Amityville 3-D (1983) - Horror

Hohum Score



A reporter moves into the ominous Long Island house to debunk the recent supernatural events, and finds himself besieged by the evil manifestations which are connected to a hell-spawn demon lurking in the basement.

IMDB: 4.1
Director: Richard Fleischer
Stars: Tony Roberts, Tess Harper
Length: 105 Minutes
PG Rating: PG
Reviews: 28 out of 86 found boring (32.55%)

One-line Reviews (65)

Surprisingly, some suspenseful scenes work their way in as well.

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.

This movie is very silly and boring.

The third really doesn't offer much by comparison by way of memorable characters, scare factor or death sequences, but it has a few key moments and just ticks over enough to hold off serious boredom.

It's as ludicrous as it sounds and is a waste of time, even for fans.

The script by David Ambrose and William Wales is about as slow and dull as you could possibly imagine, and every single haunted house cliché is in here somewhere, I mean lights switching themselves on and off?

Okay, that's not saying much, but it's actually quite enjoyable.

But the screenplay is very stretched out, with the minimal story moving at a really slow pace.

Still, it does allow for at least one fairly good death scene in a car - one of two in this film, the other involving an 'unexpected' ghost.

It's 3D - dull, dumb, and dismal .

but still, when I'm taking a shower I get more exciting.

The film was even slower-paced then the original was.

Some say the editing, which may be true, causing the pace to seem slow at times.

This great idea, however, goes awry as the scripts throws in every sort of haunted house cliche in the world.

There is probably two things that I found VERY exciting about the film and one decent thing.

The camera lingers far too long on a swarm of flies as the audience are overwhelmed by the 3-D gimmick then a bloody great fly zooms out of the screen .

Most of them are of a very ornate and very empty stairwell.

Even when viewed without the benefit of its 'third dimension', Amityville 3-D is still an enjoyably cheesy piece of 80s horror—not quite as good as my favourite in the series, Amityville 2: The Possession, but still far more entertaining than the po-faced original.

Amityville 3-D: Dull Dull Dull .

Don't miss this because it is tucked away in a slow moving 3D movie, which ain't really all that bad.

The movie's just one long cliche and not worth the effort unless you're like me and just are a fan of the genre.

"Amityville 3D" is a pretty slow but entertaining haunted house film.

This film is over all very entertaining and like i said is one of the best in the series.

That scene is pretty much a commentary of this terrible movie; it's needless, pointless and easily forgotten, like water running down the drain.

Mainly enjoyable piece of trach .

Unfortunately, after this finishes, we're back in the realms of clichés and contrived happenings.

The first, and most exciting to me was the ending and what the results are to the family and the house itself.

Tony Roberts, Candy Clark, Meg Ryan, and Lori Loughlin join hands for this third go around, a rather sluggish and dull entry in the hit or miss Amityville series.

You know the scenes, pointless scenes where they aim something directly at the camera and such.

Tedious stuff.

Yet there's something fascinating about watching this guy work.

Let's forgot that a very similar scene happened in the first movie which proves how uninspiring this screenplay is and just look at the problem of filming in 3-D .

In response to the really slow beginning, the ending is pretty action-packed and full of some great moments.

Boring, far too long, dull and there isn't a single original idea in the whole thing.

Clichéd to heck and back, but actually enjoyable.

Bad acting, sloppy direction, and very dull and boring.

The film moves at a very slow pace and I lost interest in it quickly.

It's silly but allows for some enjoyable shock scenes.


The plot is tiresome and the scares are often laughable.

Slim story with unappealing characters, and features a tiresome build up to the big finale.

Yes, it tried too hard to be entertaining, it tried too hard to be scary and it tried too hard to give it's audience some cheap scares.

Tess Harper (Nancy Baxter) is quite pretentious and claims Roberts is egotistical in this movie, to her own daughter.

Sleep Inducing.

One of the last good sequels in the Amityville trilogy, with some _Bizzare_ special effects (Some times in a good way, other times in a bad way), a terrific cast, some genuinely scary and thrilling moments, and a good atmosphere and suspense built by the director.


Everything else was either bland or not good at all.

Outside of a few wacky moments, this is a rather dull and uneventful movie.

What you would get is hours of boring dialogs, bad acting, non-scary monsters, uninteresting plot, calculable scenes and terrible script.

Contains long shots of empty stairwells.

This movie tries to build tension by having long drawn out shots of empty parts of the house with creepy music followed by a dramatic scene change.

Though I'm not a fan of Will Ferrell, any one of his movies is more entertaining than this sluggish exercise.

And, though I don't think a movie actually has to have some in-depth, knock-yer-socks-off plot in order for it to be an enjoyable cinematic experience, the problem here is that all I can remember is how boring, excruciating, and dumb this movie was.

Horror film may have had some merit on the big screen in 3-D, but on video it comes off as slow paced, dull, and boring.

Predictable junk.

Despite what appears to be a strong cast, and an intriguing premise, Amityville 3 quickly dissolves into a tame special effects dominated rip-off of Poltergeist.

Still, the movie runs at a fast clip and is entertaining to watch, plus you get to see a young Meg Ryan in one of her first roles.

The story is kind of interesting (with it's scientific and skeptical reactions with a talkative script); but remains quite disjointed (made of set-pieces and ideas we've seen all before) and the lack of total cohesion becomes quite stodgy.

His music in those two films was actually suspenseful and ominous, and i really admired it.

Anyway, this film might have worked in theaters, shown in 3-D (certainly the sharp-object-in-your-face scenes must have looked less silly), but on TV it's a boring waste of time.

The haunted aspects of the story also come across quite bland and they're certainly never scary.

Harper seems incredibly bored with her part and I guess you can't really blame her.

Perhaps I'm overdoing it a bit (And cribbing lines from Ghostbusters), but this movie is boring, lame, and inexcusably long.

A Silly and Boring Movie, Where the Greatest Attraction is Meg Ryan in the Beginning of Her Career .

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.