MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Wizard-8 From the 1940s through the 1960s, director Richard Fleischer directed some good movies. But starting in the 1970s his directorial skills started to slip, and by the 1980s his movies were pretty much dreck. This includes "Amityville 3-D". The opening sequence shows a little promise, building some atmosphere and bite, but it's all downhill from there. The main problem with the movie is that while it's supposed to be a horror movie, it doesn't really feel like one. Certainly, aiming for a PG rating instead of an R rating held back Fleischer from adding some serious sock. But the screenplay is very stretched out, with the minimal story moving at a really slow pace. And when the horror does happen, it's more often than not directed in a matter-of-fact manner that doesn't give any room to present real shock. The only thing that prevented me from falling asleep was getting some amusement from the fact that lead actor Tony Roberts greatly resembled Will Ferrell. Though I'm not a fan of Will Ferrell, any one of his movies is more entertaining than this sluggish exercise.

jacobjohntaylor1 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.

Michael_Elliott 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.

cal reid A reporter moves into the haunted house and is tormented by the evil within. Boring and stupid , this film might as well have been not made as nothing really happens apart from one or two supernatural occurrences but anyone with half a braincell would predict what would happen in them and this makes the result ineffective and not scary in the least. The only exciting part comes at the very end where a demon pops up out of a well in the basement ( discovered in the first film ) and for some absurd reason leads the house to explode this part is well pulled off but last about a minute and doesn't make up for the garbage that makes up most of the film. Not worth buying or watching.