This film had NO creepy feel whatsoever, which, in my opinion, ALL good horror movies have.

But no. With this you get blood, blood, gore, and more blood. The images were just disturbing. I can handle a fairly scary flick, but this one went above and beyond in the imagery department. Less is more folks!! If you do not like gore, stay away at all costs!!! Also, the images seemed to be tossed in there with no rhyme or reason. You would be watching and all of a sudden you would see a corpse hanging from the ceiling. Where does that fit in with the plot?

The acting is just...well, it's about what you would expect. Mediocre at best.

My advice...stay away from both films (the remake and origional) and just read the book instead.

one of the worst movies ever made. based loosely on a true event. the acting was cheesy, the cinematography w

Like virtually all remakes that you see come out these days, this one too was unnecessary and was only half as good as the original. The original (I believe it was 1979) movie had far better atmosphere, acting, and suspense. This newer remake substitutes actors with no charisma whatsoever, but in every conceivable way, otherwise, is a rehash of the '79 version to the teeth scene-for-scene. A dumb plagiarization worth viewing once if you're very very bored. Otherwise opt for the original Amityville Horror -which is only an average flic to begin with.

when i first saw this i thought "why don't they just leave?"

well?

Way better the original, but still far from perfect. Offers a few spooky images and a little gore. 3 and a half stars.

Meh. It was okay; could've been worse, but could've been better. Based on events (?) which happened in the 70's revolving a house which had a rather disturbing history, a family of 5 moves in to find that there's something still seriously wrong in there. This movie can be also seen as a list of things to keep in mind before/right when you move into a new home: It's a bad sign if: 1) If the realtor is AFRAID to go into a room of the house, 2) If the realtor actually ADMITS that there were actually an entire family murdered in that house, 3) You see big dark stains on the ceiling that look suspiciously like blood, 4) Your young daughter has an invisible playmate that happens to share the same name of someone who died in said house, 5) You hear and see words like kill for no apparent reason, 6) Your babysitter leaves in a stretcher, etc., etc. Special effects weren't too special, but it wasn't awful, either. Nothing to run to the theaters for, but it's a better choice than most of what's out in theaters right now (well, if you haven't seen Sin City, at least)

Bad, but bad in a good way if your idea of good is cliche creeps and same-ol, same-ol special effects. Is it me, or are special effects not so special anymore. Too good for thier own good. Nothing left to the imagination (On the other hand, I hated Blair Witch because it was the opposite end of the spectrum. Two wrongs don't make a right, right?) My biggest peeve was/is seeing way-too-attractive, twentyish actors portraying average looking late-twenty, early-thirtyish individuals. Really, I'm supposed to believe that this chick is the mother of a twelve year-old and TWO other kids. When did she get pregnant, at 14, 17 and 20? Amazing how she maintained that perfectly girlish figure...or not. Oh, and that final scene. I've seen it before and it was scarier the first time. You know, when it was titled, The Ring.