The Amityville Horror (1979) movie review - Sneak Previews with Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.พ. 2025
- This is the original review of The Amityville Horror by Siskel & Ebert on "Sneak Previews" in 1979. All of the segments pertaining to the movie have been included.
Gene really did draw the line at children and cruelty. He *always* brought it up when a film, especially a horror film, put kids in danger. From the start of siskel and ebert all the way to the end of his life it was one of his biggest pet peeves in film. I don't necessarily agree with him, but I admire the consistency.
he would have hated Dr. Sleep
I mean those kids got killed in real life.
So then did he hate Jaws for the same reason? After all, THAT movie has that scene where the kid gets eaten by the shark.
Disagree. It’s odd because he had a passionate love for the exorcist it’s even one of his favorite films. I agree that Siskekl occasionally finds the suffering of children in films too objectionable in terms of filmmaking for a critic
He wasn't consistent though. He liked Jurassic Park and T2. He also liked Mimic which straight up kills children.
Interesting trivia: this was one of the last films Roger reviewed before he quit drinking in August 1979.
Did he quit in 79? For some reason I thought he had quit years earlier.
Drinking alcohol?
@@kevinmcqueary7395 Nope, turpentine.
@@kevinmcqueary7395 no Rose GASOLINE!!!!
@@kevinmcqueary7395 i never knew he drank alcohol either😵💫
“By the 15th day I was yelling, ‘sell the house.’”😂😂😂😂
The problem is who would want to buy it???
Probably it's because I was 12 when this movie came out, but I remember being thoroughly scared by it.
I have to disagree with this review. This film scared me when I saw it in the theater in 1979. It is in y film collection and I will be watching it again this month. A yearly tradition for me.
All I know is as a 15 year old, the book scared the living Hell out of me!
Lol. Yeah, I was about 13 when I read it. I don't think I've ever been as scared by a book before nor since.
@@randycunningham7318 I was afraid that Jody the pig was going to show up in my bedroom.
The biggest problem with *The Amityville Horror* , both book and film, is that it's just rather boring. Nothing really all that interesting happens. None of it is believable and the scares don't really translate well to a compelling enough narrative for anyone to really get worked up over a room full of flies, a babysitter locked in a closet, or walls leaking goop.
Facts
@@Conquerkingfitness Amityville horrow was a hoax that the husband & wife admitted years later. The story was concocted over a bottle of wine according to the husband.
@@joedellaselva1251 seriously???
@@Conquerkingfitness Yes, I'm being serious. It came out in the early 80's. It was the Lutzes (sp?) and the lawyer for the kid who had murdered his parents + siblings. Apparently the Lutzes couldn't make the house payments and needed an out and this attorney somehow got involved with them to create the story and timeline. Google/Bing "Amityville Horror over a bottle of wine" and see what comes up. I remember reading it years + years after the book (1974) in the newspaper (no Google in the 80's) and thought Wow they made it all up.
@@joedellaselva1251 The husband and wife never admitted it, but the lawyer they planned it with did. I believe the lawyer, though.
I like this movie
These guys are just not horror fans, but they're right it's not a great movie.
The In Search Of segment was far creepier.
I saw the movie a couple months ago before it left HBO Max and i have to say it felt LONG.
Siskel missed the whole "Based on a true story part". Cause his complaints about the kids being shot in their beds... That really did happen. That part is the only thing that is 100% legit in the whole film and that is what he complains about. Did they ever review "Beware Children at Play"? Cause they needed to see that and get a real taste of children being murdering in a horror film.
The (actual academic or true crime) book about the De Feo case didn't even come out until at least the late 90s or 2000s anyway, so there wasn't much to go on then but newspaper reports of the original murders. Jay Anson was a total hack who glommed and slimed his way into making a buck off the whole thing and thus this movie. A total load of shit.
The film clip they showed is slightly extended than the one in the final film.
Imo, Amityville 2: The Possession was a lot better.
Even though these two were never kind to horror films they were spot on with this review.
So was Siskel consistent when he reviewed Poltergeist considering their were children in danger in that movie too?
Hello i like and agree with what you said. They seem to cherry pick on when to be offended
Or Aliens.
There goes Siskel with his obsession with "children in danger"... 🙄
Yup, He also didn't like Aliens cause of that.
He also claimed all the early 80s slasher movies were... Women in Danger... movies but just as many men were killed in them and in some even the killer was a woman.
@@chrisoakley5830Like one or two, and the only famous example is the original _Friday The 13th._
Wow, scoffing at the idea of being turned-off by children in danger really shows who you are as a person. You're probably a Trump supporter. 🙄
@@bobthebear1246 Hey, teddy bear, try not to take it so hard, they were only movies.
Oh my god, what is that afro that James Brolin is rocking??
Richard Pryor did a funny bit about the Amityville Horror in his act one time.
He said "you know, white people can be really stupid sometimes. This family moves into this house and ignores all the weird shit going on. A black family moves into the same house, they say "Wow, what a great house!"
"Get...Out!'
"Too bad we can't stay!"
I remember that joke. The delivery made it perfect.
Isn't that Eddie murphy
@@KaristaSwiss I think you are right.
They are right, the film doesn’t work. It’s a silly movie that features a lot of cheap scares. At least the Lalo Schifrin score is pretty good.
I think it was more effective when it was released, and there was all the media coverage about the supposedly true haunted house story going on. It was the closest thing to viral marketing that we had before the internet became big. It seemed a little different than your average haunted house story, because this one might have been true.'
It really hasn't aged well, though.
The Amityville Horror theme song is the eeriest thing in this movie.
Disagree with Siskel and Ebert. I think its a fun haunted house movie and I really liked the performances.
Hello , i like horror movies & thought the movie was a fun watch
If you found the movie fun somehow, okay! I sure didn't and most people didn't either.
The kids being killed was in the real case when the older son killed his whole family
Gene Siskel must have been paid a thousand dollars, every time he said the phrase, "children in peril". He says it every third video I see. As a movie critic, he really should have been able to separate fact from fiction more than the average movie viewer.
No children were ever in peril. It's a movie, ffs. Kids being paid to pretend to be in peril. Meanwhile, there are kids in this world being beaten, molested, and murdered every single day. But yeah, Gene. Let's all shed a tear for these poor children in peril, who made careers out of pretending to be.
They know it’s a movie, they enjoyed a good horror movie especially Alien. The fact the film shows it over and over gets repetitive
It took me many years but I finally saw _The Amityville Horror_ sometime in the 2000s. I agree 100% with Siskel and Ebert about it: It's an unpleasant film to watch. It's not just gruesome; the main problem is that it's dreary throughout.
This is a very dreary picture and it's extremely unpleasant to watch. The writing sucks, the acting isn't very good, especially from James Brolin who really overacts throughout the entire film and more so as it goes on. He did such a much better job in the much better _Capricorn One_ which was his film preceding this one. That movie wasn't exactly the best either, but at least it was somewhat fun to watch.
Margot Kidder is disappointing because we already know, from the earlier _Sisters_ and _The Reincarnation Of Peter Proud,_ that she's a much better actress than what she presents here. The script really lets the actors down here.
So, in all: The script sucks, the film is directed in a dreary, plodding matter and the normally good actors (even Rod Steiger in a key cameo as a terrified priest) can't save it. That leaves only the Art Direction / Set Design which I will admit is the only good thing about the _The Amityville Horror._ Watch only if you're extremely curious.
Siskel did it great complaining about violence towards children in horror movies. In Amityville was really disturbing...
Gene didnt seem to understand that the film was based on an actual murder. He objects to the shotgun murders on children? The murders were the famous subplot of the whole Amityville lore.
It doesn't mean that it's enjoyable to see as a movie , it's not that big a leap
Thanos and Lois Lane. The little girl was baby Proxima Midnight, the two lads were also children of Thanos.
Not Thanos, but his dad.
it was the father that walked down the stairs and fell through them
True, but when they first move in there's a scene where one of the sons slips and falls down the basement stairs as well. It's nothing scary, just an accident. That's the scene Siskel mentions.
I have always found this story fascinating. But the problem I have with the movie is. It does not follow the book close enough. It was supposed to take place in December. Why are there leaves on the trees? And it seems like september throughout the film. Why was there a thunderstorm the night they left? I live in new england and have never encountered a thunderstorm in mid december. I would have loved to have seen what these guys would have said about the two thousand five film that came out, which was complete garbage. Honestly, I think the second film that came out in 1983 was a much better film. Than any of the ones that they put out
The Amityville Horror _is_ boring, but Gene Siskel probably inadvertently got people interested in the film by talking about all the bad things that happened to kids in it.
i disagree. it did 79 million in 1979 which is huge then, beating the Shinning even from 1980 which did some 50 odd million. obviously it wasnt very "boring".
@@dogma9609 If you found it entertaining, great, but if it were released today, I think most people would laugh at it.
@@fyodordostoevsky9028 , maybe but...maybe not. the 79 version was far superior than that insipid 2004 remake. that was ridiculous beyond belief. the 1979 version was far scarier. that remake was goofy, almost slapstick and didnt follow the book or the "true events" even remotely. i saw it in the theater and ppl were laughing at some points. Laughing! it was badly directed. more is not better.
@@dogma9609 the remake actually came out in 2005 and guess who produced it...
Michael Bay
dun dun dunnnnnn!!
Boom and if you will tish?
Good movie 🎉
Gruesome? Because of a couple of squibs in the shooting scenes? These boys were in for a real treat at the dawn of the slasher genre. Didn't these dudes see "Halloween"?
Yep. They loved Halloween.
@@tomblinzig7307 Guess they developed a distaste for onscreen injuries after seeing "Halloween." Prolly scared them Puritan.
@@the_gilded_age_phoenix8717There's almost no gore in Halloween at all.
They BOTH went off on the little girl. Amityville. Lmbo
Siskel always whines about kids in horror films or kids in danger. Really tiresome.
he was only in his mid 30s here but they way he goes on about the "violence" in the movie he sounds like someones grandma! even by 70s standards this film was hardly shocking.
I guess Gene would hate Harry Potter too.
I don't like the movie either, but not for the same reason has they do. I just think its over-dramatic and boring.
Well they were both wrong as the film was a big hit , so much for there reviews
Doesn't make it a good movie, so every box office hit makes it good ?
Of course it made a lot of money. The book was a bestseller and probably very well-written. (I've never read it yet.) That right there, plus curiosity, were the main reasons why the film was a hit. I love really good horror films and this one ain't one of those.
Rkger's right - repetitive and boring, although Brolin was creepy, especially with that beard.
I remember being terrified of this movie as a kid in the 70s. However, after a recent viewing I have to say, the film is quite bad. It's really nothing but a series of dull minor supernatural events that lead nowhere. Also, the attacks on clergy by ghosts are clearly a rip-off of the Exorcist. Furthermore, it's so over the top silly that it's laughable.
Again with the children in peril... geez Gene. Men in peril, women in peril is just fine, but children in peril is unacceptable...
Fairy tales have children in peril all the time... does he have a problem with those also?
At least he was consistent. It was something that bothered him a lot, and he always brought it up when appropriate
@@switchbuckle5th He wasn't always consistent. He had no problem with the Exorcist, which features arguably the most intense "child in peril" plot.
Well it can depend on the craftmanship and innovation of the movie, not to mention the story. In the case of Exorcist, it was a new concept done very well and was legitimately frightening. I guess he wasn't all that scared watching Amityville, Poltergeist, or Child's Play. So, when he doesn't like a certain horror film, the child-in-danger device can stick out like a sore thumb.
I think he was full of shit myself. It's a damn horror movie not promoting hurting kids is a good thing.
Women in peril wasn't fine with him They did whole shows in which they say they hated women in peril films!
it was great
Definitely the worst horror movie people try to insist is a "classic." The script is terrible, the dialogue is unintentionally funny, the acting is mostly bad and worst of all, it's BORING and completely unscary.
The new documentary Amityville origin. One of the son's tells what a pos step father George was
Jesus they could be real snowflakes at times!
Thanos pops
siskel was a moralist. Bad things happen to children, they are murdered, raped, maltreated...films depict that fact about life. Loved the show, but siskel, as history now shows, got it wrong much more often than he got it right.
"films depict that fact about life" . Those scenes are based on reality. A guy really did murder his parents and his younger siblings in that house.
He was the moral conservative of the group. Not that Ebert didn’t have those moments, but Roger was the more liberally leaning of the two compared to Gene’s Sam the Eagle outrage moments
Satan in space ?
Greay horror movie. Two critics who nothing. How sad.
They were right. This movie is a piece of dog s hit.
Nope
Starring Lois Lane and the future Mr Streisand