Sadly Over-hyped

Excellent but underrated film

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

This is a a very underrated movie. It true the The Amityville Horror (1979) is better. Amityville II the possession is also better. But still this not a 4 that is just underrating. It has great story line. It also great acting. It also has great special effects. It is very scary. Amityville 4 evil escapes is better. The Amityville cures is also better. Amityville it's about time is also better. Amityville the new generation is also better. The Amityville dollhouse is also better. The Amityville horror (2005) is also better. But still this is a great movie. See it. It is one of the scariest movie from 1983. I need more line and I am running out of things to say.

It's interesting to look back at when 3D had a boom in the early 1980's and was always included in the third installment of a series. Oh yeah, 3 for 3D. I have grown tired of 3D and agree with Roger Ebert that we should stop constantly use it. The 3D in this film seems very forced and it's very easy to tell every moment that was supposed to come out at the viewer. I didn't watch this in 3D, but in modern movies that use it, I've seen the versions without the 3D and these moments were never there. As someone who didn't care for the original "Amityville Horror", I wasn't expecting much. I heard this is considered to be the worst installment in the entire series and even fans of the other movies hate it.Having only seen the original movie, this is mostly just a retread of that. I know the original was based on a book that claimed to be real that was proved to be false. I have no idea if any of these numerous sequels were based on books that were themselves supposedly based on real life events. The original film received a Pigasus award from James Randi for lying to its audience. I was disappointed to find out this film did not receive a Razzie. Paranormal claims are bad, if only because they give us crappy movies! The worst thing about this movie is that the ghosts or spirits are represented by flies. Yes, they literally swarm and kill a guy in one scene. In another scene with a fly, they somehow cut the brakes of a car and set a woman on fire (!). It's as ludicrous as it sounds and is a waste of time, even for fans. *1/2

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.

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.