that good. Good job!!