IMDb > House IV (1992) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
House IV
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
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
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
House IV (V) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
Index 30 reviews in total 

12 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

I Think They're Forgetting Something...

Author: anonymous from Tranquille
10 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

The actual House III

6/10
Author: slayrrr666 (slayrrr666@yahoo.com) from Los Angeles, Ca
24 October 2005

"House IV" is the worst movie of the series.

**SPOILERS**

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

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

oh god...

3/10
Author: gothic_a666 from Portugal
27 May 2005

*** This review may contain 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 Burke...how 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

This house should be condemned! (spoiler)

1/10
Author: Dave Jessop from United Kingdom
19 January 2007

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

This House should be condemned.

3/10
Author: Son_of_Mansfield from Mansfield, Pennsylvania.
7 April 2006

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

They skipped part three and went straight to four.

2/10
Author: Aaron1375
21 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Knock this house down!!!

2/10
Author: TheRowdyMan from Australia
22 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 is fun).

This particular film held a bit of interest for me, as 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, as you'd hope 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

House IV

10/10
Author: Rautus from United Kingdom
8 October 2007

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

House of Origins

5/10
Author: (Vomitron_G) from the Doomed Megalopolis of Blasphemous Technoids
8 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Very Frustrating...

3/10
Author: CMRKeyboadist from Sleesburg, VA.
2 April 2007

*** This review may contain 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

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history