Related articles and links |  1 of 3

Did the voices make him do it? Or was it the moviegoing public, clamoring for more cheap and bloody thrills?

The Amityville Horror was a big hit in the mid-70s, a creepy big screen rendition of a somewhat-true story. The headlines that inspired it are still troubling: A young boy murdered his parents and his siblings in their sleep in 1974, and then, a year later, a different family moved into the same house and were driven out by an oppressive spiritual force. But the news wasn't troubling enough, apparently. So a 1977 novel sensationalized these events and inspired a popular movie and a series of lousy sequels.

Since today's popcorn addicts seem to have a limitless capacity to absorb cheap and indulgent horror flicks, filmmakers seem perfectly content to recycle old material. Just a few weeks after the forgettable, disposable Boogeyman, the new and not-at-all-improved Amityville Horror is No. 1 at the box office.

"Those who want nothing more than a thrill ride might get a kick or two out of this film," says Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies), "but the rest of us might prefer to hold out for something a little more thoughtful and interesting."

He observes that the "faith elements" of the earlier versions have been left behind. "The new movie is completely uninterested in offering or exploring any sort of subtext. Instead, it offers little more than a stylish exercise in cinematic shock and awe, full of lightning storms and ghosts popping up in mirrors and windows, and lacking anything that might stick with you once the ride is over."

Christopher Lyon (Plugged In) says that the filmmakers "must have decided that they'd need lots more blood, scary images and violence to attract a new audience. And they do pile it on. So much so that their Amityville becomes little more than a series of artificially scary supernatural and bloody moments." He adds that the film "waters down respect for God's power over evil (along with respect for human life) 'just for fun.'"

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says, "Amityville has a few genuine jolts but ultimately unravels into a muddled stew of sensory overload and confusion. The scariest thing about [the movie] is that it is the last major film made by MGM—the studio that made such classics as The Wizard of Oz, Ben-Hur, and Singing in the Rain—before its recent purchase by the Sony Corp. It's a pity that the MGM lion will go out with a whimper, not a roar."

Dr. Kenneth R. Morefield (Christian Spotlight) concludes that the movie "manages to present the Christian faith as the root of all evils … and the cowardly lion that abandons all those who look to it for help from the evils it has unleashed." He gives it an "F."

Mainstream critics aren't scared so much as they are bored. My favorite quip comes from William Arnold (The Seattle Post-Intelligencer): "The new version … is so full of false beats, heavy-handed staging and unnecessarily overblown effects—and so lacking in suspense and character involvement—that it's about as scary as a Toyota commercial."

Your reaction to the first film directed by X-Files star David Duchovny, The House of D, may depend on your reaction to this telling detail: Robin Williams plays a mentally disabled janitor.

If that brings back bad memories of Patch Adams of Jakob the Liar, well, you might want to think twice. But according to Christian press critics, the film has its virtues and may be worth your time.

next page... |  1 of 3

share this page

April (Web-only) 2005, Vol. 49