Amityville II: The Possession (1982)

You know, when this prequel starts to fall apart in the last half hour, it’s just a damn shame because until then, it’s surprisingly solid and superior to its popular predecessor. Focusing on the true-life massacre of the DeFeo family at the hands of 23-year-old son Ronald Jr., the movie adapts the events and Defeo’s insanity plea (specifically, his claim that voices told him to carry out the killings) into a cohesive whole. The dynamics among the Montelli family (standing in for the Defeos) are extraordinarily well-established, largely thanks to Tommy Lee Wallace’s remarkably bold screenplay: There’s a bit of everything here, from an abusive, domineering father to an incestuous relationship between siblings, so when the family arrives in the Amityville house with all that psychic baggage, they stir the spirits within. It’s so audacious for a haunted-house flick to just “go there” with difficult subject matter, so kudos to director Damiano Diamiani (what an awesome, rock-star name, eh?) for not shying away from discomforting themes and saying a lot about the corrosive ecosystems created in family units with brutish paternal figures and maternal disempowerment. Diamiani also does a great job with practical effects, sidestepping the rather ludicrous special effects that took away from the original movie’s effect, in particular a nicely done shot involving a mirror (you can’t miss it, it’s up there with the hallway shot in “Beyond the Door II”). Then there’s the terrific, rather overqualified acting, best exemplified by Burt Young and Rutanya Alda as the parents: Both performers are at ease with their mutually unflattering roles, and they tear into them as though this is high drama instead of a shlocky horror prequel, so good on them. But the movie belongs to Jack Magner as Ronald substitute Sonny, whose simmering resentment against his father believably grows into overpowering rage, tackling the role with complete authenticity and believability. Unfortunately, the whole movie falls apart once the family has been dispatched because the plot becomes a plodding, slow-paced rip-off of “The Exorcist” out of nowhere, and the final 30 minutes bring the momentum to a screeching halt. It’s a shame because if Diamiani could have contained the last bit, this would have been a bit of a masterpiece; as it is, it’s a flawed, nasty little number that’s definitely worth watching even if it ends up limping to the finish line in the end.

Rating: ★★★ (out of 5)


  1. I’ve watched this movie more times than I’m willing to admit. The thing with the sister is pretty nasty. But it’s genuinely disturbing and scary. It has a good cast too. BTW, I’m curious to read your reaction to # 3 — despite its annoying 3-D effects, it’s my favorite movie in the franchise.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hmmm 3, I wasn’t gonna cover any of the other sequels but I just saw that youtube has a good copy, maybe I will! I haven’t seen it since I was a kid but I do remember thinking it was weirdly sad, yes? I remember there was a melancholia that I wasn’t quite sure what to do with as a child. But you say it holds up, eh?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. While it doesn’t have any of the characters from the 1979 movie, # 3 is a sequel in every sense of the word. It has a strong cast (love Tess Harper) and a good director, and I think the movie continues the story in a way that makes sense. I like it. But you are right, it is a bit sad — it dares to kill off one of the main characters. That said, most people don’t like it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s