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.

In the house where Sonny slaughtered the Montelli family, the reporter John Baxter (Tony Roberts) and the photographer Melanie (Candy Clark) disclose two charlatans, who cheated the persons pretending they were medium. The broker, who presently owns the house, is having difficulties to sell the mansion due to its fame, and John decides to buy the house by very low price. When he moves to the cursed place, many fatal tragedies happen with the broker, his daughter and his lover Melanie. This movie is very silly and boring. Its greatest attraction in the present day is to see Meg Ryan in the beginning of her career. The Brazilian DVD is a shame: it has a recent picture of Meg Ryan on the cover, and her name is highlighted as if she were the lead actress, showing a total lack of respect of the distributor with the viewers and consumers. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): `Amityville 3D'

Why would anyone want to live in the Amityville house? It's got a bilious basement with a bottomless pit, a lethal living room, and feral flies that swarm in the attic. The sinks don't work either. In fact, this house is going straight to Hell - literally!

Into this questionable piece of real estate moves Tony Roberts, a skeptical journalist who doesn't believe the horror stories concerning the house (or hasn't learned anything from the first two movies) and is determined not to let `superstition' get the better of him. But get the better of him it does…

This is in no way a great movie – but it keeps me entertained every time I watch it, the hallmark of good low-budget horror fun. And dig that neat poster – great horror movie graphics! There's also some amusement to be had due to the presence of a few future stars in the cast – such as Lori Loughlin as the daughter of the journalist, who would trade in her haunted house for a Full House. And then there's Meg Ryan, touring the Amityville residence and pondering the joys of sexual relations with ghosts. Whatever floats your boat, Meg!

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.

At this point the true events that took place in the house are no longer relevant. This is an entirely different story concocted by the screenwriters and I must say it's the best work of fiction on film that involves the Amityville house.

The cinematography is great, the music, while not Schifrin, is still chilling, the acting is very very good. And there are some really scary moments in the film. The overall story I think engulfs the viewer. It's really interesting because the main character believes it's all a hoax, (much like a portion of the people do today) and he comes to find out that things in Amityville are much more unsettling than he thought they'd be.

The only thing (as with all 80's 3-D films) is that there are obvious things going on which were supposed to lurch out at the audience. It seems rather silly when the camera stays on a certain image for more than five seconds when it is no longer presented in it's 3-D image. It induces a chuckle when ever this happens, but it doesn't detract from the film itself.