|
There's a reason George Lutz sued on account of this movie. Did the filmmakers think that he ceased to exist in the years following the original so could be turned into anything they wanted? The film's based on a screenplay, based on a book, based on a true story, based on a testimony, based somewhat loosely on facts. It's kind of insulting that a real haunting report got shifted so vastly. It's a little different than just remaking a movie. Turning George Lutz into Jack Torrance was not a great idea. Lutz did confess to losing it in his testimonies, but the George Lutz shown in this movie was an abomination. I think this movie's claims of being "based on a true story" have probably set the parapsychology field back about 25 years. Not to mention that the directors have their wires crossed, combining elements of demonic obsession and hauntings in a way much more garbled than the already spotty materials from whence they originated. If this didn't actually have source material to take into consideration, it would be a decent run-of-the-mill Hollywood haunting, but as is, it's a D- adaptation of C- material.
|