The Amityville Horror (2005) - The Mini-Review

Ugh. I shouldn't use that word in a written review, it is really just an exclamation, but it's what it was feeling when I was watching the 2005 remake of The Amityville Horror. I wasn't real impressed with the original, so I approached the remake with some optimism. A good sized budget with modern style and computer generated effects. What could be wrong with that? Turns out, a lot. Those things that should have been advantages were the main problem with the remake.

As before we see George and Kathy Lutz shopping for their dream home. They are hoping that finding the right home for their patchwork family will be the key to their happiness. That might have worked, but not with this house. There is something evil here and the family realizes it almost too late. Events unfold with much screaming and crying and we eventually see the family at wits end, ready to attack each other.

The family of the 2005 remake is subjected to similar progressing craziness as the family of the original, but the remake focuses more on the idea of a ghost of a murdered girl (Toby, the young girl that was murdered there a year before) as a plot point. We can't really tell what is going on from moment to moment. Is the girl's ghost harassing the family or is it the evil presence of the house? It seems like the evil house is driving the father crazy but the girl ghost is just being a prankster. Evil presences are cool and all, but how about giving us one to focus on?

This brings me to my main problem with this movie, the reliance on the special effects. The girl ghost, Toby, was a minor plot point in the original. Here she is one of the main evil elements and I feel like it was done for the sole purpose of providing more visual creepy moments on screen. More random moments of showing her hanging from nooses, covered in blood and general disturbing images. This makes the movie less about a ratcheting up of tension throughout the movie and more about visual gags to have the viewer jump at the right moments. The original had my things wrong with it, but it's lack of accesses to computers actually worked in it's favor.

This is a small gripe but it is more a problem with modern day moviemaking than anything else. Could we have MORE scenes of Ryan Reynolds with his shirt off? No, we probably couldn't, without it seeming silly. Hey, I respect all the working out he did around that time but it seemed obvious what they were doing there. And no topless scenes for all the guys? That's just unfair.

I try to find the best things in any of these movies but, to tell you the truth, I can't think of any right now for this movie. Save, possibly the performance of Chloe Moretz as Chelsea Lutz. Not an Oscar performance, but when child actors perform in an adequate way, it's impressive. Before I'm done, I can think of one nice thing about The Amityville Horror, it was a fairly brief 90 minutes. I thank you editor.

The Amityville Horror (1979) - The Mini-Review

I had seem bits and pieces of The Amityville Horror was I was a kid and my recollection was that there were a few spooky scenes but it wasn't the best movie ever. It was, however, one of the more well known "house-with-an-attitude-movies" of it's time.

The Amityville Horror is the story of Goerge and Kathy Lutz. Based on real events, by the way. Just married, they are looking for a nice home for their new family unit. George is a new father to Kathy's 3 children from her now deceased husband and this home might be just what they need to bring them all together. This house has a bad history, though. One year before, there was a multiple homicide. The previous family was shot while they were sleeping by their 23 year old son, who later told police that voices from the house made him do it. The house is roomy with a nice boathouse, so who cares if 5 people were killed there? That's what George and Kathy feel, but things begin to go bad for them as well. The first sign of trouble is a very unsuccessful attempt by the family priest to bless the house. As he is setting up his things to begin the blessing, he finds out that the family has a bit of a fly problem in one of their bedrooms. After getting swarmed by, what looks like all the flies that have ever lived, he is rushed out of the house by a demonic voice, "Getttt Ooooout!" He does as told. What follows is an escalating string of events that trouble the family and nearly drives the head of the household, George, crazy.

You might think that this story might end up in the same place as The Shining, but it doesn't end with George attempting to kill his whole family. I did not read the book that chronicled the "real" events in Amityville, but I suspect the anti-climactic, and somewhat sudden, ending to the movie has a lot to do with the way the family's story ended in real life. I give the filmmaker credit for sticking to the actual events, but it made for a strange ending.

Even for 1979, this movie has a cheap look to it, and that is most likely due to the low budget and rushed nature. James Brolin (George) and Margot Kidder (Kathy) do pretty well with what they are given in the film, but there aren't too many Oscar opportunities here. Rod Stiger as the priest has some of the best acting moments as the faith-challenged-Father.

The Amityville Horror aspires to be great, and that is commendable. However, with it's low budget and less than top-notch approach, it results in a story with really interesting idea coming off as a horror-movie-of-the-week. Many people consider this film to be a "classic", I have a feeling that some movies are considered better than they actually were because of the nostalgia that we have for them. I agree that it is a "classic", but that is because it was simply one of the first "mean house" movies of it's time.

The Amityville Horror (1979) vs The Amityville Horror (2005)

For my final set of films I thought I would go with a horror remake set. We've got The Amityville Horror. I should say going in that I just don't care very much about horror movies. They bore me usually, and I have seen a handful of the very best and I feel like that's enough. Maybe these will change my mind? Maybe one or both of these could be considered one of those handful of horror masterpieces? Hmmm, let's hope.

Based on real events, The Amityville Horror is the story of Goerge and Kathy Lutz. A newly married couple who have scrimped and saved their money to buy a dream house, but that house has a deadly history.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078767/

It's a dream house beyond their means, why is it such a bargin? George and Katy Lutz will find out soon enough. Based on the actual events of a New England family, The Amityville Horror is a modern retelling of the 1979 classic.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0384806/

The In-Laws (1979) vs The In-Laws (1995) - The Match-Up

I have been trying to think of some really interesting things to say about these two movies. I'm coming up a little short. Of the movies I have watched so far, these did not illicit much of a reaction out of me. A middle-of-the-road buddy adventure tale is not something that gets you all inspired. However, there are some good and bad things to mention, and away we go.

When comparing the two versions we get the same basic storyline. There is an upcoming wedding, this necessitates the joining of two families, a tricky situation no matter who you are, but especially tricky if one of the parents is an international spy. One slight change in the family dynamic of the 1995 version was making the spy character a divorcee. This stands to reason, since the wife in the 1979 version seemed a bit clueless, how could she not know what profession he husband was in?

Also, the 1995 version changes things up a by making Michael Douglas more or less a James Bond type. This makes for more action set pieces, probably a calculated change for modern audiences who demand more action in their movies. That's not to say the original didn't have action but Peter Faulk's character was grounded a bit more in reality. I think this change was an unfortunate one. In working the script to include more over-the-top action set pieces it caused the plot to become a bit over-complicated. I couldn't really tell why the bad guys were after our main characters and I didn't care either. The focus of this type of movie should be the comedy. The 1995 version was trying to hard to be both an action movie and comedy and didn't really accomplish either. I wonder if the fact that True Lies came out in 1994 had an affect on this movie's action level. It's like the geeky little brother of True Lies.

One new element to the 1995 version was the addition of a closeted-homosexual character. I can't remember, was being gay a popular thing to have a laugh about in the 90s? I put it that way because this felt forced and seemed out of place in the movie. As if, somewhere in the process of writing the script a studio exec saw some other movie with a gay theme and said, "we need that in our movie!" I'll have to do a little research on that one.

So, which one was better? I like the original The In-Laws much more than the 1995 remake, the only problem (and not it's fault at all) you could say about the original was, when being reviewed from this perspective, it doesn't appear to be very special. But that is just a matter of many other movies using the same formula. You can't go wrong with Alan Arkin and Peter Faulk, though. And did it need a remake? This time I can definitively say, no. The 1995 remake seemed like a response to other hit films around the same time, like the aforementioned True Lies. It's a shame, because Albert Brooks is a genius and Michael Douglas is always money in the bank. Still though, if you ever consider watching a movie called The In-Laws, do yourself a favor and watch the 1979 version. You'll get a much more coherent and funny experience.

The In-Laws (1995) - The Mini-Review

*Cha-ching* That's the sound that many of the stars of The In-Laws heard when they received this script. This version does not do much to advance the genre of the buddy adventure, and it seemed like a payday for most of the cast. Let me describe it a bit, if you feel like listening, that is.

We open with Steve Tobias (Michael Douglas), a slightly over-the-hill James Bond type, and we are right in the middle of a dangerous spy-type thing. I could explain the details of the situation but that's not really necessary, Steve has something that the bad guys want but he has places to be, namely a dinner date with his son's soon to be in-laws. After a daring escape Steve makes his appointment, but just barely. This doesn't sit well with Jerry Pyser (Albert Brooks), a nervous podiatrist who is none to pleased to be giving away his daughter to the son of such a sketchy man. His opinion of Steve Tobais doesn't improve when he witnesses Steve beat down a thug in the men's room of the restaurant in which they are having their dinner date. The next day circumstances require that Steve intrude on Jerry's lecture at a local hospital. The FBI is after Steve and he can't be caught with the Macguffin (the thing that everyone wants to get in the movie.) Not very reluctantly, Steve plants it on Jerry as a diversion, resulting in jerry's involvement in a global spy-thing. Wackiness does ensue, of course. Taking Jerry and Steve on a country hopping adventure.

Look, this is not a great movie, it is very mediocre even with all the star power present. Albert Brooks is completely adequate as nervous Jerry and Michael Douglas seems to be having a blast with an action role. The rest of the cast does an admirable job as well. There isn't much to sink your teeth into here, however. It is very by-the-numbers and does not surprise you much.

Is it a bad movie? No, I would say it is a solid "O.K." I just wish they had tried a little harder to do something slightly different with the genre. As it is, the only reason to see this movie over the many others of it's type, would be if you were an especially interested in watching this group of actors go through this routine. One of those movies that would quite a good time waster if you were stuck on a plane.

The In-Laws (1979) - The Mini-Review

This is one of the movies on my list that I knew the least about before going in. I did know it existed and who the main actors were, but that's about it. As it turns out, that was just fine. I had no idea where I was going in this movie and that's refreshing.

The In-Laws starts out with a well orchestrated heist of an armored car, something I did not expect from a comedy. After deftly making off with not money, but plates for the printing of U.S. Treasury bills, the crooks meet with one of the main characters, Vince Ricardo (Peter Faulk.) He is the man behind the heist, apparently our main character is a thief. There's not much time for him to celebrate however, since his son is getting married in few days and he needs to be off to meet the new in-laws. Enter our other main character, Sheldon Kornpett (Alan Arkin.) He is a successful, yet high strung New York dentist. At dinner things seem just a little bit off to Sheldon, his daughter's soon to be father-in-law, Vince, is a strange bird. The next day Vince shows up at Sheldon's downtown office to ask a slight favor of him. See, he needs Shelly to go to his office and get something from his safe for him. Little does Sheldon know that this will be just the beginning of his involvement in a series of incredible and goofy predicaments.

With the exception of a dated look (it is a 30 year old somewhat low budget movie), The In-Laws holds up really well. The jokes are smart and Alan Arkin does a great job, as he always does playing his "Alan Arkin" character. My exposure to Peter Faulk prior to this was pretty much just the Columbo series, and even that is not something I was too familiar with. He was a great foil to Alan Arkin's character, and was decent as a semi-action star.

The plot is very basic, filled with constant mistaken identity gags but they never try to get overly complicated with the plot. This is a well established genre by now, the buddy adventure. Recent movies seemed to use this formular with slightly better results, Midnight Run with Robert DiNero comes to mind. That is not to say you should skip The In-Laws, it is a great ride and many of those more modern buddy adventure movies probably owe something to this movie. See it.

The In-Laws (1979) vs The In-Laws (2003) - The Introductions

With his daughter planning to marry, dentist Sheldon Kornpett is meeting Vince Ricardo, his daughter's soon to be father-in-law. Vince, a crazy character who seems to be more than he lets on, takes them on a wild ride.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079336/

His daughter is getting married. What could go wrong? How about finding out your daughter's future in-laws are international smugglers, that's what.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314786/