Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
Saw it, loved it, thought it ran circles around the original.
Um . . Ran circles around the original? ? Have you seen the original? For one, the bonus features on that movie are so fake it makes Pam Andersons breasts look authentic. For 2, in the original, Jodie was an evil Pig that lived in the house, for three, they god "Van Wilder" to play George, ppl like that should stick to their own genre.
As for my comment before, the only reason I said that was b/c it had some gore, like when "Jodie" takes the babysitters finger and sticks it in her gun shot wound.
Originally posted by p_s_luvit1989
Um . . Ran circles around the original? ? Have you seen the original? For one, the bonus features on that movie are so fake it makes Pam Andersons breasts look authentic. For 2, in the original, Jodie was an evil Pig that lived in the house, for three, they god "Van Wilder" to play George, ppl like that should stick to their own genre.As for my comment before, the only reason I said that was b/c it had some gore, like when "Jodie" takes the babysitters finger and sticks it in her gun shot wound.
I've seen, and own the original, and hold my opinion. A demonic pig was a stupid idea to begin with, regardless of the origin, and in today's cinema, where Horror movies already have to endure so much shit for their credibility, a satanic oinker wouldn't have helped matters. I don't know why you're discussing bonus features, which weren't in the film. Let's be fair.
"Amityville" was Ryan Reynolds best movie yet. He was 1,000 times more convincing as someone on the edge of his sanity than James Brolin, who seemed more monotone and angry. Reynolds actually snapped, he scared his family. The log splitting scene was worth the price of admission alone, IMO. Just look at the comparison..
Granted, the remake didn't have the fantastic special effects of the original, like the oh so spooky light bulb eyes in the window..😂
I like them both, but the remake was much more effective, IMO.
Jodie was an improvement on the original 1979 film. In the original we have a rocking chair moving and the girl says she was playing with jodie; If jodie was a demonic pig with red eyes, its out of order having it on a rocking chair.
Also agreeing that it was nice to see Ryan Reynold's in a differnet character. He proves that he can do more than 'comical'
The Babysitter was a huge improvement, but then im thinking with my two nuts.
Overall it does respect the original cause its all about the man of the house losing it to the mansion. I also liked the way it involved more an Indian Slayer and portrays the house as a former killing ground not burial ground as in the original.
Originally posted by GCG
Jodie was an improvement on the original 1979 film. In the original we have a rocking chair moving and the girl says she was playing with jodie; If jodie was a demonic pig with red eyes, its out of order having it on a rocking chair.Also agreeing that it was nice to see Ryan Reynold's in a differnet character. He proves that he can do more than 'comical'
The Babysitter was a huge improvement, but then im thinking with my two nuts.
Overall it does respect the original cause its all about the man of the house losing it to the mansion. I also liked the way it involved more an Indian Slayer and portrays the house as a former killing ground not burial ground as in the original.
^Well Said^
It was a good film. It was more mainstream, I agree. It was better than the original . . . and I can only say this because I wasn't scared while watching the original in the dark, I watched this remake with the light on and still was scared. So, if you haven't seen it give it a try in the dark and with the lights on!
-LepperFace15
Well, the 2005 version was not as cheesy as the orginal, obviously, but I think that the newer strayed excessively from the original story by Jay Anson. I didn't like the idea of a "boss" ghost (Ketchum) and I didn't get to see the things I was waiting for like Jodie's red eyes in the window, the marching band music, etc. I also thought that Reynolds' performance was a little too like Jack Torrance. But I don't think that this version sucked. I might need to watch it a second time before I decide whether or not to buy the DVD.
But the eyes in the window was a mood killer in the original. Kind of like the zoom shots on Margot Kidder, with her constipated expressions. Just some over the top 70's cheese.
Now, if the remake had the bleeding walls, which was impractical, but cool nonetheless, I would have held it in even higher regard. There were just some things that wouldn't translate well into a newer invisioning, namely a spooky pig.