Since I already watched the so-called remake of this movie, I figured that I would go ahead and watch the original, the 1979 horror film The Amityville Horror. This in spite of the fact that I was told it was actually worse than the 2005 version, which I would think would be hard to accomplish. Based on the 'true' story of the Lutz family as written by author Jay Anson, The Amityville Horror was distributed by American International Pictures and directed by Stuart Rosenberg (Cool Hand Luke, Brubaker). The film stars James Brolin, Margot Kidder, Rod Steiger, Don Stroud, Murray Hamilton, and Helen Shaver. In The Amityville Horror, the Lutz family, including George (Brolin) and Kathy (Kidder), move into to a house on Long Island with a dark history. Hoping that they've found their dream home, the Lutzes soon realize that this is the house that nightmares are made of, and so they consult Father Delaney (Steiger) to get rid of the spirits. But can he get rid of the spirits, or have he and the Lutz family gotten more than what they bargained for? A few notes about this film:
- Because I watched the remake before the original, I couldn't help but think back to the similarities and differences of the two movies. In the original, Amy's (the daughter) imaginary friend was Jodi, some sort of demonic pig (yep, a demonic pig). In the remake, Jodi was the ghost of one of the victims in the DeLeo murders. I honestly can't decide which one was worse. Just like the remake, George is always complaining about being cold and has an obsession with chopping fire wood. In the remake, the audience gets a lot of shots of a shirtless Ryan Reynolds, which does nothing for me, while in the original, you get a sequence of James Brolin walking around in his briefs. Gee, thanks a lot. In the original, the priest and the religious aspect of the story play a much bigger role, as does Kathy Lutz, who was little more than an unwilling victim in the remake.
- You know, I might not be an expert on horror movies, but I think that one of the things its supposed to do is to provide a sense of terror and fear throughout the viewing audience. Maybe it's just me, but there's not a lot here that I would consider particularly scary. Yes, I suppose that a giant gathering a flies is kind of odd, but more annoying than scary. There's some black ink coming out of the toilet, a window closes on a kid's hand (yet doesn't break any bones), 1,500 dollars goes missing for no reason, and oh yeah, the house has a portal to hell. Plus it seems to attract lightning and it's phone keeps messing up when talking to priests. To me, all of the effects and events seem kind of dull, actually, and didn't really add any suspense to the film. Then again, maybe I'm just jaded by the whole horror film genre.
- As George Lutz, James Brolin makes a more convincing crazed lunatic than Reynolds did. Then again, Brolin started the film as an aloof guy with the look of a man that has hidden a few bodies in the basement before, so it's not that much of a stretch. At least in this version, George kind of realizes what is happening and doesn't go completely psychotic. He even tries to find out the root behind this problem by stealing a library book. Why he didn't just check the book out is a mystery. Plus, in this version, George begins to look like the killer of the Amityville murders, although what significance this has is never really explained. Overall, I'd say Brolin did an average job, although the scene where he shouts "I'm Coming Apart" somewhat reminded me of Tommy Wiseau's acting in The Room, and no, that is not a compliment.
- Meanwhile, Academy Award winner (but not for this film) Rod Steiger tries to steal the show as Father Delaney. To say the Steiger was hamming it up is a bit of an understatement, as he practically shouts every line and has two extremes, either quiet and still, or raving like a lunatic. Steiger's acting was almost comical in this film. Plus, even though he was only in that house one time, Father Delaney kept suffering misfortune after misfortune thanks to his one visit. The poor guy even went blind. I'm not sure how a house can posses a person from 20 miles away, but by golly that's what it did here. As for Kiddor, well, let's just say she acted with all the intensity that LeBron James showed in the fourth quarter of NBA Finals games.
- The script of The Amityville Horror has quite a few loose ends that just go dangling. For one, what the heck happened to that police officer that surveyed the Lutz house for two days or so, tried to talk to Delaney, then disappeared into thin air. There's also the drunk with a six pack of beer that shows up at Kathy's door, then disappears a minute later without explanation. What happened to the 1,500 dollars that disappeared? And what would a house do with 1,500 dollars anyway? What happened to George's friend's wife after she got possessed? I guess the answers to these questions were just left to twist in the wind.
Overall, I will say that this was better than the remake, but just barely. The script was better paced, but still had a lot of loose ends. There was slightly more character development in this film, but not enough to make any of the Lutz family characters you really care about. Some people consider this one of the great horror movies of its era, but I'm not seeing how that's possible. The acting was sometimes way too over-the-top, the effects were more silly than scary, and the ending was rather anticlimactic. Overall, I'd give this Amityville Horror a 3.2 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any comments about this review or film, or ideas for future reviews, then feel free to share by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
For the trailer, watch here: http://youtu.be/p35R8X5l0cU
Showing posts with label possibly based on a true story. Show all posts
Showing posts with label possibly based on a true story. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Canon Movie Review: Sleepers
Earlier this evening, I watched a movie that depending on who you talk to may or may not be a true story, the 1996 film Sleepers. Directed by Barry Levinson, Sleepers has a deep cast, including Robert DeNiro, Brad Pitt, Dustin Hoffman, Jason Patric, Kevin Bacon, Billy Crudup, Minnie Driver, and others. Heck, John Williams even did the score for the film, so you know that Levinson went all out on this film. In Sleepers, a quartet of boys from Hell's Kitchen circa 1968 have their lives changed forever when a prank goes awry and nearly kills a man. For the prank, the boys are sent away to the Wilkinson Home for Boys, where they suffer many abuses by a team of guards led by Sean Nokes (Bacon). Thirteen years later, a chance meeting between Nokes and two of the boys he abused leads to the foursome taking out their revenge on the guards that wronged them while at Wilkinson, with some help along the way from an aging crime boss (Vittorio Gassman as King Benny), another friend of theirs from Hell's Kitchen (Driver), and the priest that has known them for most of their lives (DeNiro). A few notes from the film, and there probably will be SPOILERS, so read carefully.
- The movie's plot is basically told in three parts, the boys' childhood in Hell's Kitchen leading up to the incident that got them sent to Wilkinson, the incarceration period, and what happened 13 years after where the group got their revenge at the guards that abused them at Wilkinson. Of the three parts, the first part of the movie was the most compelling and well-done, at least to me. Levinson does an excellent job of bringing 1960s Hell's Kitchen to life, and the four boys (Shakes, Michael, John, and Tommy) are all quite interesting characters, with Shakes (played by Joseph Perrino) and John (Geoffrey Wigdor) especially standing out. The film also offers an interesting battle for the boys' souls, so to speak, as they have two mentors. One being the priest Father Bobby Carillo (DeNiro), a former criminal who reformed and found himself in the church, and the other being King Benny, the mob boss that runs Hell's Kitchen. While this part may have run a bit long, it does serve an important purpose as it introduces us to each character and makes the audience feel for them once the abuse at Wilkinson starts.
- Something I find interesting is that, in a film with two Academy Award winners (DeNiro, Hoffman) and one of the hottest young actors of the time (Pitt) in the film, that Kevin Bacon gets top billing. It's espcially odd since Bacon plays the main villain of the film. I will say, though, that Bacon is very convincing as the sadistic, perverted prison guard Sean Nokes. I wouldn't necessarily say it's Bacon's best performance, but it's in the top 5 for sure. DeNiro also does an excellent job in this movie as Father Carillo, playing the role very convincingly, while Hoffman does a convincing job as alcoholic lawyer Danny Snyder, even if he is somewhat underutilized. Overall, the acting is mostly well done, although I will say that I found Pitt's performance as the district attorney/mastermind of the whole plan to be a little flat. Maybe it's just me, but I think the role could have used a little more anger and intensity behind it, and at times I think Pitt was playing it too cool.
- There are a few cinematic themes to this movie, but the main one seems to be revenge. After all, it's hinted at early in the film when Shakes' father tells of King Benny getting revenge on a person that beat him up eight years ago, and the book The Count of Monte Crisco is brought up numerous times. Eventually, the four boys, now men, get the opportunity to take their revenge on Nokes and the rest of the guards, and the whole last half of the film or so is dedicated to that revenge. While it may be satisfying to see those guards get their comeuppance, it's done in such a way that lacks suspense. After all, you see Nokes get what was coming to him early on, and since he's the main guard, the revenge of all the other guards seem to be just icing on the cake. Plus, while the movie established Bacon as the main villian, it did very little to distinguish the other guards as separate villains, so you end up seeing a bunch of guys that you hardly knew about get their comeuppance. Then again, since it's based on a true story, maybe that's how it went down.
- Speaking of which, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding author Lorenzo Carcaterra's (who is called Shakes in the film and in the novel) claim that Sleepers is based on a true story. For one, the state of New York deny there ever being a case anything like the one described in the movie, where a juvenile detention center guard is murdered and the accused are found not guilty. The state also claims that there are no records of juvenile inmates being physically and sexually abused by guards, which would be a hard claim to completely prove, but that's their position. Carcaterra claims that, although the names have been changed, the story is true and he lived through it. From what I can tell by crudely researching the subject, I kind of have my doubts about his claim, and the story as a whole, especially everything that happened after Nokes' murder, seems a bit too clean to have happened in real life. Then again, I could be wrong and Carcaterra's being completly honest.
Whether or not Sleepers is based on a true story, this is a good film that borders on greatness. Levinson does a great job as a director, keeping the viewer interested and the plot fast-paced despite the film being nearly 2 and a half hours long. Williams' score and Michael Ballhaus's cinematography are also top-notch, and the acting is at a high level overall. While the plot had a couple of holes, (for example, the character of Carol Martinez was hardly mentioned in the first hour, but all of a sudden she's playing a major role and being presented as a direct peer to the quartet of boys featured earlier) overall it was a compelling story. The ending seemed kind of 'too perfect', though. Overall, Sleepers is a very good film that will make you think about a variety of subjects, although I would not recommend this film for children. I'd give Sleepers a 7.6 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this or other posts, or ideas for future posts, than let me know about them either by leaving a comment on the blog or sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- The movie's plot is basically told in three parts, the boys' childhood in Hell's Kitchen leading up to the incident that got them sent to Wilkinson, the incarceration period, and what happened 13 years after where the group got their revenge at the guards that abused them at Wilkinson. Of the three parts, the first part of the movie was the most compelling and well-done, at least to me. Levinson does an excellent job of bringing 1960s Hell's Kitchen to life, and the four boys (Shakes, Michael, John, and Tommy) are all quite interesting characters, with Shakes (played by Joseph Perrino) and John (Geoffrey Wigdor) especially standing out. The film also offers an interesting battle for the boys' souls, so to speak, as they have two mentors. One being the priest Father Bobby Carillo (DeNiro), a former criminal who reformed and found himself in the church, and the other being King Benny, the mob boss that runs Hell's Kitchen. While this part may have run a bit long, it does serve an important purpose as it introduces us to each character and makes the audience feel for them once the abuse at Wilkinson starts.
- Something I find interesting is that, in a film with two Academy Award winners (DeNiro, Hoffman) and one of the hottest young actors of the time (Pitt) in the film, that Kevin Bacon gets top billing. It's espcially odd since Bacon plays the main villain of the film. I will say, though, that Bacon is very convincing as the sadistic, perverted prison guard Sean Nokes. I wouldn't necessarily say it's Bacon's best performance, but it's in the top 5 for sure. DeNiro also does an excellent job in this movie as Father Carillo, playing the role very convincingly, while Hoffman does a convincing job as alcoholic lawyer Danny Snyder, even if he is somewhat underutilized. Overall, the acting is mostly well done, although I will say that I found Pitt's performance as the district attorney/mastermind of the whole plan to be a little flat. Maybe it's just me, but I think the role could have used a little more anger and intensity behind it, and at times I think Pitt was playing it too cool.
- There are a few cinematic themes to this movie, but the main one seems to be revenge. After all, it's hinted at early in the film when Shakes' father tells of King Benny getting revenge on a person that beat him up eight years ago, and the book The Count of Monte Crisco is brought up numerous times. Eventually, the four boys, now men, get the opportunity to take their revenge on Nokes and the rest of the guards, and the whole last half of the film or so is dedicated to that revenge. While it may be satisfying to see those guards get their comeuppance, it's done in such a way that lacks suspense. After all, you see Nokes get what was coming to him early on, and since he's the main guard, the revenge of all the other guards seem to be just icing on the cake. Plus, while the movie established Bacon as the main villian, it did very little to distinguish the other guards as separate villains, so you end up seeing a bunch of guys that you hardly knew about get their comeuppance. Then again, since it's based on a true story, maybe that's how it went down.
- Speaking of which, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding author Lorenzo Carcaterra's (who is called Shakes in the film and in the novel) claim that Sleepers is based on a true story. For one, the state of New York deny there ever being a case anything like the one described in the movie, where a juvenile detention center guard is murdered and the accused are found not guilty. The state also claims that there are no records of juvenile inmates being physically and sexually abused by guards, which would be a hard claim to completely prove, but that's their position. Carcaterra claims that, although the names have been changed, the story is true and he lived through it. From what I can tell by crudely researching the subject, I kind of have my doubts about his claim, and the story as a whole, especially everything that happened after Nokes' murder, seems a bit too clean to have happened in real life. Then again, I could be wrong and Carcaterra's being completly honest.
Whether or not Sleepers is based on a true story, this is a good film that borders on greatness. Levinson does a great job as a director, keeping the viewer interested and the plot fast-paced despite the film being nearly 2 and a half hours long. Williams' score and Michael Ballhaus's cinematography are also top-notch, and the acting is at a high level overall. While the plot had a couple of holes, (for example, the character of Carol Martinez was hardly mentioned in the first hour, but all of a sudden she's playing a major role and being presented as a direct peer to the quartet of boys featured earlier) overall it was a compelling story. The ending seemed kind of 'too perfect', though. Overall, Sleepers is a very good film that will make you think about a variety of subjects, although I would not recommend this film for children. I'd give Sleepers a 7.6 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this or other posts, or ideas for future posts, than let me know about them either by leaving a comment on the blog or sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)