Executscan Expected more

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Sam Panico It doesn't matter to me whether or not The Amityville Horror is truth or fiction. The truth is that the original film isn't all that exciting. But the sequel? The sequel is pretty much everything you want in a movie — if you love movies filled with horrifyingly sick moments of glee.Damiano Damianim, whose 1960's and 1970's western and crime output were marked by a streak of social criticism, directed this film from a screenplay by Tommy Lee Wallace (who not only played Michael Myers in the original Halloween, but would go on to direct Halloween III: Season of the Witch and the original version of It).The film is actually a prequel, telling the story of the Montellis, who are based upon the DeFeo family. Anthony (Burt Young from Rocky) is the father of this brood. He's rude, ill-tempered and ready to abuse everyone at a moment's notice. If you're looking for any family values — in fact, any values at all — you're watching the wrong film.He's married to Dolores (Rutanya Alda, Carol Ann from Mommie Dearest), his long-suffering and very Catholic wife. They have four kids — Sonny, Patricia (Diane Franklin, Monique from Better Off Dead, as well as TerrorVision and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure), Mark and Jan. Even from the very beginning of the film, the family is on edge. Every single interaction between them is marked by weirdness, before we even get into the occult portion of this film.Things get worse — much worse — after a tunnel is found in the basement. This leads to doors knocking all night long and demonic messages showing up in the youngest kids' room. Turning to the Church, Dolores tries to have Father Frank Adamsky bless the house. That lasts for all of ten seconds before Anthony flips out and throws the priest out.When he gets to his car, the door is open and his Bible is torn apart. Clearly — all is not well. Again — the family is a mess before the Devil even gets involved. Dad is overly strict and abuse, mom clings to the Church and Sonny and Patricia yearn to have sex with one another (seriously, their first interactions define the word creepy).While everyone else goes to church, Sonny stays behind and is taken over by a demonic force. The film nearly descends into body horror as we see the creature take root inside him. Soon, he's playing fashion photographer with his sister, a game that quickly turns into sex. Instead of her being upset, Patricia instead tells him that she loved it. Keep in mind these are pretty much the two main protagonists of the story, so the tale takes a very Flowers in the Attic turn.As Sonny becomes more demonic, Patricia decides to confess to Father Adamsky, but breaks down before she can. At Sonny's birthday party — a scene where this film layers on the insanity — he goes full demon as she freely tries to give herself to him. She decides to call the priest and confess everything, but Father Tom (Simon himself from Simon, King of the Witches, as well as the original version of The Town that Dreaded Sundown) takes the phone off the hook so the priests can go skiing (!!!).Read more at bandsaboutmovies.com/2017/09/26/amityville-ii-the-possession/

Fella_shibby Saw this in the mid 80s on a VHS. Revisited it recently on a DVD. This is creepy n better than the original. It is also disturbing n repulsive. There are some occasionally scary moments, decent make-up FX, chilling atmosphere n it also has Lalo Schifrins marvelous score once again. We also have some demonic possession n exorcism which weren't there in the original. Pure Exorcist rip off style. The film has moments of tension but it does get a lil boring coz of its length. The movie has some great moving overhead camera shots by Franco Di Giacomo. Decent cinematography there. I was put off by the incest scene. Burt Youngs character is one of the best thing about this movie. He is a typical abusive patriarch n the guy owns the role.This movie being a prequel to the original, it contradicts the opening of the original film in two scenes. In the original, the murder happens while all of em r sleeping but in this one they r awake n they try to run. In the original, the bodies r removed in the night but in this one they r taken out in the morning.

The_Film_Cricket It becomes clear pretty early in "Amityville II: The Possession" that the people who made this movie are hoping that you don't go into it asking too many questions. Unfortunately, if you have the slightest bit of interest in this picture it is mainly because you saw "The Amityville Horror" and probably liked it. Bless your heart. If this is you (and why would you be reading the review if you didn't have an interest in this movie) then, all during this picture, you'll be plagued with a series of questions that will, no doubt, confound and frustrate you. My frustration and hatred for this film might reasonably end there, but it actually goes deeper than that. It's one thing to sit through a frustrating film; it's another thing to sit through one that bores you into a coma. How do I hate this film? Let me count the ways:1.) The title. This is a prequel to "The Amityville Horror", telling the story of the events leading up to that movie. There's a "II" in the title leading you to believe that the events in this movie actually take place after the first picture. How difficult would it have been to simply call the picture "Amityville: The Possession"? 2.) The timing. The original film took place in 1979, and the events that led to that movie took place in 1974. This film takes place in 1982. Since this film supposedly takes place before the original, why does everything look and sound like it came from the early 80s? When exactly does this film take place?3.) The house. Okay, it's impressive, with those half-moon windows, yet as I've worked my way through this torpid series, I can't help but admit that the windows on that house make for a better poster than a movie. Let's face it, there is only so much that you can do with creepy windows. The house, once you get inside, is pretty substandard for a haunted house movie. It rattles and clangs and bangs with rotating furniture, rattling cabinets and slamming windows (which is odd because it is established that the windows are nailed shut). To say nothing of the fact that – spoiler alert – the house blows up at the end of the movie. So what house did the characters in the original film move into? Did someone build an exact duplicate of the same house?4.) The characters. They're a family, and not a happy one. The Montelli's problems seem to begin and end with dad's bullying temper. Dad (Burt Young) smacks the kids around when he's not smacking the wife around. The family is made up of mostly generic family types. There's the put-upon wife (Rutanya Alda), the drink-your-milk white-bred daughter (Diane Franklin), the young boy and girl (Brent and Erika Katz) whose entire dialogue is made up of the two of them saying the same thing at the same time. And of course, there's the teenage son, who we know will succumb to "The Possession." Here's the issue: the family's drama involving dad's abuse is much more frightening than anything else in the movie. Take out the special effects and it might have actually been a better movie.5.) The facts. If you saw the original film, it opened with the murders, an unseen person with a shotgun walking around the house from room to room murdering his family in their beds. Supposedly, the same murders take place midway through this film, they don't match up. Is this a different family? Okay, here I have to give the film the benefit of the doubt, the original film was attempting to tell the story of the Amityville house, but this one fudges on the facts. The family from the original murders was named DeFeo. This family is called Montelli. So, do the events here match up to the original or not? They seem to indicate so.6.) The plagiarism. More time is spent during this movie considering the movie that this movie rips off. Let's see, we've got "The Exorcist", "Poltergeist", "The House on Haunted Hill", "The Haunting", even the rip-offs of these movies are better than this one.7.) The result. The movie stinks. It's isn't scary, nor is it of the slightest bit of interest. It's frustrating, and worst of all boring. The pacing is too slow, the story is monotonous and repetitive. The end result is that there are probably a dozen documentaries out there about the DeFeo tragedy, and the subsequent events that let to "The Amityville Horror." Truth is stranger than fiction, they say, and so that story is more interesting than this one.* (of four)

utgard14 The Montelli family moves into the Amityville house and before they can shut the door strange things start going down. Messages mysteriously appear on the walls of the children's bedrooms. Unknown forces bang on doors. The oldest son Sonny (Jack Magner) becomes possessed by some kind of entity. It drives Sonny to do evil things, including seducing his younger sister (Diane Franklin). As this is a prequel to the first movie and the first movie told you what happened at the house before the Lutzes moved in, you can see where this is headed.If you know anything about the story behind the Amityville Horror, you know that the Montellis are stand-ins for the DeFeo family, which was murdered by son Ronald. As I said this is a prequel to Amityville Horror, not a sequel. It's also terrible. It was considered terrible from the time of its release. However, as tends to happen, in recent years a cult of fans has built up around it and claim it to be the best of the Amityville series. I wish I could see what they see, as what I see is a bad movie that deserves to be considered such. The most infamous scene from the film is undoubtedly the scene where Sonny seduces his sister, played like a deer caught in headlights by Diane Franklin. Franklin's performance throughout the entire film is very weak. It's a taboo scene, to be sure, but handled awkwardly by the actors and directed ineptly by Damiano Damiani.If the film has one strength, it's that it's never dull. Lots of stuff happens and it picks up speed until you're bombarded with one scene after another meant to shock or frighten, but only result in intended laughter. Gotta like Burt Young (Paulie from Rocky) as the abusive dad though. No one could threaten to beat a woman or child and mean it quite like him.