House IV (Video 1992) Poster

(1992 Video)

User Reviews

Add a Review
37 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
I Think They're Forgetting Something...
Taiyo10 December 1998
In a sense, "House IV" picks up where "House I" left off, with author Roger Cobb. He doesn't last long though, since he is killed off in a freak automobile accident in the first ten minutes of the movie. His wife Kelly and daughter Laurel (neither of which existed in the original "House I" -- Cobb had an estranged wife Sandy, and a son Jimmy) move into the Cobb's old family summer home.

This movie isn't a stinker, but at the same time, it doesn't even come close to the level of excellence seen in "House I" and "House II". The characters in this story, from the old Indian to the snoopy housekeeper, aren't nearly as well-developed as the characters from the previous "House" movies, nor are they as interesting. Melissa Clayton does an excellent job as Cobb's 12-yr-old daughter Laurel, though, bringing both presence and humor to the role. There is humor in this movie, although not a whole lot of it, and what little there is happens to be fairly dark humor.

"House" and "House II" were unique in that they were horror for a wide audience range, but "House IV" does not continue the tradition. The excellent shower scene is marred by a nude shot, and this movie contains foul language not seen in the other two films. The violence level is slightly higher, but that accounts for the almost complete lack of supernatural horror that marked the first two. All in all, I'd give it a six out of ten.
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
House IV
Rautus8 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
House IV is actually House III but because of The Horror Show being named House III overseas they had to call this one House IV although this did cause a bit of confusion. House IV is not really scary but instead more of a comedy since there's a scene with a singing Pizza head, William Katt returns to play Roger Cobb but except this is a different Roger Cobb since he's got a daughter and a different wife (The Roger Cobb in House had a son and a wife who was an actress.) also the DVD extra's even say that he's a different Roger Cobb.

House IV sees Roger and his family visiting his old family house where his half brother want's to buy it but Roger won't let him, after a car accident Roger is burnt to a crisp and his daughter is paralysed. Afterwards his wife Kelly and daughter Laurel decide to live in Roger's family house but soon find strange things happening since the place his haunted, Roger's brother still wants to buy the House and demolish it so they can dump Toxic Waste there. He tries to get Kelly to sell it but she won't, she soon learns that Roger's spirit is trapped inside the House and if the House gets destroyed so does Roger.

House IV isn't a bad film, it's got some funny moments and is more of a comedy. If you like haunted house movies or silly comedies then check House IV out.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The actual House III
slayrrr66624 October 2005
"House IV" is the worst movie of the series.


Kelly Cobb (Tracy Treas) and her husband Roger (William Katt) are deciding what to do with their old house, and Roger's brother Burke (Scott Burkholder) is trying to buy it out, which he is unsuccessful in doing. Their Native American neighbor Ezra (Ned Romero) has a secret artifact buried in the basement, that Roger's father knew and promised to keep it intact. During a trip, they get into an accident, killing Roger and injuring their daughter Laurel, (Melissa Clayton) reducing her to being in a wheelchair. Going back to the house, Kelly and Laurel decide to adopt it as a home, like Roger wanted. Her father disapproves of the move, but Kelly and Laurel try to make the most of it. Laurel suggests having a Halloween party, as weird things begin happening around the house. The new housekeeper her father ordered, Verna Klump, (Denny Dillion) seems to think Kelly's crazy for living in the house, and after some restless nights, Kelly has still not accepted his death. Burke is trying to get the house away, and is still unsuccessful, forcing her to think about him more and her to consider not to sell. When even more strange things happen around the house, Kelly is forced to believe her worst nightmares have come true and has targeted her and Laurel.

The Good News: The main thing with this movie is that house's design. It's a large, creepy house, with the perfect design for creepy goings-on. It's got the requisite two level design, a basement, large rooms, and an odd looking face when viewed front on. It's not as creepy as the house in Amityville, but it serves the purpose nicely. For this being a haunted house story, there are the usual things that aren't right or shouldn't be doing that. One of the best ones is the recurring gag of the water faucets spewing forth a sludge rather than water. It's a great visual jump the first time around, as it appears out of nowhere, then it happens again and gets us shocked. There were some other good gags in here, like a hand rising out of a pile of fallen ashes, or seeing Roger's face from the toppings on a pizza. Others are a bit more shocking. Easily the best one is the shower switching from water to blood without her knowing, and she becomes covered in blood searching around the room, and finds a threatening message written in the steam on the mirror. Even her few dreams are pretty creepy, and one provides the film's biggest shock.

The Bad News: This is far more of a talker film than most people may be accustomed to. There are no big set pieces until very late in the movie, and even then, they aren't very spectacular. What's even weirder is that most of them aren't in the least bit scary. It just takes way too long to get anything going, and when something does happen, it is usually just a split second image of something freaky, then it all goes back to normal. At times, it can feel like a drama more than a horror film, and that is its main problem. It feels too much like a dramatic-horror film than a straightforward horror film. Way too much time is spent on Kelly trying to mourn Roger's death and the drama of life after the death of a main family member than it does with giving the house a genuine sense of dread. It's not that the house isn't scary, it's just there's no suspense in the buildup. Stuff just happens and then it's like the supernatural aspects of the film go right out the window.

The Final Verdict: It focuses more on drama than horror, and with some scarier haunted house gags, this might be a little bit more remembered. As it stands, this is a film that will appeal more to those that don't like a lot of shocks or suspense in their films. Its heavy-handed drama will put off those that love action-packed films, who will exercise extreme caution here.

Rated R: Language, Violence and Brief Nudity
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Hokey, but fits in well
HankyP18 November 1998
I really like this series. This House movie contains less action &/or horror than the previous two (whatever happened to House III?), but is still fun. I love the fact that the daughter is paralysed and in a wheelchair -- yet Mom manages to not only get her into the Victorian house (not ground level by any means), but also into her upstairs bedroom without any visible lifts or elevators. Still, this movie does manage to have a good (not great, but good) storyline and fits well into the series. BTW - William Katt's character shouldn't be the same as in the first House. It takes place way too soon for this to be his second wife and second child and the first son to be gone.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Average sequel.
gridoon16 June 2002
In some of the dream and scare sequences, the director of "House IV" shows considerable talent and imagination. But the plot is just a rehash of old cliches, and toward the end it goes all over the map and creates quite a few gaps. Even horror movies have to establish some rules and play by them, this movie goes every which way but loose. Still, it's better than the dreadful "House II". (**)
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Knock this house down!!!
TheRowdyMan22 December 2007
This is a terrible movie. This is one of those films that you show to film-students to teach them how NOT to make a horror movie.

Flat looking, with a total disregard for creating any sort of atmosphere and a script that reads like it was banged out in an hour.

The second act of this "masterpiece" (out of nowhere) dives head first into some Full Moon style Comedy/Horror that's so painful, even Charles Band himself couldn't replicate it's sheer awfulness (at least his films are fun).

This particular film held a bit of interest for me. It was never released in Australia until DVD in 2002. After finally wasting $4 and watching it, I found out why.

Horror movie schlock-meister Sean S. Cunningham (Friday the 13th) was a producer on this dreck. He must of hit someone's kid with a car to have been forced into sinking money into this garbage. You'd think that after being in the biz that long, he would have come up with better schemes for tax write-offs.

Another interesting little footnote is the director Lewis Abernathy later appeared in the 1996 blockbuster Titanic. I'm sure you people can think of better ironic sinking ship jokes than I can be bothered writing.
8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This house should be condemned! (spoiler)
Dave Jessop19 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Now, I thought this was supposed to be a straight sequel to House. Usually there is some sort of continuity in sequels. First the house was in a suburban neighbourhood in the original. In House 4 the property looks to be close to a desert.

Also Roger Cobb had a son in House. In the sequel there is a daughter.

Did the director even watch the original to get even a semblance of a continuous story? - doesn't look like it.

William Katt must have thought it good luck that he was killed off in the first 5 minutes. Relief for him - pain and regret for the rest of us.

This film is one of the worst I've seen - and I've seen some bad films.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
They skipped part three and went straight to four.
Aaron137521 April 2003
Yes, there is no real part three in the series. There is a movie called "The Horror Show" that was called House 3 overseas so this one is called four, but "Horror Show" is not a true entry to the series. I have never seen that one though so I can't comment on it. I have seen this one, and it is terrible. About a family where the father dies in a car accident and the daughter is left paralyzed. The mother and daughter move into a house and all this strange things start to happen. Though nothing scary as this one is sort of a comedy, but it isn't funny. There are some bad scenes all around in this one as it also has a corporation that wants the house cause there is a well underneath and they want to dump waste there. Why is it these corporations always want to dump waste in movies? What the heck do they manufacture that would create such stuff? All in all a movie that you might as well ignore and skip, cause you wouldn't be missing much. There is a rather gross scene involving drool, and a rather stupid scene involving pizza...but these are the only memorable scenes in this turkey.
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Predictable......But Not Lame
The Creeper10 December 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Okay. House IV Is Slightly Predictable, But Not Lame. I Thought it Was Great, but Slow. Slow because Really only about 5 or 6 REALLY Scary Scenes Happen.....But all it takes is one of these Classic Scenes to Frighten House Fans for Years To Come.!NEXT SENTENCE IS A POSSIBLE SPOILER! If you Thought Psycho Made you not Want to Take a Shower, Watch This One. People Who have Seen This Film Know What I Mean. Last But Not Least, I Would Say That This the Second Best of The House Series, and Delivers Just What you Would Expect From a House Movie for Viewers of the First III. JUST The House Series. All in All It's a Good Movie that Could have been Rated PG-13 if They Didn't Have Swearing. CHECK IT OUT. Also Recommended: The Amityville Series
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
oh god...
gothic_a66627 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is the kind of movie that is so bad it is *almost* good. Yet there are way too many things that simply don't add up.

***Warning, contains spoilers*** First of all, the spirits seem to want to drag Kelly and Laurel out of the house. Hence the dream sequence with the knife (a complete rip off of Nightmare in Elm Street part II), the shower scene (Psycho meets Elm Street again) with the very clichéed warning "Get out or die". Clearly, their message is very simple and not susceptible to multiple readings.

Yet, in the end, it turns out the spirits were actually good, that they represented the forces of good that opposed those of evil, here represented by a very disgusting little man who owns some sort of company that apparently requires the fountain to dump all their waste material.

And here comes of the most stupid scenes ever seen in a movie: as the workers are filling barrels of some toxic stuff that is never explained (we know that it is green and foamy), these same barrels contain the "WARNING toxic" tag, to which they super impose the word "NON" over the "WARNING" and slash the skull. Now, why have the tags IN THE FIRST PLACE?!

Why go to all that trouble just to get THAT particular place to dump it? Wouldn't any other hole pretty much serve the same purpose? As for did he KNOW about the seal, to start with?

Other awful scenes include the killing/singing pizza (another trying-to-be Elm Street attempt) and the overall post-poltergeist feeling that pervades the whole thing.

What is good about this? The House itself. It does look very odd and creepy, especially since it is placed, quite literally, in the middle of nowhere. The inside of the house partakes from the general feeling of strangeness, but sadly, it has been done over and over again. Mr Grosso is also a must. He is disgusting and his factory, if we ignore the whole barrel incident is pure post-industrial nightmarish, albeit clichéed. The final sequence, with the jet of water bursting through the roof is, in terms of imagery, quite impressive.

But it cannot save the flat plot, the annoyingly smiling Pater Familias that ends up "saving" the day, nor the dreadfully lame and repetitive soundtrack.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Best of the 4 (In my opinion.)
aaronzombie11 April 2000
Many people believe that "HOUSE 1" was a classic horror film and had a great deal of style...but they are sadly mistaken. The first House is the weakest of the series and is one of the most boring horror films ever made, but you gotta give 'em credit for trying to make it decent. Then came "HOUSE 2" a much better film, not scary, but entertaining, and occasionally funny.

For a long time people were trying to find "HOUSE 3", but all they had were House 1,2, and 4. "THE HORROR SHOW" was filmed as "HOUSE 3" and still is known as that film. Then came this, the best of the 4 films. (Well, at least I thought so.)This film has a style that no horror film has captured, a suspense very few horror films have surpassed, and a plot that very few writers could come up with.

A widow and her paralyzed daughter move into the house that their husband/dad left them. Suddenly weird things start happening, to them and everyone around. Great performances by Teri Treas, Denny Dillon, Mellissa Clayton, and of course William Katt form the first "HOUSE" (He doesn't play the same Roger though.)Suspenseful, great story, acting, and music score. **** out of *****.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I think they're forgetting something too......
Toolman-613 August 1999
Let's see..."House 1","House 2","House 4".......what happened to part three???I have never found a part three and I'm not the only one.A good film,though not as good as the first two.Good for a laugh or two.Could make you think twice before ordering a pizza though.......
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Harriet Deltubbo5 September 2014
Roger Cobb (William Katt) is killed in a car accident. His family must move into the house that has haunted him for several years. Soon the family begins to experience scary and unexplained phenomena. This film is funny and stupid! There's something for everyone here. I love this movie, which is hilarious! Sounds corny? No matter what anyone says, this is utterly fantastic. I refuse to totally dismiss this, because I find it quite engaging, in a guilty pleasure sense. I thought this was cute and not bad. All of the fancy characters struggle against a system that has perpetuated falsehoods. It's not the thing to see if you're in the mood for something uplifting, or something with tons of action. 7/10.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Should have left the House after the first film.
Warning: Spoilers
Where there's a buck to be made, it will be, and a popular film will always spawn sequels. They don't care, just knock 'em out. The first film looks like a masterpiece compared to the following three, which shows how poor the sequels are. they are not the worst sequels in the world ( with the exception of house 2) but they fail on all levels.

The second was childish schlock, the third a "shocker" type film saved only by Lance Henriksen. The fourth was ok but gaping plot holes ruin it. 1. The ghosts seem to like the owners and want them to stay, helping them out in the end to defeat the baddies, yet through the whole film they seem to terrorise them. I can understand Roger Cobb's hand coming up through the spilt ashes can seem like horror when in fact he is showing he is around in spirit, but the blood in the shower and " get out or die" on the steam covered bathroom mirror? This is a huge contradiction.

Do the bad guys at the chemical company get convicted? I'm assuming the step brothers confession might lead there but it's not clear.

I didn't like the Roger Cobb death. I kind of feel after all he went through in house 1, to then die prematurely, and so horribly in house 4, was kind of a let down. Little did we know in house 1 what was in store. I know life happens, and this could be a possibility, but it gives it a depressing slant and taints the original.

The original House is the only one worth watching. Like is the cast with most sequels.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Shouldn't this be house 3 or house 2.5?
Matt Smitty14 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
3.5 stars House 3 was an entirely different movie which was re-edited and rebadged. House 4 has the same actor as roger cobb but has no connection the the first 2 movies. This movie is pretty terrible. The storyline seems to have been thought up and written on the fly and is too childish. The acting is lame and stale. It does have good video/sound quality and OK editing. It is mildly entertaining sort of like the birds 2 (lands end), but its just really low quality in every deparment except video/sound quality. It especially lacks in the writing department.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Been There, Done That
Michael_Elliott7 September 2017
House IV (1992)

** (out of 4)

Roger Cobb (Willian Katt) is riding with his wife Kelly (Terri Treas) and their young daughter Laurel (Melissa Clayton) when their car crashes. Roger is killed so the wife and daughter follow his wishes and move into the house that he loved. Pretty soon strange things begin to happen.

HOUSE IV is without question the weakest film in the series because there's really just nothing new here. It's the same type of haunted house film that we've seen throughout the history of haunted house movies and there's very little to nothing new here. With that said, I do give the filmmakers credit for bringing the Roger character back, although they change elements from the first movie.

Obviously it's pretty cool getting to see Katt returning to the role but he's not in the film too long. Treas is okay in the role but I'm not sure she was strong enough to carry the picture but you've also got to mainly blame the screenplay since it really doesn't give her too much to do except for scream and run around into one trap after another. Clayton is nice in the role of the young daughter and Scott Burkholder is good as well.

The film's most memorable moments are the special effects, which are quite good. There are various "haunted" things that happen but none of them are overly scary so we resort back to the "fun" effects including one scene where a pizza comes to life. Even with the nice special effects, there's just not much else here so it's hard to really support the film. HOUSE IV isn't awful but it's just rather bland and unoriginal.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
House Part 3B
thesar-229 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
William Katt may be best known for playing the Greatest American Hero, but he's also the hero of this franchise.

One thing nice about someone like me obsessed with going through entire series is that I can tell you which are worth watching. So, without hesitation, you should just watch the first House and skip to this "final" chapter. The middle one or two, depending upon who you listen to, aren't worth a step inside.

Not to sound too confusing in the previous paragraph, this is sorta both part III and IV. Following House II, The Horror Story came out and in other countries, it was labelled as House III. For no American reason and not to confuse those foreigners, I suppose, they changed this title to House IV.

Anyways, this wasn't a great movie, but it was fairly decent and a nice conclusion to the original, something the other sequel(s) totally skipped.

Katt's back and alongside his on-screen wife, they elevate this movie far past what it should've been. Cobb (Katt) gets into a horrific car accident leaving his wife and daughter (??) a house Cobb's brother desperately wants. Well, guess what? The house has ideas of its own.

I put the (??) above due to the gender-swapping of the child. In the original, and the main premise of the first one, Cobb is mourning the loss of his SON. He spends the entire movie looking for him and seeing him around that film's haunted house. So, I guess the child got a sex change over the years?

I only bring this up as one of the most blatant mistakes or dumb ideas in horror movie franchises, whichever it was for the writer/crew: mistake or dumb idea. I mean, even Katt himself isn't dumb enough to miss this error and probably said: "Wait a minute guys. *I* was in the original and my child was a HE!"

Anyways, the movie wasn't scary and it took too long to get to the goofiness the series, or at least 1 and 2 were known for and when it did, it was too little/too late/didn't mesh with the rest.

Still, it's worth a watch to conclude the series until it's rebooted.


Final thoughts: Speaking of gender-swapping, the series' producer/owner, Sean S. Cunningham has expressed a strong desire to direct/remake/reboot his franchise, but now with the Greatest American Heroine as the protagonist. Not that it really matters who enters the house to search for their child, so I am uncertain why that's such a big deal for him to announce. Eh, I'm curious to enter the first House again.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This is very scary it really is
jacobjohntaylor127 June 2017
This is a very scary movie. It has a great story. IT ALSO HAS great acting. It also has great SPECIAL EFFECTS. I can think of three movie that are scarier then this HOUSE (1985) also HOUSE II THE SECOND STORY. also HOUSE III THE HORROR SHOW. I do not know why this got a 3.6. It is not A 3.6 It is an 8. It is a good movie. I do not know why people do not like this movie it is true that HOUSE II THE SECOND STORY had nothing to do with HOUSE (1985). And HOUSE III THE HORROR SHOW had NOTHING to do with HOUSE (1985) or HOUSE II THE SECOND STORY. And HOUSE IV has nothing to do with HOUSE (1985) or HOUSE II THE SECOND STORY or HOUSE III THE HORROR SHOW. But still it is a great movie. Lewis Abernathy is a great film maker. He directed one movie this one. I wrote more movie. One movie he wrote think thought was better would be DEEP STAR SIX. But still this a great movie. See it. Some at IMDb can handle seeing capital letters or big words so be careful ever body.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Very Frustrating...
CMRKeyboadist2 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I haven't written anything on IMDb in a long while. After seeing this movie last night I felt that I had to comment on a few things that truly frustrated me. But before I go into that I will give a brief summary of the movie...

Roger Cobb, his wife Kelly and their daughter, Laurel, must make a decision about the old family house out in the middle of nowhere. Roger's half-brother, Burke, wants to sell the house and have it destroyed. Roger disagrees and decides to keep the house. On their way home, the Cobb family gets in a bad accident, killing Roger and almost paralyzing Laurel. Kelly and Laurel decide to move into the house after the accident. Now, they are being hounded by Burke to sell the house and they seem to have a slight poltergeist problem.

First, I will start by saying that this was the worst of the House series.

Second, I don't know what Sean S. Cunningham was thinking when he produced this. This is suppose to be a sequel to House 1 but where is the continuity? In the first movie, Roger had a son and was in the middle of a divorce with Sandy. The whole storyline to the first movie was about him rescuing his son. In this movie Roger doesn't have a son. He has a daughter. Also, what happened to Sandy? Sure, we can assume that Roger remarried and had a daughter but this is never mentioned. It's like the events of the first movie never happened and we are dealing with a Roger Cobb from another universe. This was something that really bugged me through the whole film.

Third, about this so called house. It was a great house to pick for the movie but they never used it to its full potential. The thing that made House 1 and 2 so great was that there was infinite possibilities that could happen. In the first House, Roger is battling monsters, traveling through time and other universes. In the second movie, the stars are also battling bizarre creatures and traveling through time as well. This is what made the movies so much fun because you really didn't know what was going to happen next. House 4 (or should I say House 3) doesn't attempt anything fun like the first two movies. It had chances where it could have been a fun movie but never took those chances. Instead, we have about two note worthy scenes. The face on the pizza and the bloody shower scene. That's it. The one scene that could have changed the movie altogether was when Kelly sees her daughter being sucked into the bed and disappears. I thought to myself "Finally, Kelly is going to have to go in after her and travel through bizarre universes to find and save her". But no, it was all a sort of dream.

Well, you see where I stand with this movie. If you want to see a good House movie, check out the first two. They are fun and adventurous films that took chances and made them work. 3/10
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This House should be condemned.
Son_of_Mansfield7 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
If you go into this expecting a pleasant sequel to House(1986), you will be vastly disappointed. This is a message horror movie about the evils of toxic waste and killing Native Americans. There is an odd feel to the movie, but not in a good way. Mostly it is either dumb, beating a failed henchman with a sex doll, or sick, watching a little person hack up lung butter. There is only one scene that really came close to being as funny and scary as scenes in the original house. Mrs. Cobb opens up a pizza box and the pizza has a face which starts singing to her. William Katt does return in this movie to be killed and also in one scene as a ghost. Thanks a lot. Thankfully this was the third and final House film, seeing as House 3: The Horror Show is a sequel like Zombie 2 is a sequel. Stick with the original, you can never fail with William Katt and George Wendt.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It wasn't the greatest movie of all time...
ratgirl9 March 1999
...but it wasn't the worst. It was a pretty okay film, I saw it on MonsterVision, with it edited down a pretty good bit. It was still pretty okay.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Remember when this series was good?... me neither. ... well... remember when it was tolerable?
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews31 January 2008
The first film was perhaps watchable, the second not even that, and now the series reaches utter... what is the film, even? I'm not sure I'd call it horror. It seems almost like they had an idea or two for something to put in a House flick, and wrote an overall plot(well...) around it, and hoped everyone would go along with it. William Katt(whom you may recognize from Carrie, and... uh...) returns, possibly in some attempt to give the movie some merit... it doesn't work. Some completely gratuitous nudity is included. Some utterly disgusting stuff is, as well, for nothing even resembling a good reason. The film sacrifices sense for... not sure I could tell you, but off goes sense to the slaughterhouse, nevertheless, several times, and is seldom all that present or noticeable for the rest of the feature. The plot is pretty bad. It doesn't seem like anything was terribly developed, more thrown together in a hurry(were they afraid of losing the rights? There are worse things, you know...), and the movie can't seem to make up its mind, what exactly it wants to be or say. Some of the writing is painfully obvious and predictable. I'm not sure any of it could be construed as "scary", if there are some attempts at it. The movie ends about as soon as enough time has passed to classify it as feature-length. The special effects vary. Editing, filming and cinematography seem amateurish. I recommend this to... people who just cannot stand the notion that there's a "haunted house" and/or House movie that they haven't watched. 1/10
4 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
House of Origins
Vomitron_G8 March 2012
I recall from back in my teen days that I actually liked this sequel. And guess what? Having just re-watched it, I still kind of like it! Oh sure, the plot feels like incoherent rubbish, the humor is infantile, the drama is pretty lame (and way too much focused on in the first half of the film) and the horror is ridiculous. But "House IV" does make an effort to tie in with Steve Miner's original from 1986. Not only by starring William Katt playing Roger Cobb again (thereby somewhat serving up a story that could be a continuation - after several years - of the first film, ignoring the franchise's two other stand-alone installments), but also the tone of this 4th film and the nature of the events pretty much try to be in sync with what the original was all about (basically mixing horror & comedy with an anecdotal result). If you've enjoyed the first 'House', then 'House IV' almost feels right. Almost, as it just doesn't work as well as the first one. You'll still get a film rigged together with some amusing moments, most of the time involving fun SFX (the pizza-face man, the silly snake vs insect villain shout-out, the 'watery climax'). And I suspect they threw in that irrelevant Indian mumbo-jumbo sub-plot because a film like "Poltergeist II: The Other Side" got away with it too (or well, maybe it didn't, but they threw it in anyway). Whether you'll find "House IV" stupid or amusing, it's certainly stuff they're not making anymore these days. So I'd say it's worth a peek for that alone.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews