Kyle and Shaun continue with the trip to Nostalgia avenue and talk about another classic Capcom NES game, this one ties into next weeks episode when they’ll be talking about the movie this game is based on. See you in your dreams!
AI is the topic du jour for many out there. This ranges from the ongoing SAG-AFTRA and WGA strikes on Hollywood’s use of AI to the ethical, moral, and philosophical questions we’re quickly having to find answers for the larger issue of AI’s potential place within our society moving forward. While I’m not going to get too in the weeds with AI talk nor will I get into my complicated thoughts on the subject, I will use this as a jumping off point to discuss a similar, deceptively innocent tool that has had a negative impact on art. Or that’s what I’ll be arguing at the very least.
Judging solely from what has been made publicly available, AI seems to be little more than an automated system designed to navigate and analyze big data quickly and efficiently – albeit with a user interface mimicking human interaction. That latter part is where many people get hung up on. Something that looks human, acts human, or sounds human triggers something deep down in all of us, producing feelings of uneasiness. The natural evolution of that thought becomes, if the AI looks, acts, and sounds human, can it replace humans? While this suspicion is understandable, the ability to navigate sets of big data (and who has access to that data), is problematic. Almost as problematic and deserving of our attention as the “computers are gonna take our jobs” argument.
Luckily for you, this isn’t going to be a feature filled with hypothesizing – I have clear examples of big data being exploited by companies/corporations to better capitalize on art. An easy example to draw on are review aggregators such as RottenTomatoes and IMDB. Both currently use large sets of data – collections of reviews, ratings, and opinions on every movie ever released – to drive engagement with users, sell advertising, and I would argue (whether intentionally or not) have manipulated their users into thinking in very linear ways about art.
Thinking on any art form in only one way is a foolish endeavor. More often than not, art is complicated and layered with multiple elements, themes and meanings waiting for the audience to discover. Good artists know this and will create art with this in mind, allowing the viewer to impart their own experiences, beliefs, and ideas onto the art as well. It is in this way that art becomes a mirror for all who view it, with each and every person being shown a different reflection.
This is one of the several reasons why a large portion of artists (and by the same logic, movie directors) don’t like to explain the meaning behind their works. These creators want to leave the interpretations up to their audiences. This back-and-forth relationship helps art to continue evolving long past the completion of the art itself. Art by its very nature is a communal experience that invites a multitude of interpretations. To think about art in a linear, black-and-white fashion is akin to neutering art altogether.
But how do RottenTomatoes and IMDB manipulate you into this linear way of thinking? Let’s start with RottenTomatoes, whose entire operation revolves around the opinions of a collection of certified movie critics deciding if a particular movie is fresh or rotten. If a movie gets a favorable review (usually a C or better on a graded scale), it’s considered fresh. If it receives an unfavorable review, it’s considered rotten. Then, the percentage of fresh reviews is calculated and labeled as the Tomatometer score for that movie. The same is then done for user reviews which are presented as the Audience score.
Using two examples from the Most Popular list of movies on RottenTomatoes, Asteroid City and Joy Ride, we can see just how misleading the Tomatometer can be. Asteroid City and Joy Ride both have average critic scores of 7.0 and 7.3 out of 10 respectively, not much of a disparity there, right? But this score is hidden, revealed after additional clicks into the data. What you would see if looking only at the Tomatometer is Asteroid City being given 74% and Joy Ride 91% – making the two movies look like they’ve been received much differently than the 0.3 point difference in their average scores. With RottenTomatoes actively suppressing the actual critical averages in favor of their Tomatometer percentage, one look at both of these movies and the quick assumption would be that Joy Ride is not only the better choice, but received significantly better than Asteroid City – which again, is not the case.
If that’s too much of a leap, let’s compare Asteroid City to the recent DC superhero movie, Blue Beetle – which scored comparably to Asteroid City on the Tomatometer, only a 3% difference. That 3% favors Blue Beetle – Asteroid City with its 75% vs. Blue Beetle with its 78%. Again, quickly judging off the Tomatometer (the most prominent statistic for any movie on RottenTomatoes) you might get the impression that between these two movies, the critics enjoyed Blue Beetle more. However, digging into the actual metrics, you can see that average reviews show a different story, with Asteroid City being given a 7 out of 10 average against Blue Beetle’s 6.4 out of 10. Intentionally or not, RottenTomatoes is misrepresenting critical and popular opinion in favor of a score that doesn’t reflect quality but rather palatability.
In addition to the blatantly misleading nature of the Tomatometer and its manipulation of consumers, RottenTomatoes has affected the movie industry as well. RottenTomatoes has long been viewed by many as a reputable and go-to source of information for movies. Many consumers began trusting the Tomatometer and voting with their money accordingly. A Fresh rating on RottenTomatoes could help your movie gain word of mouth and success at the box office. Likewise, a Rotten rating could spell box office disaster, especially with embargos releasing days to a week before a movie’s opening. Movie studios love to plaster a “Fresh” logo on their movie posters and promotional materials because they know it’s effective.
So of course all of these movie studios want “Fresh” ratings from RottenTomatoes and honestly, it doesn’t take too much to crack the code – hint: it’s palatability. To obtain a “Fresh” rating, you need to win over as many people as possible. Remember, the Tomatometer is a measure of mass likability, not quality. If you want to get as close to 100% on RottenTomatoes, then you would need something totally risk-averse. You would need the movie equivalent of chicken nuggets. That’s what a 100% on the Tomatometer represents…and it’s not a very exciting prospect, is it?
But what about IMDB? IMDB takes care of that problem by placing its user average visibly out in the open – there is no twice-removed, magical percentage of likability. Well, that’s not exactly true either. IMDB utilizes something it calls a “Weighted Average Rating” which gives a rating that it calculates rather than the average of the raw user score data. To quote IMDB, “ The simplest way to explain it is that although we accept and consider all votes received by users, not all votes have the same impact (or ‘weight’) on the final rating.” So not even the rating on IMDB gives an accurate representation of the average user rating.
Larger still, both RottenTomatoes and IMDB are plagued with an issue that faces many large websites out there. That issue? The easy barrier for entry makes it possible for malicious users and groups with mean-spirited campaigns to target specific movies with ideas, themes, or simply the inclusion of actors that they disagree with.
For all the social media hype around fun, harmless memes like Morbin’ Time, Barbenheimer, or the Gentleminions trend (where teens showed up to numerous showings of Minions: The Rise of Gru in tuxedos), there are an equal number of campaigns with more malicious intent. These are led by bad faith actors who actively work to downvote and degrade a movie as loudly as possible to prevent others from going out and supporting these movies. Worst of all, these campaigns can frequently stem from places of misogyny, xenophobia, and bigotry.
These hateful undertones have been documented multiple times over the past several years with very vocal campaigns rallying against some high profile, female led projects such as Ghostbusters (2016), Star Wars: The Last Jedi, The Little Mermaid, and Captain Marvel. Race, culture, and other sexualities are also frequently targeted by these malicious campaigns. Come Away, Fahra, Bros, and The Promise are all recent examples of some noted releases that have had reports of bad-faith review-bombings…many times coming in well before the movie was even released.
See More: The Troubling Rise of Review Bombings
For all of these reasons and more, I would encourage everyone out there to start putting a little less significance on these review systems. I mean, at the end of the day, all review systems are intrinsically silly and one-sided, because again, art speaks to every single person differently. Every critic reviewing something not only sees a piece of art differently, but also talks about and rates that art according to their own specific criteria – not some universally creed.
Ultimately, I’d recommend not getting caught up in what I’d call “groupthink”. It’s cool to be aware of any social zeitgeists surrounding certain movies and to experience it in the same moment that countless others are experiencing it too. But remember that it’s your experience and to listen to your responses to any experience. Don’t get caught up in what others think, but use their ideas and thoughts as a jumping off point into better analyzing your own thoughts.
Use RottenTomatoes or IMDB (or might I suggest Letterboxd) as a way to introduce yourself to the critics and personalities featured. Read multiple takes from different people on a couple of movies that you have strong opinions on. If you find yourself agreeing with a critic, start following that critic. They will become a solid resource for advice and suggestions on movies you may have never even heard of.
Do note that you shouldn’t just look for a critic or personality to follow whose opinions line up perfectly with yours. Not only does that critic not exist, but by only listening to those who share your exact views, you have a chance of ending up in an echo chamber. And there’s nothing better for stifling imagination, free thought, and creativity like echo chambers! Ultimately, just try to be open to thoughts and ideas of all kinds – opposing or similar – they all add unique context and perspective that can help enrich your movie-going experiences in the future…
“I have cultivated a little crew of people whose opinions I understand. It’s like the way you’d follow certain film critics because you know what their criteria are, and you may not agree with them, but you can glean from their opinion how you will feel about a film.” – Daniel Clowes from an A.V. club interview.
If you’ve made it to this point, thank you so much for reading! I know what an enormous “ask” it is to actually read an article and not just the headlines. This is something I am acutely aware of and will continue to be conscious as to not waste the readers’ time – even if my wordy tendencies may beg to differ. I’m shaking off the dust as I go here, so expect more focused features moving forward. If you have feedback or suggestions for topics to cover in the future, I gladly welcome it all!
If you’re interested in more of my work, you can check out my Instagram (@umariffic) where I have an ongoing movie journal documenting every movie I watch in 2023 along with other movie and music related features!
Kyle and Shaun continue their underwater adventures and talk about the classic NES game starring Kevin Costner trying to save his fathers underwater kingdom from Ursula
the boys continue their obsession with Ariel to talk about the SNES version of Waterworld! ( A game they discover never released in NA) They also plan out the next few episodes. (More games?!?)
Kyle and Shaun get paid off by Big Science™ to talk about Climate Change and Kevin Costner’s thinning hair.
Welcome to Cheap Chance Cinema where I’m letting the gods of luck take the wheel – that’s right, each feature is going to revolve around a randomly selected movie from a free streaming site. To make the name of this feature work, all of these movies will need to be cheap! And really…what’s cheaper than free?
Episode 1 – Amityville: The Awakening (2017)
For this introductory episode of Cheap Chance Cinema, I used a website that randomly selected from movies currently available on Tubi. That movie selected for this episode? Amityville: The Awakening. A title that at least feels appropriate for the first entry.
But before I go any further into Amityville: The Awakening (and don’t worry, I will get into it), I’d like to take a moment to talk about the shockingly long legacy of Amityville movies. Right now, before Googling the answer, take a guess as to how many Amityville movies you think exist? Five? Ten?
28! Insane, right?! When searching for Amityville: The Awakening on Tubi, I was immediately taken aback to find over 20 movies with Amityville in the title. And if there were 20 Amityville movies available for free (with commercials), then how many Amityville movies were actually out there in the wild? If I can watch Amityville Karen or Amityville in Space on Tubi, who knows what else is out there with the Amityville brand attached to it. PSA: Remember, always spay and neuter your franchises!
Joking aside, I did a bit more research into this and it seems that there are only 11 movies attributed to the actual Amityville canon. However, if you’re counting movies with Amityville in the title that are banking off of that concept, there are a whopping 28 movies based around the infamous haunted house. For added context, the number of Amityville movies is only a few movies shy of equalling the Marvel Cinematic University (MCU) for its prolific output.
As for my exposure to the Amityville series…well, with Amityville: The Awakening now under my belt…well, I’ve seen two of them. The only other Amityville movie I had seen up until this point was the 1979 original, The Amityville Horror. Looking over the list of Amityville movies available, I consider myself quite lucky to have only seen two. It’s doubtful that any of the sequels or spin offs come close to recapturing the magic of the original, but I could be wrong – and if I am, please let me know which ones are worth a watch.
It’s Amityville Karen, isn’t it? That’s surely the deftly executed satire I’m imagining it is, right? Hello? Anyone?
Moving on – it should be noted that in addition to my relatively limited exposure to the Amityville franchise, Amityville: The Awakening happened to be a title that I had never heard of or seen advertised for…this is admittedly something of a rarity for me. If I had to make an educated guess before seeing a single frame of footage, I’d wager that I had never heard of Amityville: The Awakening because it was pretty much straight-to-video fare.
Looking at the poster/streaming art didn’t do much to help instill any confidence. Though it was perfectly competent and fine, it shed absolutely no additional light on any details or specifics. It’s about as generic as they come, only featuring the Amityville house and a Photoshopped impression of some young actress.
I’m Going in Blind
If nothing else, the prospect of something completely new and unknown was exciting. You know as well as I do that it’s hard nowadays to stay ahead of aggressive marketing campaigns and trailers that love to share as many details as possible to get butts in seats. Speaking for myself, by the time I finally sit down to watch a movie, I’m usually aware of the actors/actresses, writers, and directors involved…aware of some of the plot details, the set-pieces…even big reveals are placed in trailers released only a week or two into a movie’s run.
So I chose to go into Amityville: The Awakening filled with hope. It was a blank slate that could be anything and starring any number of actors/actresses. I cannot tell you how magical these few minutes were.
But I’m not going to bury the lead any longer. That magic was temporary and fleeting and I was foolish to have had any hope in Amityville: The Awakening.
It all started off promising enough, with the opening credits revealing that Amityville: The Awakening has a rather strong cast of actors, including Jennifer Jason Leigh, Cameron Monaghan, McKenna Grace and even Kurtwood Smith in a smaller, supporting role for good measure! This cast is all built around the main protagonist, played by Bella Thorne, an actress I’m not too familiar with outside of her supporting role in The Babysitter movies currently available on Netflix.
The Babysitter movies were admittedly dumb, campy fun, and with McG at the helm, they weren’t really meant to be acting showcases…even if Samara Weaving did turn in a surprisingly nuanced and memorable performance than either of those movies deserved. Everyone else surrounding Samara Weaving though? A bit stiff and cartoonish. With that said, I’m not holding Bella Thorne’s performance in those movies against her and went in with lowered expectations but wanting to be won over from her now that she was given the chance to prove herself in a leading role. That, like before, proved to be foolish.
Thorne feels completely miscast and seems ill equipped to handle a lot of the emotional work being asked of her. The lazy, uninspired script is equally to blame, as it doesn’t really give her character (or any other character here) much depth or nuance.
So aside from Bella Thorne, Amityville: The Awakening’s casting seems relatively strong, but what of the movie itself?
Honestly? The first few scenes are surprisingly solid, if unremarkable, setting the mood with visuals and imagery rather than exposition. Sadly, this is only momentary and we are mere minutes away from a big ol’ exposition dump. But back to the opening shots, many of them are pretty strong visually – showcasing some interesting compositions within the camera frame. The director here, Franck Khalfoun (P2, Maniac), implements a good variety of angles that help to create some fascinatingly framed shots.
And as pleasant as the framing is visually, I would be lying if I said that I thought it meant anything at all. In Amityville: The Awakening, there isn’t a reason for anything to be framed in the way it is. Certain angles are only used because they look interesting. There is nothing in the visuals or cinematography here that brings any bit of extra depth or subtext. It’s all for mood setting and aesthetic.
Drive and the Art of Subtextual Framing
Tangent Time! One of my go to examples for artfully including subtext into cinematic framing is from 2011’s slow-burn masterpiece, Drive – directed by the masterful Nicholas Winding Refn. In Drive, Ryan Gosling plays an emotionally detached stunt driver who slowly forms a relationship with a woman in his apartment building, Irene (Carey Mulligan). His mysterious character, who we only know as Driver, eventually reveals more about himself over the course of the movie and by the end it’s made clear to all the other characters (and to us audience members) exactly who the Driver is, both in terms of his character and his after hours profession.
This character journey is perfectly captured visually as well. Before the Driver reveals what he does to Irene, he is portrayed within the camera frame in ways that make him visually stand out from her and other characters. Often, these shots make him feel very isolated, perfectly relaying his character’s mindset and emotional state. The Driver is desperate to connect with a real human being and sees that chance in Irene – but he also feels something holding him back. In the entire first half of Drive, Gosling and Mulligan are never placed close together in a scene and are often disjointed and unequal within the camera frame. This naturally changes in a pivotal and magical elevator scene in the third act, one of Drive’s true highlights.
The best visual example of Gosling’s self-imposed and internalized distance is in a scene where he’s been invited into Mulligan’s apartment and is beginning to learn more about her and her family. The scene is a great moment for character-building, with information being delivered through naturalistic dialogue. However, this entire scene is also framed in a way that can be read entirely through its visuals alone.
The conversation between the Driver and Irene cuts back and forth between isolating shots of the two, portrayed alone in their own frames. There is one shot that serves as the exception, placing the two within the same frame. But even during this exception, the two characters are not on the same plane, literally. If you’d like to extrapolate that idea out further, they’re not even in the same world metaphorically. Through visuals alone, the two are kept separated from one another, with the Driver seen in a reflection on the mirror behind Mulligan’s character.
An added clever detail in this scene is the inclusion of a photo of Irene’s family tucked into the corner of that same mirror…one more barrier standing in between the Driver’s idealized relationship with Irene. This family photo could even be read as a visual manifestation of the Driver processing what to do with the information he’s been given and the very conflicted feelings he’s experiencing.
This is the ultimate tragedy of Drive, and it’s communicated visually in a scene that works on multiple levels – it is both aesthetically interesting, standing out from other shots in Drive (and other movies in general), but it also adds some brilliant subtext as a nice bonus for those who are looking for it. Even if you are not looking for that added subtext, you can bet your brain is picking up on it subconsciously. Or to quote Red Letter Media, “You may not have noticed it…but your brain did!”
Amityville: The Awakening Doesn’t Know What Subtext Is
This is all to reiterate that Amityville: The Awakening’s framing, as interesting as it may initially seem, offers no added subtext and only satisfies one criteria: looking neat. Unfortunately, even neat shots don’t last long as the camerawork begins incorporating more and more generic shots and framing. Pretty much everything that you’d come to expect from this type of movie. There is variety though: generic and uninspired shots of highschool interiors/exteriors and generic and uninspired darker shots of the Amityville interiors designed to invoke the spookies, but it only manages to invoke yawns.
And I really can not stress just how flatly shot the majority of Amityville: The Awakening is. There’s nothing surprising or unexpected – everything ends up feeling like stock, PG-13 horror cinematography after a certain point with nothing memorable or noteworthy to speak of.
On the other hand, the story is very surprising in its ambition. It completely squanders that ambition with the inclusion of tonally jarring plot elements that don’t gel with the demonic hijinks inherent to the Amityville brand. Or at least that’s what I would expect from the Amityville brand looking from the outside in.
Maybe if Amityville: The Awakening had more time to flesh out some of these ideas there could have been some interesting commentary on family structures and guilt/grief. Instead, the filmmakers chose the wet noodle approach to ideas and characters and seemingly threw it all at a wall and saw what would stick…all within a crammed eighty-six minute runtime. The result is about what you would expect: a movie that feels like it’s been ripped to shreds in the editing room. Ideas and characters are underserved by a thin plot rushing to get to its twist that A.) is alluded to a bit too much throughout the second act to be remotely impactful and B.) infuriatingly undermines the main conflict at the heart of the movie and retroactively ruins much of what came before it.
It’s hard not to compare Amityville: The Awakening to some of the best horror movies available right now, and let’s be honest, we all know what I’m hinting at…the A24 types. I’m talking about The Lighthouse, The VVitch, Midsommar, Lamb, Saint Maud, Get Out, Nope, and many others. Each and every one of these movies I mentioned can be interpreted in a multitude of ways thanks to their often open-ended nature and careful inclusion and usage of symbolism and metaphor. In stark contrast, once Amityville: The Awakening had reached its very literal resolution, I was left with only one way to read it – and I hated it.
Expect spoilers from here on out.
Amityville: The Awakening’s basic setup is this: Joan (Jennifer Jason Leigh) has decided to move her family into the notorious Amityville house due to its affordability and location near the family’s neurosurgeon (Kurtwood Smith) who is currently assisting Joan’s comatose son, James (Cameron Monaghan). This alone is honestly a strong start for a ghost movie and sets up the seeds for exploration into legitimately unnerving, existential horror. To its benefit, the script wisely adds in another juicy tidbit to spur on potential drama by revealing that Joan’s oldest daughter Belle (Bella Thorne) feels guilty over her involvement in James’ accident causing him to wind up in his current state.
Since this is the Amityville house and it is a horror movie, weird occurrences naturally begin happening to Belle and her family. But before I continue that thought, I need to talk about how Amityville: The Awakening approaches the Amityville lore. In a really gutsy move, The Awakening decides to introduce some metatextual nods by having the Amityville murders, as well as all of the Hollywood (and off Hollywood) movies surrounding it, co-exist in the same universe. That means that not only did the Amityville murders actually take place in 1974 in this universe, but the motion picture based around those events, The Amityville Horror, was released 5 years later, mirroring its release in our world in 1979. Do you remember the Amityville remake with Ryan Reynolds? Well, it also exists in this universe and of course, Amityville: The Awakening tries to be a bit too clever for its own good by throwing in a dig at remakes for some quick cred. This of course backfires and only calls attention to its own laughable existence as a reboot (which isn’t exactly far removed from a remake)..
But back to the spooky stuff happening to Belle’s family – all of these weird occurrences seem to revolve around James. Metaphorically, this all makes perfect sense, James’ comatose state is haunting Belle, clearly still dealing with the guilt and demons (so to speak) of the accident. James’ condition is the catalyst for the drama and tension within the family so it’s appropriate to thematically tie the demonic possession so closely to James.
As solid of an idea as this might be…it is all undone by Joan’s character and the big reveal that Amityville: The Awakening has been building to. By the end of the first act, we’re given a few scenes and lines that begin to hint at where the script is going with Joan’s increasingly manic love for James. In one scene about 30 minutes in, Joan is left by others and is sitting alone with James by his bedside. She looks over at him and says with a very knowing demeanor, “I would do anything for you James, I love you more than anything in the world”. I’m paraphrasing, but this line telegraphs exactly how the third act is going to unfold. Just you wait.
Sure enough, we’re shown that Amityville house’s infamous “Red Room” is linked to James, but it wasn’t just a coincidence or the house choosing a victim – it was actually Joan’s doing all along. In a painfully blunt, expository speech, Joan declares that she had completely given up on God and all religions after James’ accident. The best route forward? Asking the notorious demonic entity from the Amityville murders for help!
Without much more context, you can probably already start to see how thin of a leap in logic it is for Joan to get to the point where the idea of summoning a demon into her son is a brilliant idea. It’s a character arc that rings false and feels even more hollow knowing that Joan is fully complicit in the evil acts. Maybe if she were to become possessed or influenced by the demonic entity which helps explain some of her actions later on, because by the movie’s end, Joan sacrifices the family dog and was prepared to sacrifice her other two children for James’ well-being. If Amityville: The Awakening’s intention was to thematically weave in the idea of a mother’s love into the story of a demonic possession – it becomes crystal clear that The Awakening didn’t know what hell it was doing.
Amityville: The Victim-Shaming
So we’ve got some uninspired cinematography, rote storytelling only interested in surface level drama, and an exceedingly dumb twist that threatens to topple the entire production. I wasn’t enjoying Amityville: The Awakening with these issues, but I also wasn’t hating it either. That is until the final revelation and what it implies for Belle and Joan’s relationship.
It turns out that the inciting incident for all of this was a fight where James was trying to defend his sister’s honor without her knowledge of it. In what has to be one of the most infuriating storytelling choices I’ve witnessed in a good while, it’s revealed that Belle was seeing a boy from her previous school who ended up not being much of a good guy at all. While fooling around, he took some compromising photos of her and later placed them online for everyone to see.
James, outraged over this, goes to confront the boy responsible for posting the photos only to end up completely overestimating his fighting prowess. James is promptly and (with how it’s revealed laughably) thrown from the apartment building, going over a balcony several stories up.
With the revelation of this crucial detail, it is made perfectly clear that Belle had no knowledge of James’ actions until after he was hurt. Mind you we’ve been watching Belle internalize and beat herself up over her involvement in James’ state – and judging from this reveal, she seemingly has zero culpability. The movie completely fails in setting up a good reason for her guilt and anguish. It makes her sad, goth-girl getup feel even more hollow and empty.
Worse, is that it completely undercuts any sympathy that could be given to Joan, the mother, who uses any chance to berate Belle for what she did to James. Again, if the intention was to make Joan an out and out villain, Amityville: The Awakening bungles that by trying to appeal to base emotions with “dedicated” love for James. She’s not an interesting or complex antagonist – she’s just an ineptly written one.
Joan’s involvement with demonic possession and Belle’s complete lack of involvement in James’ accident absolutely killed Amityville: The Awakening’s entire narrative for me. These third act reveals retroactively make the entire movie a lesser – and one could argue, altogether meaningless – experience.
If there was ever a moment where I had second-thoughts about my displeasure in the storytelling, the brazenly ambiguous, “non” ending was sure to set me over the edge. In what might be Amityville: The Awakening’s most visibly lazy move, the ending uses an off camera narrator (ala Unsolved Mysteries) to speculate wildly on what happened to Belle and Juliet (McKenna Grace) without choosing to commit to a single one. That’s right. Amityville: The Awakening just kind of ends, because I think no one involved with the movie actually gave a damn about the characters. An utterly symbolic way to wrap up a movie that phoned in most of it – great job team!
Ultimately, I didn’t really find much that I enjoyed with Amityville: The Awakening, nor would I recommend it to anyone. Like, at all. I’m left annoyed and soured by Joan’s character and just how wrong-headed the Belle reveal was. Avoid this one.
Whatcha Paying For It, Stranger?
As of late 2022, the average price for a first run movie ticket was $11.75 which will be the standard for Cheap Chance Cinema’s review system. Taking my opinions and reactions to Amityville: The Awakening into consideration, and with that median ticket price of $11.75 being the best possible rating, Amityville: The Awakening is worth roughly:
$2.00 / $11.75
Kyle and Shaun relax this week and take a little time to discuss wrestling, Blink-182, getting dizzy and making sandwiches.