Amityville 3-D

After watching 'Possession' (which was surprisingly decent), I prepared to watch the second sequel of the franchise and this one was a little lacking. The big draw cards were obvious… the novelty of 3D effects (which seemed to be a big thing around this period) and at the time a virtually unknown Meg Ryan. Well too bad I wasn't watching it in 3D and Ryan (while memorable) is quite lesser character to the scheme of things. So what's there to like? Hard to really pin point, as when you try to draw good points, there's something else to counter-balance it.

The story is kind of interesting (with it's scientific and skeptical reactions with a talkative script); but remains quite disjointed (made of set-pieces and ideas we've seen all before) and the lack of total cohesion becomes quite stodgy. By the end it doesn't show faith in its cluttered story becoming unsatisfying and succumbing to cheesiness (lookout for eccentrically unexplainable climax dogged with dodgy effects), after slowly grinding away with well placed touches of suspense and jolts. But it didn't entirely have the venom in its shocks, but an unnerving atmosphere still engulfed the Amityville house and the stormy score erratically punched the cues. A respectable cast featuring the likes of Tony Roberts, Candy Clark, Tess Harper and Robert Joy work their butts off to invoke something out their characters, but no one is terribly likable… with maybe the exception of Clark's character. Director Richard Fleischer (who has some fine films behind him) never draws anything in the way of style or suffocation through an effective backdrop, instead letting a downbeat vibe grow and the execution for most part is plainly devised.

Re-cycled and blotchy, but mildly amusing haunted house enterprise.

Surprisingly, this second sequel to the supposedly fact based thriller "The Amityville Horror" is a worthy installment in the otherwise wretched series of shockers. Richard Fleischer, a Hollywood veteran whose directorial credits include such diverse fare as "The Vikings" and "The Boston Strangler," brings a skill to the proceedings that were conspicuously absent from the original film, which was more notable for the laughably bad performances of James Brolin and Rod Steiger than it was for inducing chills. The performances in "Amityville 3-D," or "Amityville: the Demon" as it is known on television, didn't deserve Oscar consideration, but they are professional and, in the case of Candy Clark's suspicious photographer, almost inspired.

The movie opens in typical haunted house fashion: a seance is being held in the notorious Long Island house where, in earlier films, toilets backed up (shudder!), marching bands played in the dead of night (shudder again!), and a giant red-eyed pig named Jody roamed the premises and engaged in small talk with children (Babe in an early role?). The seance produces mysterious apparitions and odd noises, all of which are exposed by two of the participants--a reporter and his photographer-- as a hoax. The realtor denies any involvement in the souped-up spookiness and explains to the reporter (Tony Roberts on holiday from Woody Allen's repertory company) that the house's infamous reputation is such that he's willing to sell it at a bargain rate. Roberts, newly divorced and eager for a peaceful environment in which to write his great American novel, buys it, all the while ignoring the warnings of his less courageous colleague, the delightful Miss Clark.

Roberts, a stubborn type who sneers at the supernatural, moves in and continues his sneering even as anyone who sets foot in the house experiences terror and, ultimately, death. But, dumbo that he is, he continues to pooh-pooh any notions that the house is cursed.

Some talented performers are on view in this film, and if not for their admirable abilities to keep a straight face, the movie would be a lot funnier than it's supposed to be and sometimes is. Roberts is his usual non-plussed self, refusing to accept any supernatural explanations for the bizarre circumstances taking place around him.

The special-effects are adequate, but they do the trick, and probably worked better in 3D, which is the way the film was presented theatrically. The process is evident in the use of so many scenes in which hands are extended toward the camera and, in one scene, a frisbee is tossed directly at the audience.

"Amityville 3D" will never take its place beside the greats of the horror genre, but neither will its two predecessors. However, unlike those failed shockers, number 3 succeeds on its own modest terms, providing, amid the occasional unintended chuckle, a few moments of genuine suspense and a thrill or two. It's a satisfying spook show on the same level as the William Castle flicks of the late 50s and early 60s ("The Tingler," "House on Haunted Hill," et al).

There must have been a law in the 1980's that stated that if you are to make a third film to a set of horror movies you must make them in 3-d as this was one of them, along with other such fine films as Jaws 3-D and Friday the 13th part III in 3-D. Sad to say, but I enjoyed all these movies even though I know in my heart of heart they were all bad movies. However, just because a movie is bad does not make it non-entertaining. Well at least to me it does not...perhaps to a more mainstream viewer, I admit I am a little more offbeat than most people to say the least. This story has a guy moving into the Amityville house for whatever reasons after he proves this one little group of people are fake psychics. Through a series of events though he begins to find out just how real the horrors are in the house that has had cast evil upon all those who lived there. I have to say the movie is not as graphic as the second movie, but it has a lot more to it than the first movie in the ways of scares and such and it has a nice conclusion too. Still the movie has to many 3-D moments too to be a really good movie. You know the scenes, pointless scenes where they aim something directly at the camera and such. Still, the movie runs at a fast clip and is entertaining to watch, plus you get to see a young Meg Ryan in one of her first roles.

This is not like the horror movies that were coming out around the time this was released. Everyone says how bad it is, but if this were made in the sixties, it would be one of the greatest horror movies of all time. It has awful special effects, but it contains ideas, like most good movies should. I suggest you rent, or even buy it if you stumble across a copy.

I had the opportunity to sit down and watch the 1983 horror movie "Amityville 3-D" here in 2022, and of course I did so, as I might have only seen this movie once back in my early childhood. And since I couldn't recall a single scene from the movie, of course I opted to watch it.

The storyline in "Amityville 3-D" was okay. It was simplistic and sort of starting to feel like watered down soup brewed from a tasteless broth already. You're not in for a grand cinematic experience in horror cinema when you sit down to watch this movie from writer David Ambrose and director Richard Fleischer.

I was surprised to see that the movie had Meg Ryan on the cast list. Sure, it was in a support role, but she was there and it was fun to watch. I will say that the cast ensemble in "Amityville 3-D" put on good enough performances as was, given the limitations of the script and storyline. And it was also fun to watch Robert Joy in a movie such as this.

Well, of course the "Amityville" franchise had to get in on the 3-D effects of the early 1980s. You know, the ones that were also seen in movies such as "Friday the 13th Part III" and such. However, don't count of this being over the top 3D special effects. It hardly even worked, and I was alternating between no 3D spectacles and wearing 3D spectacles. The screen looked the same with and without them.

For a horror movie then "Amityville 3-D" was pretty generic. Nothing over the top or particular scary here.

"Amityville 3-D" is watchable for what it was, but you're not in for a memorable movie experience.

My rating of "Amityville 3-D" lands on a four out of ten stars.