IMDb > House II: The Second Story (1987) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
House II: The Second Story
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
House II: The Second Story More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 6 of 8: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]
Index 75 reviews in total 

7 out of 15 people found the following review useful:


Author: dem0nic from UK
12 July 2004

I have no idea why this movie has a higher rating then House 3 (a.k.a The Horror Show) which is actually quite good. .

House 2 is on the other hand is quite possibly one on the worst horror sequels you will ever see, if you don't believe me then try watching it..


IMO the original House and House 3 are the only good movies in the entire series.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Condemn this house!

Author: divittokelly from United States
11 October 2012

Wow! This film was so incredibly awful, my two children are still mad at me for showing it. My wife was the smart one; she left after ten minutes to read a book. It's stunning how anyone could give this piece of cinematic basura a respectable review. I do a weekly film program at my library and showed the original House (one of my favorites!) and people loved it. I'll never understand why filmmakers try to make sequels convoluted and over-the-top. The first House had the right mixture of horror and comedy. William Katt was perfect in his role and Richard Moll a great villain. The 'Gramps' character was just plain stupid and the two main actors were Wonderbread bland. No one saw this disaster coming? In a nutshell: bad story + bad acting = bad movie!

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

maybe, just maybe a toddler would be frightened

Author: trashgang from Midian
16 April 2012

I didn't like the original House but naturally I had to see the franchise but what a mistake this was. Thousands and thousands of flicks I have seen since the end of the seventies all horror and sci-fi but this here is just one utterly boring flick that I even used the fast forward button, a thing I normally never do. House was one for teenagers but this here is for toddlers. Ethan Wiley, also involved in House (screenplay) did wrote and directed this dull flick.

The directing was okay and so many genre actors were involved coming from Fright Night ((1985) Jonathan Stark), to Lar Park-Lincoln (Friday the 13th part VII (1988)) to Royal Dano (Something Wicked This Way Comes (1983)) but I just can't understand that they agreed to this childish flick. The creatures or animals looked really stupid and I didn't like them, for a horror. And the use of blue key (skeleton horse) and stop/motion (dinosaurs) really was outdated for 1987.

The best part is only the last 15 minutes, at that part are a few nice effects. But overall it's just a family film in the tradition of Harry and the Hendersons (1987).

Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 1/5 Comedy 0/5

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Ding, dong, you're dead... from clichés and stupid jokes

Author: questclub from Riga, Latvia
16 November 2004

You haven't yet watched the first "House"? Then forget about this crap and get yourself the first episode!

So for those, who watched the first part, let's say, this is a different (extremely lousy) approach to the same thing. Ethan Wiley, the one who wrote the script for the first movie, attempts to create the same mix of comedy and cheap rubber horror. As a result, we receive:

- clichés, clichés, clichés. They are hiding everywhere, even in small details. And you'd never shake off the feeling, that you've already seen all of this.

- undeveloped stories. They are created in the beginning (like in those American sitcoms) and then left to die in oblivion.

- absence of horror. If you are in a really good mood, you can have a laugh or two, but this would never scare you.

- Hill-Billy ending.

The movie is about... something. People are moving into a house, then their friends moving into a house and then we add a cowboy, stone-age creatures, Halloween party, dumb guys, a superhero and receive House: The Second Story.

That's it. If you want to waste your time, then go for it, and don't forget to take an extra movie, as an emergency.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

What the bloody hell happened here then?!

Author: fibreoptic from England
20 August 2004

Unlike the excellent 'House' this sequel doesn't rely on horror or even good comedy, it relies on adventure! Yes this House is like Indiana Jones meets Edd The Duck meets some time travel movie or something like that. It's an adventure comedy with very brief and slight instances of mild horror. This is more like a family movie. The zombie cowboy was the only thing scary in this one. It is entertaining but i wanted to watch a horror movie, not a 2nd rate Indiana Jones rip-off! You can so tell that the story writer is different in this one.

It's all about this guy called Jesse and his mates who inherit a house which is more like a time machine than haunted. There's this crystal skull that supposedly gives immortal life to the one who possesses it or something and zombies and dinosaurs and cavemen are after it. Totally bloody stupid if you ask me. Jesse's great great grandfather also adds stupidity to this as a nice senile old zombie. Awww bless.

It does have its moments but not many. The first 'House' had horror and laughs but this one didn't. Started off well though. If you want a fun family action adventure with time travel and stuff then House 2 is for you. Oh yeah, see if you can spot Kane Hodder's little part in this in the days before he became Jason. 5/10

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:


Author: Son_of_Mansfield from Mansfield, Pennsylvania.
11 July 2003

Ethan Wiley, the script writer of both House 1 and 2, almost had something good going. He took the same basic plot of House and added strange, supposedly humorous things. The result is an annoyingly odd movie where events simply take place. Not only do these events not make sense, but they are not fun like the first movie. The cast is interesting, as it usually is with this type of movie. Johnathon Stark is a little amusing, Arye Gross(The Experts, Minority Report) is no cowboy, and Royal Dano(Killer Klowns From Outer Space, The Outlaw Josey Wales, The Trouble with Harry) adds nostalgia. Amy Yasbeck(Casey from "Wings"), Bill Maher(loud mouth), and John Ratzenberger("Cheers" with George Wendt) all play forgetable roles in this mostly forgetable sequel. I had to laugh when this movie got name checked in Scream 2.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

What the?

Author: tfrizzell from United States
2 May 2003

As odd and outlandish as "House" was, it is unbelievable that a sequel would be even more so. I was not crazy about the first film of the series, but it had that special something that made it an interesting experience. "House II: The Second Story" does not have that special something. This film is supposedly a sequel, but in name only. It has absolutely nothing to do with the original for all intensive purposes. A young man (Arye Gross) inherits an old mansion and quickly he gets involved with reincarnated corpses and demons that are trying to obtain an ancient Aztec skull. Oh did I mention that the reincarnations are all from the Old West? "House II": The Second Story" is one of the worst productions I have ever encountered. It has no redeeming value and the plot has more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese. It appears that every idea that came up in pre-production was used in one way or another here. A thoroughly difficult film to get through. An extremely difficult film to critique since there is no coherent thought within the production. A really rotten goose egg. Turkey (0 stars out of 5).

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Hey its Cliff Claven!!!

Author: Aaron1375
21 April 2003

Yes the first House had Norm, this one Cliff. All in all not to bad of a movie, but just not as good as the first one. This one is actually more of a comedy, and has very little horror in it at all. This one has these two friends digging up a corpse to get a crystal skull...the corpse though, an old relative of one of the guys, is still alive and kicking. They take him and the skull back to their house and all heck breaks loose as the skull somehow opens portals to different times. The actors do rather well, but be warned...Bill Maher is in this one. I can't stand him myself, and I know a lot of people who feel that way, so if you can't stand him I can say he isn't in this one too much. This one flows by pretty quick and it is best not to take it to seriously.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

what was the purpose of this movie?!

Author: Insomniac_moviefan
10 July 2002

If it tried to be a horror movie, well it failed miserably! If it tried to be a horror / comedy like "Evil Dead 2" it didnt' work!

I can't believe how bad this movie is. It even used themes from "Friday the 13th part VI"! Don't watch this unless you are a fan of the "House" movies.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Boring, Nonsequel Sequel

Author: Cody Usher from Conway, Ark.
27 May 2001

First of all this movie shouldn't be a sequel to the first House. Just like some of the Amityville movies and Halloween III. Secondly, this movie is very boring. The acting is horrible and silly. The "comedy" isn't even funny. Even Cliff Clavin from Cheers couldn't save this movie. The character of Charlie is annoying. And Jesse/Grams, the 170 year old great-great grandfather is an even bigger hillbilly than Uncle Jesse from Dukes of Hazzard. It was interesting to see some appearences from Kane Hodder, and a very young (and scary looking) Amy Yasbeck. Bill Maher, playing a sleazy (i don't think he's really acting)record label manager, is very annoying. This movie is very choppy and makes no sense. Some scenes look like a bad 60s sci-fi flick. The backstory is totally ridiculous, even for a horror movie. It gets progressively stupider and stupider. Recommended for series completists like myself, otherwise stay away from it. Rating: 3 of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 6 of 8: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Ratings Awards External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history