Amityville 3-D (1983)

Must See Movie...

Fresh and Exciting

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

There is a scene deep into "Amityville 3-D" in which the new owner of the famous haunted house 112 Ocean Avenue comes home and hears water running in the upstairs bathroom. He opens the door and finds the room filled with thick clouds of steam. Waving his way through the steam he finds that the faucets in the sink are turned on full-blast with hot water. He struggles to turn them off, and after a few minutes, he does. Then the scene is finished. No ghosts, no blood, no murders, just a plumbing problem. That scene is pretty much a commentary of this terrible movie; it's needless, pointless and easily forgotten, like water running down the drain."Amityville 3-D" is like an old Kleenex that missed the free-throw to the garbage can; it's disgusting and disposable. It's the kind of movie that you watch passively as your mind becomes preoccupied with all of the wonderful things that you're going to do after this movie is over. Fun things like laundry and cleaning up after the dog.If that sounds cruel, consider the mean-spirited intent that made this film possible. The two previous entries in this series, "The Amityville Horror" and "Amityville II: The Possession" were very profitable at the box office, despite the fact that neither was worth the powder to blow them up. Yes, they were bad but you felt that somebody was trying. The problem is that there isn't really much to build on, once you've told the DeFeo story and then the Lutz story, there's really nowhere to go. That's good news for the filmmakers since they have clearly come into this project with no ambition to make a workable movie. The title is a brand name, and so apparently they figure that no effort is needed. Just put that creepy house in the frame, kill some people with special effects and no one has to work very hard. This isn't art; it's commercialism at its most cynical. Worse is that all the press releases for the film made clear in big block letters that this was not related to the two earlier pictures. It takes place in the same house, it has a big "3" in the title, and there are several conversations about the events that led to the first movie.Apparently these crass business people are counting on 3D to save the day. It's a crummy process, blurry and dark that adds nothing to the experience, and is only pliable so that something – a Frisbee, a metal pole, the movie's title – can come flying at the screen. That happens about every 15 minutes and it isn't worth the wait.The threading tissue that gets us from one indistinct 3D image to the next is something that might be mistaken for a story. Whereas the second Amityville adventure withered into a pathetic rip-off of "The Exorcist", this film withers into a pathetic rip-off of "Poltergeist." Tony Roberts plays a journalist from a tabloid rag called Reveal Magazine who doesn't believe in all the hooey about haunted houses. He and his wife (Tess Harper) are separated, and he's taken up with a new lover (Candy Clark). Still he buys the house at 112 Ocean Avenue because the Realtor is eager to unload this turkey as a bargain basement price. Roberts doesn't believe in ghosts and isn't even convinced of the validity of the supernatural claims when the Realtor drops dead on his third floor landing. He's not even convinced when ghouls start popping out of the well down in the basement. There are few things more aggravating than a horror movie with slow-learners at the fore-front.What is most frustrating about "Amityville 3-D" is that is breaks the first rule of haunted house movies: You have to have rules. There has to be some form of establishment so the audience can understand what is at stake and what is happening. Otherwise the movie is just a free-for-all and we get a freak show without purpose. That's especially true when the movie takes the haunted house stuff away from the house. When the characters are killed in their cars miles away from the house, then we are left to wonder why. Are the people cursed? Is the car cursed? Those questions give you an even bigger headache than the 3D.Is there a high point to "Amityville 3-D"? Actually, yes. There's a brief performance here by a 21 year-old Meg Ryan making her feature film debut. She's bouncy and fun, but on screen in too few scenes. Her character postulates - through giggles - that a living person can have sex with a ghost. It makes you rethink that orgasm scene in "When Harry Met Sally." 1/2 (of four)

A reporter named John Baxter (Tony Roberts) moves to Long Island, into the ominous house where many unexplainable, supernatural occurrences have commenced. He and his wife have separated, and Baxter is not a believer, but peculiar things keep happening around him. The people he cares about die, and there seems to be no end to it. I enjoyed the second prequel (I mean sequel, whatever you wanna call it) more than the first movie, but it wasn't exactly clamoring for another installment. But we got one, and 4 more crappy DTV sequels, and even a remake as well. In fact… another movie about Amityville is heading to theaters later on this year. This was filmed in 3D. Naturally, it doesn't have any effect while watching it on DVD, but that was the big selling point back then. This movie never bored me, but it's inexplicably stupid. How much has to commence, for Tony Robert's character to realize that he should get the heck out of there? Everything weird happens when he moved there. It things happened to me like they did in this movie, for example. A haunted elevator, my daughter died, and my partner got burned alive, by being trapped in a car accident. I wouldn't wanna investigate the paranormal activities. I would be long gone! I also didn't have any proper heroes. Almost everybody in this movie is virtually unlikable. Tony Roberts plays a selfish imbecile, who is arrogantly oblivious to everything. I had no sympathy for him. Tess Harper (Nancy Baxter) is quite pretentious and claims Roberts is egotistical in this movie, to her own daughter. The subplot between her and Tony Roberts grated me. I understood that warning her daughter to stay away from the house was needed, but she was just as bad. Lori Loughlin plays it low key. It wasn't a great performance, but she's beautiful to look at. Meg Ryan's cheeky charm was just great. She had a very small part as Loughlin's friend, and she gives the best performance(!) Not much gore here. The burning sequence is harsh and quite disturbing, but the laughable looking skeleton hinders some of the impact. We also get the fly routine from the original, and a hilariously dated looking creature at the end, who spews a fireball. The effects were quite shoddyFinal Thoughts: Never boring, but too stupid to enjoy fully. If you're gonna watch an Amityville movie, I'd pick the second movie, or the remake. 4/10

Amityville 3-D takes us once again to the infamous haunted house where evil surrounds all who enter. In this one, a journalist played by Tony Roberts buys the house. The minute he does, people around him start dying in mysterious ways. This was the first Amityville to trail away from the "true" stories of the Lutz and DeFeo families. This here is all fiction. Of course, many could argue that parts one and two were fiction as well. I actually enjoyed Amityville 3-D a bit more than part II.The acting in this is pretty bad all around. Meg Ryan debuts, but only has a few lines. Nothing much. The demon in the house looked sort of good (for a 1983 film), but we don't see it until the end. I have to say I would have liked to see it in 3-D years ago. 3-D was the big thing in the early eighties. Jaws and Friday the 13th both used that format around this time.The 3-D objects include 3-D flies, 3-D swordfish, even 3-D spit. The film moves at a very slow pace and I lost interest in it quickly. It didn't do well at the box office, which is why the rest of the sequels were made for TV and straight to video.4/10

I Will start of with the plot.Skeptical journalist John Baxter and photographer Melanieexpose a fraudulent medium who is operating in the infamous Amityville haunted house. Then John surprises Melanie by deciding to buy the house and live in it. John's estranged wife, Nancy is also surprised, then disturbed, when John encourages their daughter, Susan , to visit. The house attacks visitors with horrors that include insects and extreme cold and heat. Eventually, parapsychologist Eliot West comes to investigate.I remember seeing this movie for the first time, few years ago. there was only one scene that always stood out to me, it was scene where mother see her daughter go to her room, unaware that she had just drowned, this was only scene I could remember.I just re-watch this movie about week or so ago, I did seem to like it a lot better then the first time around, this time I could tell which part were for the 3D effect even in 2D, next time I will see this movie in 3D.First movie was okay, a tad over-hyped and the second was really good, which I think is very underrated,This movie wss really dull, this movie had nothing going for it, there no scary or creepy moment in this.it just felt flat from start to the end, like there no real story in it.it did pick up near the end with the explosions, which were really well done, those were okay scenes and the was really enjoyed watching.The acting was really good as well, from the whole cast.I will need to see this movie in 3D next time, without the 3D effect I am going to give this a 4 out of 10