Horror Buffs- The Amityville Horror (1979) vs (2005) and other and other remakes

[FendersRule]

==============Spoilers==========

I have just finished watching The Amityville Horror TAH (1974) for the first time after seeing the remake (2005) twice. I just wanted to address my opinions to understand why "some" people chose to hate the remake when compared to this "classic" (so they call it) movie.

First off, I hate modern slasher horror remakes (for the most part). Halloween along with Friday the 13th notoriously failed to strike the what the originals did. Halloween's (2007) biggest flaw is that it made Michael Meyers' character humanized (which is just what the first half of the movie intended to do), and it just turned out to be a Rob Zombie trashfest of a brutal psychotic killer that didn't scare me at all where as Carpenter led the audience to believe that the killer wasn't actually human. Friday the 13th's (2009) biggest flaw is that of a slightly similar nature. Instead of aiming to recreate slasher horror in it's true art, it's just an average Michael Bay slasher movie with stock music, no art or creativity with the cinematography and instead we have fast motion cameras, and interestingly enough, a humanized Jason (who has feelings for one of his victims and actually acts like a human at times, especially being that he could not only run like he could before, but flat out SPRINT). I suppose for the audience just wanting to get drunk and turn off their brains and see tits, blood, and Jason, then Friday the 13th (2009) works. But me, I want to hear the F13th soundtrack, I want old school cinematography and creative special effects (especially with the likes of someone like Tom Savini). I also don't want models for my characters, but average looking young adults like found in the originals because it makes them more real. I also want Jason to remain as unknown and evil as possible because a supernatural or an "unknown" element is always scarier than just a known element. I just want something creative that didn't seem like a cash cow. I was completely let down.

Humanization seems to be the key to these new horror remakes. Also, these remakes are only aiming to suck your wallets dry, as the originals were aiming to show the audience something they never have seen before and give them something new. The originals never had to play it safe production wise, as the newer remakes have to play things safe in order to make a profit.

Next off, TCM (2003) was actually a somewhat decent remake until 1:10 where the movie then turned into your average Michael Bay drama movie moment wanting the audience to sympathize with Jessica Biel's character as your stock horn soundtrack was playing in the background as she stabbed her companion. Isn't this suppose to be Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Also, the movie tended to shoot more towards the more "low IQ" audience with silly logical errors. However, it was a decent try actually, and it kept me satisfied generally due to the really good suspense and acting of the unique characters. It was an unexpected moderate satisfaction from Michael Bay for the most part....atleast until 1:10. However, in comparison to the original, it was a complete failure due to this scene amongst other things.

A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010) I will discuss some other time when I view it more since this is my favorite horror franchise of all. Basically, I was not impressed, but not pissed off either (in general).

Lastly, we have the Amityville Horror (2005). Now, I've seen the modern remake twice before watching the original. Consequently, I must say that the this remake is probably the best remake that Michael Bay has put out. The writing is actually superior to the original in my view, and Ryan Reynolds really did an outstanding job in this movie, as with everything else he is in. I'm not saying this is an awesome movie by any means, but I can walk away from this one feeling satisfied, which is something I cannot say for the rest of Michael Bay's turdfests.

Now that you know my background in the modern remakes, let me give you all some of the interesting comparisons that I have found between these two movies. I'd like to hear your replies if you agree or disagree with these, and more importantly, why.

* TAH (1979) spent much more time developing the priest's side plot. With all the time devoted to the priest's condition and his life, I would have expected him to at least come into play at the end of the movie and save someone, or add something to the ending. Sadly, he turns blind and that is all we have of him for sucking roughly 15 minutes cumulatively away in this movie. This movie could have shaved this time off IMO. TAH (2005) I think did this much better because it didn't concentrate on the priest's plot so much. It concentrated on the actual substance of Ryan's degradation. I'm not saying that the screen-time of the original priest had was a poor writing decision, but I feel that it absolutely adds nothing to the story whatsoever and just takes away from the meat and bones of the movie. It almost seemed like the house was trying to keep the priest away more-so than destroy the family, which I don't feel is correct intention.

* Ryan Reynolds and James Brolin (I love both of these actors) both played outstanding roles, hands down. I really can't pick any over the other. James Brolin scared the living piss out of me at first, but then his character sort of turned sympathetic so I sort of lost that feeling. On the flipside, Ryan Reynold's character was pretty damn menacing as well, as Ryan was consistently progressing where as Brolin was inconsistently progressing. In one scene, you see Brolin acting all batshit crazy trying to split logs with an axe barking at his wife, but then in another one he is very sympathetic to his wife and somewhat acting normal and even reasons normally. With Reynold's, each day he was getting worse, and progression was extremely consistent to a point where I felt like I didn't want to be around him after the 2nd or 3rd day, and never felt like I wanted to be close to him after that until the very last scene. With Brolin, I felt at ease, then uneasy, then at ease again. As far as acting, I can't pick one over the other, but as far as the writing for the character, that award goes to TAH (2005).

* TAH 1979 tried to make the house more of the antagonist, whereas in TAH 2005, the father (Reynolds) was obviously more of the antagonist. Either way works, but I felt the suspense effect was just more apparent in the remake. The family in the remake literally had to knock out Reynolds out to get him to stop while dragging him off to the boat. In the original, Margot Kidder just walks up to Brolin as he is hacking against a door towards the kids, and he automatically comes back to his senses and they basically escape. As an antagonist, Brolin alone was not very effective at all. The house however, was effective at times, but I felt the movie was confused as which to stress more time over and overall, both could have been more effective. For some reason when I think back on TAH 2005, I never think of the house primarily, but Ryan with an axe running people down. When I think back on TAH 1979, I'm going to remember certain mysterious scenes from the house itself, I just wish there were more of them.

* TAH 1979 did blow me away with some startling and mysterious scenes. The strange eyes outside of the window, or the devil-bull thing image that Brolin was looking at from the outside. The specific cinematography (step zooming, etc) that was used was very awesome, and I really think these points are highlights of not only the original, but both of the movies. The cinematography was great, and it really had some suspenseful acting at times (I loved how Brolin had to pay for her brother's catering fee, as I really felt the drama and the suspense with that scene, especially when he couldn't find it back at home). However, with TAH 1979, I felt it was overly long for what substance was actually there. Let it be known that also, no one dies in the original, whereas in the remake the babysitter dies. I don't think either way is better, but at least the house literally F#(@ed someone up in the newer one.

* Believe it or not, I actually think the newer movie has a smarter wife (Melissa George) even though I do admire Margot Kidder at times. It seems like the wife in TAH 2005 was constantly trying to get the hell out of the house along with the kids (the kids were developed much better in the remake btw) and that she didn't seem so ignorant to what was happening to the husband, the kids, and the entire situation. However, Margot Kidder acts very happy when she should be quite concerned. I felt that she didn't add anything strong to her role, whereas in the remake, you can tell that that the wife is absolutely concerned and just seemed "smarter" about what was happening around her.

Don't get me wrong, I think the 1979 TAH is a great horror movie. It's got some startling scenes, great music, great camera work, and some great drama, but I don't think I would ever consider it a "classic". It would be a very big stretch to call it that IMO. I'm glad I have it in my collection, but I fail to understand (as a big classic horror buff) how the old one is any better than the new one overall. I think there are certain parts of the older movie (music most of the time, the evil of the house) that I prefer, but I think as suspenseful horror movie, I think the remake is the better pick overall.

The rating of both movies at IMDB are not indicative of "classics" (both tie at a 5.8 which is something I rarely see), but are definitely indicative of movies that are above average and should be seen.

I never thought I would say this, but I think I may slightly prefer the remake over the original in this unique case.