MovieChat Forums > Amityville 3-D (1983) Discussion > Three Dimentions of no dimention at all!...

Three Dimentions of no dimention at all!!


A sense of morbid curiosity washed over me as I embarked on the odyssey (read: horse-pucky) that is Amityville 3-D. I wanted to know how a movie that was originally presented in 3-D looked like on video where it was presented in 2-D. My answer was to be: A boring, routine haunted house movie occasionally interrupted by moments where I thought to myself "That would have been interesting".

Sometime in the early 1980s, some studio execs ran out of new ideas and decided to give some tired horror francheses a boost with 3-D. Thus we were given three-dimentional sequels to Jaws, Friday the 13th and The Amityville Horror. It is a little ironic that 3-D, a process that is suppose to give a movie more depth, was added to movies that had no depth in any form. Amityville 3-D is a three-dimentional, one-dimentional mess.

Wedged between the formly three-dimentional effects is enough story to fill half of a teaspoon. Woody Allen regular Tony Roberts (he of the Very Brady Perm) stars as John Baxter a reporter who wants to put to rest all these silly notions of ghosts and haunted houses. The movie's opening scene has him and his photographer (Candy Clark) using the Amityville house to conduct a séance where they can expose the events to have been a hoax.

Well, we know they aren't a hoax because we saw the other movies and besides, there is an iron law in horror movies that the skeptic is never right. He is so convinced that the stories are untrue that he actually buys the Amityville house. Not too far fetched because he buys it for something like $1.98. If he had a twenty dollar bill then he probably could have bought the houses next to it because we are informed that all three are unsellable.

The man who gives us this information is the real estate agent played by John Harkins (he was the priest in the "Chuckles Bites the Dust" episode of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show"). Harkins joins into an interesting trend: Every Amityville movie must have an overweight, 50ish actor who goes upstairs, gets locked in a room and never comes back down. The first had Rod Steiger, the second had Burt Young and now Harkins. Does this count as a trend or blind repetitiveness?

That death scene is explained away by the fact that he was locked in a room with a swarm of flies and then had a heart attack - hardly supernatural. The second death scene is beyond my understanding. Baxter's photographer is killed in a fiery car wreck miles from the house and her charred skeleton lunges at the camera for no particular reason (well, we know why but . . .still).

Anyway, Baxter has moved his family into the house which includes his co-ed daughter Susan (Laurie Laughlin, the mother on "Full House") who takes up space in the room that looks out of one of the house's "eyes". When she later dies in a boating accident - again away from the house - Baxter calls in a team of parapsychologists to investigate (Poltergeist anyone?) The closing scenes are highlighted by Susan's mother (blue-eyed Tess Harper) following her daughter's ghost to the source of the mystery. The "ghost" of Laurie is a 3-D effect that looks less ghost-like and more like a celestial washcloth.

The house itself is a mystery to me. The people who are killed in the house are victims who either went upstairs or down in the basement where a bubbling stone well lies in wait to do . . . something. Seems that everyone who stays on the ground floor is just fine.

The movie is all but forgetteable except for one thing: It features the very first big screen appearance of Meg Ryan. She plays the over-sexed friend of Susan whose most memorable line is "Did you know that ghosts like sex?" No Meg, I didn't know that, but it helps explain that deli scene in "When Harry . . . Met Sally".

reply

While there is nothing original about the story and the special effects are just OK, the film does feature actors way too good for the material, as well as splendid 3-D photography.

This came quite late in the 80s 3-D movie cycle (roughly two dozen stereoscopic efforts preceeded it in that period) but it is fun as long as your expectations aren't too high. It's a lot better than JAWS 3-D!

BTW, like 99% of all 3-D movies, even in the 50s, this was distributed in polarized format with clear gray glasses. It was later converted to poor red/blue anaglyph for a TV showing, but it never played in theatres that way.

reply

It's just been released as a Special Edition DVD in the UK in its original 3-D format, complete with glasses :)
-Nate

reply

Royal Brittania! The Kings of DVDs!

I'm gonna grab my copy of Amityville 3D from HMV soon, I was just wondering if anyone has seen the DVD release in 3D?

Any americans who wish to purchase a copy of this try www.play.com or ebay!

reply

Or try amazon.co.uk ... although play is probably cheaper and I don't think there's a shipping fee.
I'm also planning on getting this dvd, I actually contemplated buying it today (along with the newly remastered collectors edition of Amityville 2) - but I had other things on my list. I hope it's a good disc, anyway :)
-Nate

reply

I bought the disc last week, purely to see it in 3-D. It is quite a good set. Interesting commentary, nice lobby cards and booklet. The normal virsion of the film is as boring as ever, but I was quite suprised at how good the 3D version is. There is a bit of ghosting on some of the images at the front of the screen however which is a bit annoying and I thought my eyes were going to start bleeding when I finally took of the glasses. 100 minutes or so is too long to wear paper glasses.

reply

The UK DVD isn't the "original 3-D version" at all. It's been converted to awful red/blue anaglyph, and badly at that. It's blurry, full of double images and the gimmicks don't work.

The original 3-D version was shown in the superior polarized, clear glasses format, and the effect was excellent.

The UK DVD doesn't look a thing like the theatrical 3-D version did. Don't expect much.

reply

Actually, Meg's big screen debut was the 1981 movie "Rich and Famous."

reply

Yeah but who remembers that?

reply

i got the dvd on the day of realeas and i must say this one thing

DON'T BUY IT

the 3D dosnt work at all not one bit the red tint is to far away from the actualy image that its supposed to be making come out of the screen that it just makes to of the same image appear on the screen(i think this is called ghosting)

it dosnt even work on a pc it truley is terrible

There comes a time to put away childhood things. But some things just won't stay put!

reply

it's that fake blue/red format.. i hear george lucas is going to re-re-release star wars again in 3d.

reply

Man, I hate writing like this. "Over-sexed friend"? Why is she "over-sexed", because she made a jokey comment that it's possible to have sex with a ghost? That was the only sex-related thing that she had anything to do with in this movie. You write for the sake of writing, because you like the "sound" of your own voice, not because you have anything to say.

And it's spelled "dimension".

reply

It was a joke you ninny.

reply

I get that it was meant to be amusing, but I don't buy that it was meant to be a joke. What, was it meant to be ironic? Anyway it was just an example of your writing style. Don't get me wrong, you write like a lot of professional writers -- professional hack writers.

reply

You need a nap.

reply

i got the UK version and was a little miffed by the quality of the 3D but.... if you put a second pair of glasses (i used the 'sharkboy and lavagirl' kind from eb*y) and watched on a HD lcd on a hight contrast setting and it worked really well.

3D works best if you set up your screen properly.

'be sure to drink your ovaltine'

reply