Amityville: The Evil Escapes (1989)

DIRECTED BY

Sandor Stern

STARRING

Patty Duke - Nancy Evans

Jane Wyatt - Alice Leacock

Fredric Lehne - Father Kibbler

Norman Lloyd - Father Manfred

Peggy McCay - Helen Royce

Brandy Gold - Jessica Evans

Zoe Trilling - Amanda Evans

Aron Eisenberg - Brian Evans

Genre - Horror/Supernatural

Running Time - 95 Minutes

PLOT

The demonic force lurking in Amityville for over 300 years escapes to a remote California mansion. It encounters a struggling family living together by uncertain means. The beast manipulates a little girl (Zoe Trilling) by manifesting itself in the form of her dead father. Soon it will be able to possess her completely… is it too late for a young priest (Fredric Lehne) to defeat the demon and end the curse?

REVIEW

It’s been a while since I’ve reviewed a film from THE AMITYVILLE HORROR franchise, probably because there’s like 20 of these movies in the series and I’ve only been a fan of the two [of the four] that I’ve watched. I’ve always made it clear that I find the 1979 original to be a dull piece of horror, preferring the 2005 remake over it because it does more with the story. 1982’s AMITYVILLE II: THE POSSESSION is probably the best of the films I’ve watched [and it seems to be the best of all of them, if you believe the consensus], while 1983’s AMITYVILLE 3-D was just a bad flick that existed only for 3-D effects that weren’t great to begin with. So I put the franchise out of sight and out of mind for a while.

Then out of the blue, I stumbled onto Amazon Prime and noticed a bunch of the AMITYVILLE films were free to watch. I read the description for 1989’s AMITYVILLE: THE EVIL ESCAPES [which I’ll call AMITYVILLE 4 for the rest of the review] and I found myself intrigued. Former TV star Patty Duke in a horror film? A lamp that possesses and kills people? A story that doesn’t take place inside the Amityville House? I figured I could at least give another film in this franchise a chance to see why so many of these damn films were made.

So after 90 minutes, I’m still wondering why over 20 of these films have been made, with more probably coming. But while AMITYVILLE 4 isn’t a good movie in the slightest, at least it had me laughing unintentionally - which is more than I could say for the first and third films. I couldn’t help but be entertained by this dumb movie.

AMITYVILLE 4 is a film that was made for television, since the previous installments, besides the first one, didn’t really make that much of a dent at the box office. It’s also apparently the first film in the series that focuses more on an object that was inside of the infamous house instead of the house itself. That makes sense, considering that having families dealing with a possessed house was probably getting old fast. It also helps the television limitations in terms of budget as the scares only need to focus on a single object than a huge house. And despite the high definition of the transfer I watched [the film does look better than it probably ought to], you can definitely tell it was made for TV with its less than stylish direction, cheap special effects and melodramatic acting that won’t wow anyone. It’s not entirely a bad thing, since I personally find charm in things like this. But it’s definitely a step down from the previous installments, as the budget allows more drama but not enough horror to match the earlier films.

AMITYVILLE 4’s issue really stems from the script. It’s honestly just a retread of earlier supernatural movies dealing with demons and possession. A vulnerable child, who is grieving her father’s passing, succumbs to this evil, demonic lamp and becomes possessed by it. The demon possessing the lamp also makes her believe that her father is speaking through the lamp, building her attachment and addiction to it. That’s a perfectly fine setup, but it never goes beyond that. There’s no character study or anything psychologically thrilling about it that’s all that memorable. It doesn’t help that the other characters are oblivious to it, or even oblivious to things that just happened seconds prior before just forgetting they happened and never bringing them back up again. The characters are also pretty forgettable themselves, or just plain unlikable. I honestly couldn’t feel for any one in this film besides Father Kibbler [the only one with a real story arc], which made all the weird stuff happening around these people the more entertaining and laughable. 

The film also didn’t have the guts to hurt any of the main cast really, relying on bringing in random people [plumbers, electricians, etc.] to build the film’s body count. These characters die or get hurt in silly ways - like getting a hand mutilated by a possessed garbage disposal or a pipe bursting in cartoonish effect to leak this black goo that drowns a trapped plumber. The only character of note that bites the dust is the housekeeper, who almost gets murdered by a possessed chainsaw handled by the family’s son, but unfortunately meets her fate by being strangled by the possessed lamp’s plug wire in the attic.

Speaking of this lamp, am I [or anyone else] supposed to be afraid of this thing? It’s an ugly lamp that belongs on the set of 1985’s RETURN TO OZ. When the demon shows his face on the lamp’s huge bulb, it’s more hilarious than frightening. And this lamp can do a whole lot without being plugged in - like hiding telegrams for the rest of the film, making electronically equipment and utilities go crazy, and even telepathically driving an empty car away from the property for some unexplained reason. It also kills people with tetanus, which is a rare way to murder someone in a horror film I guess. At least with a haunted house, you can have the walls bleed and flies appear on windows and stuff. When it shouts “Get out!” at you, being trapped inside is the last thing you want. A lamp is a lesser evil, even if it can do similar things since it came from the possessed house to begin [which wasn’t destroyed, negating the events of AMITYVILLE 3-D]. I feel like this type of story would have lended itself better to an hour-long television series, like a Friday the 13th: The Series or Tales From the Darkside. The story would have moved faster and gotten to the point quicker. Even the film’s conclusion is kind of lame, as things get resolved way too quickly considering everything that happened before the final act. Ninety minutes doesn’t do a whole lot for me, since a lot of it is just uninteresting family drama and filler.

The direction by Sandor Stern, who was a writer on the original 1979 film, is passable. Stern doesn’t provide a ton of style in terms of visuals. AMITYVILLE 4 looks like a TV movie. It feels like a TV movie. You can tell where ad breaks were probably edited in during its presentation on NBC at the time. The only thing flashy about the film are the cheap effects when it comes to the lamp and its powers. You get the standard blood on the walls and floor, flies buzzing around, and usual demonic activity presented in the first film - but on a cheaper budget. From what I read, Stern didn’t shoot the gorier scenes in the home video release, as NBC wouldn’t allow that stuff at the time. It’s funny because those moments actually help AMITYVILLE 4 be more entertaining than it has any right to. So thanks for the secret NBC Studios director who added those scenes in! It was appreciated. But there’s nothing terrible about Stern’s direction, but it’s not spectacular either. It’s exactly what you would expect.

The acting isn’t spectacular either. Patty Duke is an odd choice to star in an AMITYVILLE film. She’s in a horror film but she’s acting as if she’s in a dramatic Lifetime movie. Jane Wyatt seems to be having a bit more fun as a snooty grandmother who plays it passive aggressively against her on-screen daughter Duke. Brandy Gold just screams, sulks and tries to act evil as youngest daughter Jessica. Zoe Trilling and Aron Eisenberg don’t get to do a whole lot but play confused and concerned children. Fredric Lehne is the only one who gets the real good dialogue and handles it better than he should, considering the ridiculous things he has to say. It’s not the worst cast and they all have memorable things in the film worth a laugh or two during the movie’s runtime. A better script would have brought out more, but I’m not expecting that from an AMITYVILLE sequel. 

THE FINAL HOWL

AMITYVILLE: THE EVIL ESCAPES is the first sequel in the series to go straight to television and it shows. The film doesn’t hide it budgetary limitations, looking and feeling like a TV movie with cheap special effects that are more funny than scary. The story is nothing original, pretty much rehashing elements of the previous installments with the only difference is that a lamp is possessing people and causing havoc rather than a haunted house. Sandor Stern, a writer for the original THE AMITYVILLE HORROR, does a passable job visualizing and directing the narrative within a made-for-TV format, while the actors [led by Patty Duke and Jane Wyman] do the best they can with the material they’re given. To be honest, this story would have lent itself better to a television anthology format - like a Friday the 13th: The Series, Tales From the Darkside or something like that. All in all, it’s not a good film but it had unintentionally funny moments that entertained me more than I thought it would. Definitely more fun to watch than AMITYVILLE 3-D, but nowhere the level of AMITYVILLE II: THE POSSESSION. I’ll continue through this series to see if there are any surprise gems within, or to be possessed by masochism if they just go downhill from here.

SCORE

2 Howls Outta 4

The WTF? Worst Films Extravaganza Presents: Amityville 3-D (1983)

DIRECTED BY
Richard Fleischer

STARRING
Tony Roberts - John Baxter
Tess Harper - Nancy Baxter
Lori Loughlin - Susan Baxter
Robert Joy - Eliot West
Candy Clark - Melanie
Meg Ryan - Lisa
Neill Barry - Jeff

Genre - Horror/Supernatural/Ghosts/Haunted House

Running Time - 105 Minutes


PLOT
A journalist named John Baxter (Tony Roberts) and his partner Melanie (Candy Clark) expose shenanigans after they learn some old couple are doing fake seances inside the infamous Amityville house to make a quick buck. Thinking that the stories about the house are just fabrics of someone's imagination, John decides to buy the house while he separates from his wife (Tess Harper). But soon people start dying around him - including the real estate agent who sold the house. Melanie believes something is wrong with the house, but John is in denial and doesn't believe anything is wrong. But as soon as his family, especially his daughter (Lori Loughlin), is threatened, John involves a paranormal expert (Robert Joy) to stop the evil of the Amityville house.

REVIEW

I've made it pretty clear that the 1979 version of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR is pretty overrated and not as great as many horror historians have claimed. Yes, I get why it was popular, but the film adaptation doesn't do much for me other than being an average haunted house flick. Honestly, I prefer the 2005 remake, which I find more entertaining. But 1981's AMITYVILLE II: THE POSSESSION is the franchise's highlight, taking aspects from THE EXORCIST and using them in fun ways. Unfortunately, AMITYVILLE 3D just takes the series downhill quickly, with cheap visual gags, annoying characters, and a weak story. While I'm sure the series does get worse than this installment - at least from what I've heard - AMITYVILLE 3D was made to capitalize on a then-fading fad while boring the audience at the same time.

The screenplay is pretty much what ruins AMITYVILLE 3D, at least for me. While I'm not the biggest fan of the first film, at least the story somewhat interests me and the drama between the characters is worth investing in. Same goes with the second film. But this installment is just lazy in terms of its storytelling. For one, there's no sense of continuity with the other films. Why is there a well in the basement all of a sudden? Why is it holding some sort of demon that has never been mentioned before? I mean, the idea to have a visual evil presented is a good one - IF ANYTHING WAS DONE WITH IT! Hell, the film has bigger villains in the form of flies that seem to harm anyone they come across. But we get astral projection at one point for a dead character, and these flies actually leaving the house to attack someone at their workplace inside of an elevator - what are the rules again? If things were more explained, rather than the filmmakers just being focused on the visual gags, maybe I'd like this sequel more.

I also gotta say that the characters are either uninteresting, or just plain annoying. The John Baxter character, in particular, deserved to be sucked down that well in the basement from the first frame. I get that characters have to be somewhat skeptical about the supernatural occurrences around them to up the tension and suspense along the narrative. But this dude was dense as hell! People are dying around the guy and not once does he believe what his friends and family are telling him - THAT THE HOUSE IS EVIL! How many people have to croak before the dude gets it? It's only when a certain member gets killed that he finally realizes his home is haunted! Well no shit.

The other characters aren't much better. John is going through a divorce, or a conscious uncoupling, with his wife Nancy. She's kind of a clingy nag who becomes a bit mental by the final act. Daughter Susan is extremely cute, but there's not much to her besides that. Melanie is better than John and actually sees things for what they are, but more could have been done with her character. Susan's best friend, Lisa, is the only character I genuinely liked. Why? Even though she had the expository dialogue about the house's history, at least she had a personality. Although I did find it really dumb that she, Susan, and two guy friends decided to do a seance inside of a haunted house. Because, you know, that just makes the evil weaker and stuff...

Dumbasses.

It also doesn't help that the story is pretty much nonexistent for the most part. The narrative is pretty much glued together by the 3-D gags and special effects that are shot while trying to do a teenage version of the original story. What makes things worse is that the evil isn't just inside the house, but can travel outside of the house to do bad things. For example, a bunch of flies attacks a character inside a work elevator, while controlling the elevator to make it crash with the character inside. There's also a car that's miles away from the house, whose doors just happen to lock on their own before bursting into flames. And then a character drowns in a lake outside of the house off camera. So now the house can't possess people, yet it can travel out of its source to attack people anywhere?? Maybe the filmmakers felt that this would bring some freshness to the AMITYVILLE franchise. But it just goes against its own logic - logic that was set up for two straight films without much of a problem. It's a haunted house movie that wants to be a slasher flick to bring in a younger audience. It doesn't work.

The 3D effects could have saved the film by using the visuals as a distraction to the weak story. I mean, those opening credits - where the words fly towards the screen - could have been cool in three dimensions. Watching flies travel towards the screen, as well as hands, a flashlight, a skeleton, stream, a Frisbee, a demon popping out of a well, and people being thrown towards the screen could have been a lot of fun wearing 3-D glasses. But unfortunately, I watched this in 2-D. Sure, some of these effects made me laugh a bit. But they look a bit hokey and distracting without that added effect. Still, I can tell the producers were trying to make it work. I'm sure if I were wearing special glasses, I would be having a blast with these dumb visuals. So I can't hate the film for that.

What I can hate the film for is that fake looking demon that comes out of the well. GREAT special effects, guys!  The Ghoulies looked more realistic than this thing. I doubt this "demon" scared anyone back in 1983. I probably would have died laughing. Maybe that's the demon's power - death by laughter. In that case, he's doing his job right.

The direction by Richard Fleischer, best known for directing 1954's 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA, 1973's SOYLENT GREEN, 1984's CONAN THE DESTROYER, and 1985's RED SONJA, is okay at best. I can't judge his work on the 3-D stuff, but I'm sure Fleischer used them to the best of his ability. But honestly, Fleischer's direction is pretty much TV-movie level. There are attempts at tension and creating this bleak atmosphere at times. But Fleischer had to deal with a terrible script that no one was going to be able to salvage. So it was going to be a lost cause either way. But the film isn't an eye sore, so there's that.

The acting was a mixed bag as well. Tony Roberts had a terrible character, but he made it work as John Baxter. I was more distracted by whether he looked more like Will Ferrell or Ron Perlman, rather than his acting. Tess Harper didn't do much for me as Nancy, although I found her traumatized act in the final act of the film pretty funny. Lori "Aunt Becky" Loughlin was good in her role as the cute daughter, Susan. She was pretty endearing and charming. Robert Joy didn't get much to do, but he was pretty good anyway. Candy Clark seemed to be trying too hard at times as Melanie, but I thought her exit was memorable. And Meg Ryan, before all the botox and plastic surgery, is pretty much the best actor as Lisa. I really dug her spunk and she seemed to be having a blast making this film. I'm not surprised she eventually became an A-lister soon after.


THE FINAL HOWL
AMITYVILLE 3-D is probably not the worst AMITYVILLE installment, but it's still pretty bad due to it being kind of a bore to watch. The film isn't scary and the special effects are unintentionally funny. The story is bare bones, hoping the dull visuals would compensate for that. And the acting is a mixed bag for many reasons. I'm sure some will get a kick out of AMITYVILLE 3-D, but it didn't do much for me. This film deserves a "For Sale" sign, in my opinion.

SCORE

1 Howl Outta 4

[SEQUEL SEPTEMBER II] Amityville II: The Possession (1982)

DIRECTED BY
Damiano Damiani

STARRING
James Olson - Father Tom Adamski
Jack Magner - Sonny Montelli
Burt Young - Anthony Montelli
Rutanya Alda - Delores Montelli
Diane Franklin - Patricia Montelli
Moses Gunn - Detective Turner

Genre - Horror/Supernatural/Ghosts/Haunted House

Running Time - 100 Minutes


I think I've made it pretty clear on this blog that I'm not a fan of the successful and overrated 1979 film, THE AMITYVILLE HORROR. I don't get how this supposed true story about a haunted house that drove people crazy enough to murder their own members of their family has become so darn popular, that it spawned multiple sequels, books, and even a recent documentary. While I'm sure the story itself and the novel that grew from it frightened people at the time, I just roll my eyes at the whole "franchise" now - especially when many have proven the story was pretty much made up for publicity.

Out of eight original films and a 2005 remake, I've only really been a fan of two of them [although I'm sure I'll enjoy some of the other films after a re-watch, as I remember some of them being sort of guilty pleasures at times]. One, being the Ryan Reynolds remake that I actually enjoyed more than the James Brolin/Margot Kidder original that bores me to no end. And the second one happens to be the film I'm reviewing here - AMITYVILLE II: THE POSSESSION. Whether or not it's really a prequel or a sequel [I'll get into that issue later] to the first film, it doesn't really matter. What does matter is that AMITYVILLE II takes what the first film had set up and really kicks it in the ass. It's rare for horror sequels to be better than the first movie. But AMITYVILLE II happens to be one of those exceptions. Screw the Lutz family! Give me some of that Montelli drama any day of the week!

PLOT
Supposedly taking place before the events of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR, we witness the story of the previous family that had lived in the house - the Montelli's. Right from the start, things don't look all that great - especially when the patriarch, Anthony (Burt Young), is nothing but a Debbie Downer who takes out his anger physically and verbally on his wife (Rutanya Alda) and his children. It's his eldest son, Sonny (Jack Magner), who feels the blunt of it, causing tension within the family. The kid may be smiling on the outside, but he's miserable emotionally and mentally due to his abusive father.

As the family moves into the house, the demonic spirits that live inside begin to prey on every weakness the family has. Things move around by themselves. The spirits draw on walls, calling the family "pigs". The spirits sexually touch the mother, who has been feeling sexually deprived for a long time. The eldest sister, Patricia (Diane Franklin), starts feeling seduced by their presence. And Sonny begins hearing demonic voices telling him to kill through his Walkman.

Slowly but surely, the house begins to possess Sonny, as he's the angriest of the entire family. Now under the influence of evil, Sonny wastes no time molesting his sister, confusing her sexually. He also gets more violent with his father, who the demons want dead. Delores [the mom] and Patricia begin seeking the guidance of a local priest, Father Adamsky (James Olson), to bless and cleanse the house. However, his holy presence just makes things worse - eventually making him realize that Sonny is a vessel for the house's evil. Can Adamsky exorcise the spirit out of Sonny in time, or is the entire Montelli family doomed?

REVIEW
THE AMITYVILLE HORROR is a slow paced, subtle thriller that wants to be scary. However, it ends up feeling dry - presenting a boring tale that's less about George Lutz being possessed by evil and more about the Church's feelings on the matter [which was presented in a pretty bad light]. AMITYVILLE II: THE POSSESSION doesn't waste time on those sort of things. It just wants to creep you out through striking visuals, gross special effects, and a fast paced narrative that will keep you entertained for 100 minutes. In that sense, this sequel is a winner and a much needed improvement over the 1979 overrated "classic".

The first two films in the franchise are really presented differently due to each being a product of its time. The first film, which was capitalizing on the demonic craze that took over pop culture and the news during the 1970s [THE EXORCIST, THE OMEN, etc.], wanted to create a haunted house story in which the evil was everywhere and couldn't be stopped by any force of good. This sequel is an obvious product of the early 1980s. The special effects are more elaborate and gross. The presence of evil is more subjective and concentrated on one single individual [Sonny], giving it strength to prey on the other members of Sonny's family.

We don't see the evil really in the first film. Sure, George Lutz is possessed and treats his family like a grade A jerk. But you never really feel a true threat to the Lutz family. They were also allowed to escape the house, which seemed to destroy any evil influence on them. In this film, the evil is more powerful, angrier, and truly a threat not only to the Montelli family, but anyone preaching the word of God. The fact that when the night Sonny must murder the rest of his family, the house shuts itself so no one can get in and get out, make AMITYVILLE II must creepier and bleaker than its predecessor. I think it also helps that this film is loosely based on the Ronald DeFeo Jr. story, in which DeFeo murdered his entire family in 1974 - claiming he had been possessed by an evil spirit from within the house that made him do the deed [although there hasn't been any proof]. But really, AMITYVILLE II just feels like a better haunted house/possession film than the original THE AMITYVILLE HORROR. It's not just because we really see the effects of the situation, but because more is done with the situation that makes us invested in it more. The sequel doesn't take itself as seriously, making it a bit more horrific, yet fun, as well.

I think Tommy Lee Wallace, who had written the screenplay, was also influenced by other films that were very popular at the time. The possession element is obviously a take from 1973's THE EXORCIST. In fact, the last minutes of the film are pretty much the greatest hits of that very film, where the priest going against The Church to exorcise the spirit out of Sonny, who pretty much talks dirty at him and reveals the priest's sinful thoughts about Sonny's younger sister, Patricia [Father Adamsky wanted to deflower her, but Sonny got there first]. There's even the obligatory scene where Father Adamsky wants to the spirit to enter his body to save Sonny. While it's inferior to THE EXORCIST on every level, at least it works within the context of the story and leaves the film on a downbeat note.

Wallace also turns AMITYVILLE II into a slasher film of sorts at times. While not a traditional one like HALLOWEEN or FRIDAY THE 13TH, you can clearly see some of the tropes being used. We get the first person point of view by the villain. We see members of the family being stalked and bothered by the evil presence. And we get the chilling scene of Sonny going after each member of his family with a shotgun, killing them one by one to satisfy the demonic force. It's not really a surprise since Wallace was part of the creation for the 1978 HALLOWEEN that he would present some of the story in such a way.

There's also a subplot similar to POLTERGEIST, which was released a few months before AMITYVILLE II. I'm sure POLTERGEIST wasn't an influence for the house being built on top of a burial ground of sorts. But it's interesting that both films had a similar reason for the demonic spirits around the same time.

I also gotta admire Wallace for taking things to the lengths that he does within the narrative. The main character actually murders his family in the middle act, which one would believe could be a character's thoughts or dream. In fact, Father Adamsky [who was actually seeing this violence in his sleep] wakes up startled in the next scene and decides to go to the house to check up on things. Then we learn that the events we witnessed really did happen, leading to the entire third act of the film. I think the fact that the murders weren't fabricated makes their timing more shocking and effective. I liked that it wasn't placed at the end, which would have been very predictable.

I also feel the sexual content must have really made some people uncomfortable back in 1982. The evil spirit sexually caresses the matriarch, Delores, who hasn't been with her husband that way in many years. And then the spirit, now possessing Sonny, seduces his sister Patricia into getting naked and eventually having sex with her. Incest is always a touchy subject, but it's a subject that's usually implied or teased, rather than actually accomplished. But the incest really raises the drama for Patricia and Delores. Patricia, who feels it was wrong to sleep with Sonny, still feels attracted to him in some way. And Delores, noticing how Sonny would caress Patricia, is not only repulsed by the sin, but almost seems jealous that her daughter is getting some action while she's in a dry spell. Add in the fact that Father Adamsky is revealed to also have lustful feelings for Patricia, an underage girl, and you got yourself a twisted soap opera that I was entertained by.

There's also some other subject matter, like Anthony Montelli being a real bastard to his family. The guy wasn't even possessed, and he was ready to whip his children with a belt because of the mess the house made in their presence. Hell, he even treated Father Adamsky like crap. I get that he was an atheist, but some respect would have been nice. Who would want Sonny to spare this asshole? It's no wonder he was the first person to go. I also found the scene where the younger sister covers her brother's head with a plastic bag as a joke. It was a bit morbid, especially since something like that can kill someone. I'm guessing Wallace put this in the story for shock value. Well it worked.

Do I have any issues with the story? Oh, absolutely. While I think Wallace was cool in using other films as an influence on the screenplay, it does come across as a bit derivative of better films. I have nothing against unoriginality [who can be original these days?], but I felt that the inspirations were a bit too on-the-nose. THE EXORCIST moment played out exactly like THE EXORCIST. Did the house really need to be built on a burial ground like POLTERGEIST? And what was up with the transformation that almost resembled something out of AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON? In fact, much of the ending tended to rely on the presence of other films in order to finish the story. Honestly, much of the final act [which I didn't hate] had a much different tone and feel to the hour that came before it. It was like watching two different films that really didn't go together. Was it a complete failure? Not at all. But some of it felt forced just to capitalize on the horror trends that were still popular at the time.

I also didn't have much sympathy for the characters, which probably made the film more entertaining on a superficial level for me. The parents weren't that likeable. Anthony was an abusive prick, while Delores was too passive about the situation that made her hard to root for. The children weren't developed all that much. Sonny was only interesting once the demon possessed him. Patricia was just a tool to have someone pure being corrupted by the evil around here. Even Father Adamsky was revealed to be a pervert by the end, even though he was a good match for Sonny. I guess we weren't supposed to care about any of these people since they were nothing but lambs to the slaughter anyway. Still, I found the Lutz family more likeable, even if they were as dull as watching paint dry.

By the way, when does this film even take place? It's supposedly a prequel to THE AMITYVILLE HORROR, which is obviously taking place in the 1970s. But we see 80s cars, 80s fashion, and even a Walkman that throw away any sort of time continuity between the first two films. There's still a debate whether this film is really a sequel and not a prequel, although the events in this film reveal what happened inside of the house before the Lutz family had moved in. Call it a big goof, I guess.

The special effects in AMITYVILLE II are definitely a step-above anything presented in the first film. While a brutal film, the film isn't particularly gory until the end. Obviously influenced by Rick Baker's and Rob Bottin's works on AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON and THE HOWLING respectively, While the work of Glen Robinson, John Caglione, Stephen DuPuis, and Ed French don't come close to the imagination of Baker and Bottin, the visual spectacle of watching Sonny being possessed is quite interesting. Mainly, the special effects are just skin bubbling underneath the surface on the hands, neck, and even face. The biggest effect happens at the end, where Sonny's face begins to erode into a demonic form that was hiding underneath the shell. Not sure if it was actually needed, but I can definitely admire the hard work that went into it. Other than that, it's not really a violent film. Even the scene where Sonny shoots down his family is more implied than anything, with blood splatter here and there.

The direction by Damiano Damiani, in his first and only English speaking movie, is pretty damn good. With editor Sam O'Steen on his side [he edited ROSEMARY'S BABY], AMITYVILLE II: THE POSSESSION flows better than expected. The picture looked good. The shot scales, composition, and framing were on the mark. The pacing is well done, as the film breezes by. And there's a ton of style visually, with Damiani's love for first person point-of-view shots and 360 degree overheads. It's a visually engaging film that feels more kinetic than the first one.

The acting is good in AMITYVILLE II as well. Burt Young, of ROCKY fame, is fun to watch as the abusive father, Anthony. He's pretty much Uncle Paulie, but with more Ike Turner in him. James Olson is a very good actor as Father Adamsky. He had some ridiculous dialogue at times, but he made it work for his character. Jake Magner carried the film very well as Sonny. I really like the conflict Magner displayed, although he was more fun to watch as a possessed shell for a demon. Diane Franklin is really cute, and quite convincing as the innocent Patricia. And Rutanya Alda is a bit melodramatic for my tastes as Delores. But she wasn't in the film all that much to be annoying, so I'll let it slide.


THE FINAL HOWL
I honestly consider AMITYVILLE II: THE POSSESSION the best installment of a pretty uneven franchise in terms of quality. It does have continuity, tone, and even some character issues. But it's a more entertainingly twisted version of the first film, now with influences from THE EXORCIST, AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, and even a bit of POLTERGEIST towards the end. The possession angle is played with well, the direction is very strong and stylish, and the actors really elevate what could have been a piece of pure schlock. It's a sequel that may turn people off due to issues of abuse and incest that play a big role in the narrative. But along with the 2005 THE AMITYVILLE HORROR remake, AMITYVILLE II is probably the only time I don't regret spending time in this stupid haunted house. Compared to the first film, this sequel is the Extreme Makeover: Home Edition the franchise really needed at the time.



SCORE

3 Howls Outta 4