Excellent, a Must See

Absolutely Fantastic

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

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)

The third installment to the Amityville movies finds a non-believer, John Baxter, moving into the infamous house to prove he does not believe the stories. Well, everyone who seems to come in contact with him and the house begins to die in bizarre ways. This movie was not horrible, but it just wasn't that great, even compared to the second installment. There were a few moments that were very good. I don't want to spoil the scene, but there is a particular moment that is very eerie and bone-chilling. One of the main issues with this movie is that it focused too much on what the evil force was behind the house. That is the same thing that hurt the second installment. The subtle creepiness of the original is what made it work so well, but this one seemed like it wanted to be a crappy Poltergeist sequel and fell flat. It was also odd that characters in the movie acknowledged the DeFeo murders, ignoring the Lutz family all-together along with the name change of the first family in Amityville II (Motelli). My only guess is that they were trying to suggest the first two movies were in-fact movies and this one was "real," or they just forgot what continuity was. The acting was not that great, too many awkward pauses and poor delivery. I won't say this was the worst horror movie I've ever seen, but it is definitely up there. Watch at your own risk, or watch to make fun of it.

Some people need a lesson on spooky houses. For John Baxter(Tony Roberts), it's an experience he will never forget! John is a reporter who is out to debunk the myth about the infamous house in Amityville. During the so-called seance in that place once owned by man who would later die after giving it to the reporter. Once he got the place, his partner discovers the horror of it, and would never return. The daughter (Lori Loughlin, before "Full House") gets a room, and have her friends to a seance with a homemade Ouija board. Following that, she would later lose her life in a boating accident. And they did find the source of the evil: A demon! If the house was that evil, why didn't they destroy it in the first place. With all the skeptics running around, that's always the thing. Evil houses especially the one in Long Island, should have blocked off, not used as a tourist attraction. Better yet, not used for settling in. Its history is so bad it should have been condemned. Nice movie there, a little bit on the silly side though. 2 out of 5 stars

Amityville 3 (1983) * 1/2 (out of 4) Due to a lawsuit between the Lutz family and producer Dino DeLaurentis, this third film in the AMITYVILLE series wasn't allowed to be considered a "sequel" (WTF??) so there's not much mention of the original events portrayed in the previous two films. This "new" story has an investigative reporter (Tony Roberts) and his assistant (Candy Clark) busting a couple con artists working inside the Amityville house. After the bust the reporter decides to buy the house since he is separating from his wife (Tess Harper) and sure enough strange events begin to happen. I think the biggest question one must ask when it comes to AMITYVILLE 3 is why on Earth anyone would purchase the house to begin with. Not too long ago I read a pretty good interview with director Fleischer where he went into great detail about the production history of this film and reading his comments made it appear that the film never had a chance. From the pre-filming lawsuits to the various issues while filming, this movie seemed doomed to fail and it pretty much put the nail in the coffin of the franchise before it eventually got started again thanks to TV and DTV movies. The biggest problem with this third movie is that there doesn't seem to be a reason for it being made. I'm also not quite sure who they were making this film for either. The movie was rated PG and it's clear that 1983 was a time for slashers so you pretty much alienated the majority of the horror crowd by going with a clear movie. There are a couple death scenes but they are done without much use of special effects and none of them are overly thrilling. The haunted aspects of the story also come across quite bland and they're certainly never scary. The film was originally shot in 3-D but I could only few the 2-D version and it was rather strange to see that there's really not too much stuff flying straight at the camera. The opening credits obviously do and there are a few other moments but for the most part the film is perfectly viewable flat. In that previously mentioned interview, Fleischer also makes it clear that the majority of the people working on the film had no idea how to properly use 3-D. Roberts is an actor I always enjoy watching and while this material certainly isn't his Woody Allen glory days, I still enjoyed seeing him here. Harper seems incredibly bored with her part and I guess you can't really blame her. Clark has a pretty big role here but her acting leaves a little to be desired. The film is probably best remembered for featuring a young Meg Ryan who gets to show off that memorable laugh. There are certainly much worse movies out there but there are very few where you watch them and ask yourself what the entire point was. I'm sure money was the main goal but the producers didn't get that and the viewer didn't get any sort of entertainment.