Eric Stevenson 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

utgard14 Magazine writer John Baxter (Tony Roberts) and his partner Melanie (Candy Clark) expose a fake psychic racket operating in the Amityville house. Being recently divorced and needing a new house, John decides to buy the place. He gets a good deal in exchange for keeping the real estate agent, who knew about fake psychics, out of the story. John is a disbeliever and skeptic of supernatural phenomenon so he's not worried about the house's history. Once he moves in, of course, strange things start happening. Amityville 3-D has a bad reputation and most of it is deserved. The plot is tiresome and the scares are often laughable. Still, I can't help but enjoy it on some guilty pleasure level. Tony Roberts is a stiff lead. He reminds me of a less charismatic Ron Perlman. Yet there's something fascinating about watching this guy work. Maybe it's the hair. Or maybe it's that he clearly believes he is above the material. Lori Loughlin makes her film debut as his daughter. She doesn't get a lot to do but she's good enough so that you wouldn't automatically assume this was her first movie. Meg Ryan (!) plays her friend in one of Meg's early film roles. I was a little worried after Amityville II that we'd get some inappropriate sexual action between Tony Roberts and Meg Ryan or, worse yet, Roberts and Lori Loughlin. But thankfully nobody has sex with Tony Roberts. The often awful Candy Clark rounds out the main cast. She's up to her usual scenery chewing so everybody grab a seat. The best performances would come from Tess Harper as the ex-wife and Robert Joy as a paranormal investigator.Perhaps the most amusing change to the Amityville series here comes from the fact the "ghosts" can attack someone even if they are miles away from the house. It's silly but allows for some enjoyable shock scenes. Look, this isn't a great movie. It isn't even a good one, really. But it still entertains in a so-bad-it's-good way. If you're looking for something like that, awesome! Here you go. But if you want something you can seriously be scared by, look elsewhere.

callanvass 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

RecceR 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.