Metascore
33

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 31 Critics What's this?

User Score
6.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 112 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , ,
  • Summary: Thirty years after the shocking events that inspired a best selling novel and one of the most popular horror films of all time, come revisit the house that started it all: The Amityville Horror. (United Artists Pictures)
Watch On
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 31
  2. Negative: 13 out of 31
  1. The film is a terrific scare show, fast and furious, made with a lot of style and energy, packing plenty of jolts yet never lingering morbidly over horrific images. It is anchored in strong characterizations, and its plot develops with chilling psychological suspense. It's such a skillfully made entertainment that its plunge into the supernatural is persuasive even for the skeptical.
  2. 60
    Much meaner remake, starring Ryan Reynolds (quite good).
  3. Reviewed by: David Ng
    50
    A Xerox so tattered and faded that it's impossible to determine who's to blame for the overproduced mediocrity before our eyes.
  4. Low-key creepy rather than outright scary, the new Amityville marks a modest improvement over the original, partly because, from acting to bloody effects, it is better executed.
  5. Images seem to be grafted into the film that have little to do with the actual story.
  6. Reviewed by: David Edelstein
    0
    I'd like to tell you about the remake of The Amityville Horror (MGM), but I ankled after less than five minutes. It was something about the little girl holding the stuffed animal getting blown away with a shotgun at point-blank range.

See all 31 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 37 out of 57
  2. Negative: 16 out of 57
  1. ShaniquaN.
    May 10, 2006
    10
    This movie was bomb! it scared the hell outta me! PROPS!
  2. Jim
    Apr 25, 2005
    10
    BRILLIANT.
  3. GeorgeA.
    Nov 21, 2005
    7
    Not the best take on the story but it was watchable. slightly slow to start but once u get into it it realli isen't that bad. I have Not the best take on the story but it was watchable. slightly slow to start but once u get into it it realli isen't that bad. I have read the novel by Jay Anson Expand
  4. Oct 30, 2010
    4
    I have not seen the original. This movie, it wasn't really that scary. It relied on jump scares, and creepy images, its just overflowing withI have not seen the original. This movie, it wasn't really that scary. It relied on jump scares, and creepy images, its just overflowing with cliches. But it had some potential going for it, then, it botched at the end. Honestly, i know it was based on true events, but it could've been executed much, much, better. Expand
  5. Jan 9, 2015
    3
    As far as remakes go, this is one of the rare ones that rivals its predecessor in quality. In this case, they're both about as mediocre andAs far as remakes go, this is one of the rare ones that rivals its predecessor in quality. In this case, they're both about as mediocre and moronic, but this one is even worse. The one or two scenes in the original that scared me where completely ruined by predictable jump scares, which the film relies on a lot, as well as bad special effects. The remake significantly toned-down the priest character, and that's both a good thing and a bad thing. A good thing because I hated his character in the original, but a bad thing because he's even more unnecessary since he only appears in two scenes. Even if you enjoyed the original, I don't recommend this one at all. Expand
  6. KearaM.
    Mar 2, 2007
    3
    The acting was somewhat good but the book is where the entertainment is. I was unimpressed with the scare factor of the movie but the book The acting was somewhat good but the book is where the entertainment is. I was unimpressed with the scare factor of the movie but the book was one of the scariest I have ever read. Also, to some people who didn't get the events that happened in the movie (such as flies coming out of the vent) read the book and it will make much more sense. The film was decent and some of the facts appeared to be somewhat accurate but it was nearly 100% commercialized and nothing more. Expand
  7. May 20, 2013
    1
    Just shocks after shocks.
    It's not scary, no it really isn't.
    Every 5 minutes you'll get a heartattack. The story is dumb. Not an example
    Just shocks after shocks.
    It's not scary, no it really isn't.
    Every 5 minutes you'll get a heartattack. The story is dumb.
    Not an example for a good horror movie!
    Expand

See all 57 User Reviews

Trailers