...like in the 2005 version? Just curious.
I recently saw the 2005 version and I was pretty impressed, as far as haunted house films go. I like the fact that they held back on the gore, deaths and cartoony horror stuff, which made it more real and therefore better. How's this '79 version stack up to the remake? Thanks.
The sitter in the old movie is about as hot as Jabba the Hutt in assless chaps.
She's around 15 or 16, has a huge retainer thing strapped to her head.
The one in the 2005 version is there simply because the filmmakers thought a hot one made more sense.
As for holding back in the 2005 movie, the newer one is gorier. The only gore spot in the original comes from a nightmare Kathy had where she finds George standing over her daughter's body with an axe, which he then buries right into Kathy's head. The only deaths in the 1979 movie were the DeFeo murders, which was simply a shot fired and a body slumped.
The original is alot cheesier than the newer one, especially the acting, but it did try to come close to the novel and the events the Lutzes claimed had happened. The new one is so much different. It was more like the characters were fictional and Amityville never happened. They made Jodie the demon into a member of the DeFeo family. They made the hauntings a result of a guy named Ketcham who practiced witchcraft and tortured indians.
2005 is made for people who never heard of the events in the 1970s. It's really a completely separate film with minimal ties to the original.
Thanks. I DVR'd the original version and will watch it in the next week or two.
Even though you say the 2005 version deviated from the book, I thought it was an excellent haunted house film because I usually find haunted house films boring. It surprised me and inspired me to look up the Amityville legend.
If you don't mind me asking, which film do you think is better overall?
The original version is better period...
shareOverall, I prefer the original. Back then, I still believed the the Amityville events were real, and Amityville was the first ghost story that got me interested in hauntings. On one Halloween night, early 1980s, I saw the original film and the In Search Of.. episode right after the movie. Everytime I saw a little rocking chair with a doll in it, I'd nearly sh!t myself.
shareNeither film is as scary as the book. Hollywood bastardized it in the 70s and then the 05 remake was a remake of that movie and not of the actual book. Tone wise, the remake is closer to being as scary as the book.
shareThe sitter in the old movie is about as hot as Jabba the Hutt in assless chaps.
[deleted]
She doesn't look hot in the movie, but according to her IMDB profile Amy Wright who played the babysitter would have been 29 when this film was released. I find that hard to believe though.
shareBabysitter vs. Babysitter.
1979
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJuxU-aVeT4&t=65s
2005
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tGRz7GUlxs
The one with the headgear is more like the babysitters I had as a kid. Rachel Nichols in the 2005 remake is like the babysitters I WISH I had.
No, just a dork wearing a head gear.
I'm happiest...in the saddle.
The babysitter in the '79 looked like an average teen sitter for that time period. Just a teen girl trying to grow up.
The '05 version made the sitter look and act like a porn star. It was a story distraction that was unnecessary, unless you were in the mood or felt the need to get a hard on at that juncture in the film?
Haven't even seen teh 2005 version and I know what you're talking about lol
Amy: I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
hot? lol Are you in jr high?
suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008
Explain.
"Animals? They may be gods."
~ Wolfen
So you cut me down without provocation and then are unwilling to explain yourself? That's okay, I see that you're a "Brokeback Mountain" fan; that explains it.
"Animals? They may be gods."
~ Wolfen
[deleted]
Wow, a poster on IMDb who's fair & balanced and doesn't condemn a movie simply because it's a remake. Amazing!
My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/
Don't take that the wrong way, Aries; it's a quality post. I'm just making a point about the close-minded, biased postings I regularly see on IMDb.
My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/
[deleted]
I Know what you mean. I'm a fan of (I think) wrongly maligned movies like the awesome "Death Tunnel" and "Sasquatch Mountain." My reviews explain why.
I admit that I didn't like "Death Tunnel" too much the first time I viewed it, mostly because the first act is confusing and disorienting with its constant flash-backwards, flash-forwards, flash-sideways storytelling, but the second and third times I watched it I became increasingly impressed. By the second act the movie settles down with a linear storyline and it's just a feast for the eyes. I guess you could say I saw the light at the end of the death tunnel, lol. (I know, that was lame!)
My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/
lol! Are you in jr high??
suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008
lol! Are you in jr high??
as hot as Jabba the Hutt in assless chaps
I don't know about you guys, but the babysitting in the original creeped me out even more because she was such a plain girl with braces. You could see how truly frightened she was being locked in that closet!
-Di
Yes, she was very good in that little part. Very believable and vulnerable.
-Sitting on a cornflake waiting for the van to come
I favor the 2005 version of the sequence because the babysitter (Rachel Nichols) is haughty and scoffs at the diabolic history of the house, but the incident thoroughly humbles her and she leaves a true believer.
share