Return to House on Haunted Hill (Video 2007) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
95 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Gore and blood aplenty
ClayDeaver7 October 2007
While special effects were pretty outstanding the over use of them, in my opinion made the sequel much weaker than the original. I also felt the character development was a bit shy of interesting. I can't help but compare it to the original which also had spectacular effects however hit a higher level of suspense in between the more gruesome scenes, also the sex, in particular that which went on in one pretty gross lesbian scene with mutilated ghosts, really served no purpose in my mind to the general plot which is of course about helping out the poor trapped souls, who still long for release from the insane asylum doctor's fortress on the hill. There was a lot less use of the simple terrifying look of vintage medical equipment and an old asylum in this film as well although there were glimpses of the old asylum which had a lot of lighting designed much later than the art-deco period the hospital was supposedly from. All in all I think there were some good actors practicing their craft and a weak location with a lot of skilled prop people trying to take the viewer to a scary old hospital. It must have been tough following the previous cast which had a real Oscar winner on board. This film is way to gruesome for the kids, and if you were impressed with the first one you may be a little disappointed with this obviously lower budget sequel. Still it was something to watch.
43 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not bad for a direct-to-video offering
undeniably322 October 2007
I am glad that the ghost characters from the earlier film were explored further in this sequel. I never completely embraced the concept of what looked like a misty Rorschach Test enveloping and destroying characters in Dark Castle's first "Haunted Hill" venture.

The role of the doctor (expertly played by Jeffrey Combs) is sufficiently eerie and he's given more to do in this film. Throw in his supernatural victims from years past and you have a great haunted house! Granted, the acting in this film is mostly sub-par, save for the lead actress (Righetti) and Andrew Lee Potts who provides comedic relief. Also, the kills are creative enough to keep die-hard horror fans entertained. And the DVD's extras are fun to watch, probably to make up for the film's short length.

If Warner decides to cultivate its storehouse of horror remakes and make direct-to-video sequels, so be it. I would look forward to another "Thirteen Ghosts" film or "House of Wax" chapter.
22 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
poo!
rimzey1 March 2008
A very poor update of the classic i have a few problems with this film -The doctor was seen too much, i feel in the original his presence was more weird, unknown and frightening, in this one he even talks..lame! -Effects were overused and looked unrealistic, along with an annoying squelching sound that wasn't really scary, more like squeezing silly putty. CAuses of death were unimaginative and to quick.

-NO suspense -Cliches made me cringe , use of firearms was as messed up as ever. the use of an special team was also kinda gay.

I would usually really like a movie like this but i was not scared and could not get involved with the movie on any level. what the director was thinking i will never know. the original had suspense, slow, scary atmosphere and scary medical equipment. this movie = cow pat
13 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Inferior to it's predecessors, cheese without charm
McQualude15 October 2007
Blood and guts everywhere... "What is this stuff?" "It appears to be organic."

It's direct to video and all the common flaws are present... silly dialog, layers upon layers of clichés, dramatic lines delivered flatly, characters acting like stupid characters in a horror movie rather than like real people and logical inconsistencies in the plot (why would the ghosts direct you to do something and then attack you once you've done it?).

Amanda Righetti delivers her lines flatly and was apparently hired as a Jennifer Garner lookalike rather than for her acting ability. Cerina Vincent manages to shine so dreary is the remainder of the cast. Jefferey Combs is given so little to do that anyone capable of fogging a mirror could have performed as admirably.

The special effects are good for a direct to video production. Nothing you're going to remember but nothing you'll criticize too harshly. The plot, oh who cares, you aren't really watching this for the plot are you? Garcia is a special effects director and it shows as the film basically moves from one special effects scene to the next at the expense of a coherent storyline. The movie does have some good gore and manages to be mildly entertaining.

Apparently the HD-DVD version has an interactive menu system that allows you to choose some actions of the characters. I can't imagine it being anything but a gimmick with little effect on the storyline but here's hoping.

Stay through the end credits.
24 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
In your face
Jorgosch7 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The movie starts alright by creating some tension but then descends into a paint by numbers. There is some good to be said: The acting is fair, the special effects adequate and the cinematography competent. However, the movie disregards one of the main rules of horror in my book: Scares in a haunted house are achieved through subtlety. Mr. García seems to have been involved mainly in special effects before and he shows it with too much pride. While the effects are well done, nothing here happens in the shadows, everything has a spot on it. It's like the director wanted to showcase his handwork but in doing so, he degrades it to mere circus tricks (albeit bloody ones). He's even confident enough to leave the door open for another sequel. Final judgment: Nothing outstanding but not too weak either. I was mildly interested to watch until the end - 5,5/10.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not Movie Gold But, Damn it was Fun!
yabesthomie17 October 2007
Geez, some people are rough on movies!! Awful? Think again. Great? No. Was it really meant to be? I don't think so. Its a Direct to DVD release. A Damn good one at that! If you hold it up to some horror classics, it will lose. Now put it next to some other Direct to DVD movies and it will win. It has everything you would want in a "fun" horror movie. Gore, Action, Hot naked ladies, and even some dumb jokes! What else do ya want? Sure the acting and Special FX could have been better but we can't win Every time. Does that really make it "awful"? Hell no. Give this film a little bigger budget and we have a winner. Maybe even better than the remake a couple of years ago. Fans of that one should definitely check this out. It has some back story that wasn't really touched on. So, think about it, its actually a sequel with a reason. More than you can say for a lot of Hollywood Blockbuster sequels... Am I right? Huh? Am I right? For all you haters, why would you watch it in the first place? Did you REALLY think it was going to be the next big thing? Chill out! Every movie doesn't have to be an Academy Award winner. Relax, Enjoy, and have fun...
42 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A Bit Much With the Computer, But a Decent Plot and Good Sequel
gavin694219 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The sister of the survivor from the first film must go to the house on haunted hill... (technically, the only people returning are us, since all the characters are new). She has a connection to the house (much like her sister did) and the inmates there. Also, a professor and a bounty hunter are in search of an ancient relic.

I will say that the plot was good. There was an actual reason to go in the house, and I found it plausible -- well worth waiting nearly a decade for a sequel. The working in of the Knights Templar and the Baphomet statue was very nice, and will appeal to those who like the occult. I imagine a lot of horror fans also enjoy the works of Eliphas Levi and Aleister Crowley and will feel at home with the references -- it was certainly nothing new to me. (Although, historically, the Knights did not really worship Baphomet as the myth goes.)

Jeffrey Combs returns, and has a sizable role here. Not a large role, no real dialogue, but more than the five minutes he's had in other films the past few years ("Satanic" comes to mind). So his fans will appreciate that. And if you're a horror fan, you're probably a Combs fan. That man has really milked his success ever since 1986's "Re-Animator" and I see no signs of it slowing down yet. Put his name on the cover of a film and I'll rent it.

This film's strength is in the plot, and somewhat so in the acting. The characters are nothing special (they all have very one-dimensional motives) but they are acted superbly. Many will also enjoy the high blood content -- a man gets quartered, for example. And that's not the worst of it. There's even a death by refrigerator! Not quite creative on the level of, say, "Superstition" or even "2001 Maniacs", but not bad.

All you really need to know is if you liked the first film, you'll love this. Many reviewers have commented this is the better of the two, and I'm inclined to agree (although I'll still watch the original Vincent Price version over either of them). Solid story, good acting, blood... this is a horror film that goes above and beyond the typical straight-to-video schlock.
16 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A big ole bite of a pooh samich!!!
seraphaxg19 October 2007
It's rare that I comment on films, but I really feel the need to say something about this pile of trash that has the cheek to, in any way, be associated to the masterpiece that is "House on Haunted Hill".

To start with, I watched the first one and loved it ... very creepy setting, atmospheric music supplied by Marilyn Manson, reasonable story line, good acting for the main part, slightly disappointing ending ... but all-in-all a worthy remake to a good horror film.

Return to house on haunted hill, well- I finished watching it and I felt like any hope I had left for the horror genre had been sapped from my soul over the hour and a half it took for this film to play out and finally come to an end. It felt like a life time- the plot was non-existent, the characters were awful, the acting was ... words escape me! The special effects were reasonable, but I just can't believe that anyone could, in good conscience, spend an investors money and turn out this heap of garbage. I really wish I hadn't seen it and I would advise anyone, who is a fan of the horror genre, to steer well clear.

It's only redeeming quality was it did finish, I just which I'd never started watching it in the first place.

You'll notice there's no spoilers in this review- watch the film and it manages to spoil itself plenty! Doesn't need my help.
33 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Creepy following with chills , thrills and terrible murders
ma-cortes10 November 2008
The origin of the House of the Haunted Hill is the following : a confrontation of biblical proportions incinerates everything and everyone inside what was one the City of Angels most celebrated medical facility, the Vannacutt Institute for the Criminally Insane. But the secret this inferno burned free was for more frightening that any picture Hollywood could produce. A sanatorium massacre supervised by a surgeon gone mad, Richard Benjamin Vannacutt(Jeffrey Combs). Little known but likely the most prolific mass-murdered of this century. He out-butchered Bundy, he made Manson looks meek. And the site of this carnage exist today, restored almost to its original state. But it has yet to be inhabited, because some say the spirits of Vannacutt and his victims still live within the walls of the mansion of the haunted hill. 8 years have passed since Sara(Ali Larter) escaped from haunted house, her sister Sara(Amanda Righetti) goes into the house along with professor Richard and a students(Cerina Vincent, Andrew Lee Potts,Tom Riley). But a band(leader is Erick Palladino) of treasure hunters looking for the statue of Baphomet kidnap them and go violently inside the mansion. The house suddenly closes itself and they encounter trapped inside and soon supernatural creepiness begin frightening the hosts. Then they'll spend a ghastly night in the spooky house with killings-laden history.

This eerie following contains bit good fun with grisly killing, relentless horror and lots of blood and gore. The chiller follow-up packs genuine chills and terrifying deaths such as a horrible quartering. Unknown casting while the previous part was full of famous actors(Geofrey Rush,Famke Janssen,Peter Gallaher,Ali Larter, Taye Diggs). It's professionally directed without originally by Victor Garcia ,in his first movie. Of course the biggest film about this astonishing story is the vintage classic version(1958) by William Castle with Vincent Price and Carol Ohmart.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Average film, are some good scary bits - but bit same old same old...
sg279016 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
After seeing this the actual house in the film i had a vague memory of seeing the first one however really cannot remember so i can't comment on if this was a worthy sequel.

Ill start with the few GOOD points. - The film is set up well, the characters are quite well defined - with a sustainable introducing story horror which is believable. Moving on to when they are in the house. As in most horrors the music creates tension and an eeriness which definitely happens in this film and i definitely jumped a few times!

As for the gore - there is quite a bit and it is in your face quite frequently, so you can see all of what is happening to the characters (for example when A man wont say who... is getting his head slowly cut open and his brain being pulled out)

Now for the BAD points.

The gore and nastiness falls into both good and bad points. The reason i find it a weakness in the film is that the blood and guts is just too in your face. Meaning you see what happens in front of you, and if you thinking about it many of the most successful horror films use psychological horror tehchniques in order to scare you. Usually the most horrific sequences in horror films are the ones where they quickly cut away to the main action leaving your mind to imagine the horrific things that are happening, which doesn't happen at all in this movie.

Moving onto the acting it just wasn't consistently good throughout. As for the story as i said before it is set up well as a horror film but drastically changes to a fantasy film - taking away the sense of realism to the story, as some of the horror sequences and genuinely scary. Which dampened the story a bit.

Overall, this is a good film but easily forgettable. It does have some very nasty parts in it ... really its just a load of fun and gore.

6/10
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Hollow Candy With A Sour Shell
mtess-118 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This movie follows in the footsteps of the original Vincent Price and its remake a few years back. While the remake was nothing special, it was at least fun and made an effort to set up its premise with a back story. Return to House on Haunted Hill simply rides its back and tosses a motley cast of morons inside the forbidding walls of the crumbling asylum so that they may meet their ends for our supposed pleasure. How they go is sometimes gruesome, and always the same old contrived crap intended to make teenage girls "shriek" as if they were actually frightened.

First off, a band of mercenary-type guys (and one annoying chick who tries - unsuccessfully - way too hard to be deviantly sexy ) working for a former grad student - (uh, yeah, anyway...) as well as a pretty female lead seeming in love with the photographer she only met that same day (and acts as if she's loved him for years) walk on to the set and start acting like a cross between the cast of Aliens and Beverly Hills 90210. The haunting is given only minimal explanation, and poor Jeffrey Combs simply pops in and out of his scenes (as if we are still scared by this special effect alone)looking very much like he wishes he were making another Re-Animator movie instead.

Yet AGAIN, a perfect example of great lighting, filming, and all of the above - BUT - without ANY story whatsoever, and therefore no audience concern for anything that's going on or any of the characters it's happening to. This was a series of scenes conceived and filmed seemingly apart from one another with the expectation that the story from the previous movie would tie them together. It fails miserably. I truly wanted to turn this off after a half an hour but, as with most current and recent horror flicks, I hoped it would somehow redeem itself but it never did. If shambling nurses and old asylums are going to be scary, it is not going to happen without setting the background and adhering to at least the semblance of a storyline. The sheer ridiculousness is spotlighted by the fact that these characters seem strut around trying to look sexy and tough in the face of certain death, hoisting weapons of every sort as if bullets will save them from what they, themselves refer to as a haunted house.

Now I know why this one slipped by so quickly that I had almost forgotten it existed. Now I will endeavor to do just that. Garbage - avoid, even fans of the genre will be sorely disappointed by this "Return". In fact, fans of the genre will see right through this blatant attempt at cash right away.

2 out of ten stars only because, as stated before, they might have had something here if only they'd paid attention to some - ANY - storyline beyond the cartoonish idea of an Indiana Jones-like professor (who comes off more like Ned Flanders) chasing some demonic statue. Good lord, even remembering it is making me cringe.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not a horrible sequel.....
arcticlvr125 October 2007
I am giving this a 6 out of 10 because the movie had enough going on not to make me want to shut it off half way through. With that being said, I must say I am disappointed on how the characters get into the house so easily. Seriously, most of us as viewers are not idiots, and with what had happened in that house, I know it would there would have been some type of guard or security company working there. Second, they could have made the reason for the house being evil a little better then the Indiana Jones deal. But, for a DTV this is an okay movie that I think fills in the void for lack of gore movies. There are some good blood and guts scenes. So rent it and take the movie for what it is.
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Terrible
jboyaquar16 December 2007
Lacking scares, suspense or interesting characters, this sequel abides by the CGI-horror schlock that proved a box-office draw for two weeks upon its release in 1999. How should an audience become properly hooked by the mood of a supposed horror film when the director both accelerates the pace and includes an abundance of CGI images during the requisite full-scale extreme wide shot of the stark sanitarium and its surroundings? The attempt to add a haunting quality to the proceedings with the statue mythologizing is laughable...especially the coda, with actors cast out of Romance novels. Amanda Righetti, with football wide shoulders, has impressive physical stature, but the film wasn't interested in emphasizing her heroic qualities. Twas much more concerned with photographing its women from advantageous perspectives...(nipples, and Cerina Vincent's globular breasts) Speaking of, the lesbian scene was by the far the most enjoyable aspect...one had thin but magically dark brown hair - and the other surprisingly generous well-sculpted... Their expressions were reminiscent of Jean Rollin's vampire chicks from his Euro-trash classics of the 70's. Besides that, a waste of time.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
As a sequel, it's lame, as a movie, not too bad
Smells_Like_Cheese18 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I saw Return to House on Haunted Hill on sale the other day and figured to just check it out. For 8 bucks, what did I have to loose? I watched the film last night and over all, I'd say it wasn't too bad, I've seen a thousand times worse. The only major complaint, was the lesbian sex scene really necessary? Like, what did that have to do with the story at all? It's not like it was even realistic, it was some sick director's fantasy, because they are drop dead gorgeous girls who are moving like a porno film, it was just ridicules. The effects were actually kinda cool though, like the scene where the guy was torn apart by the ghosts was visually very cool to look at. The CGI is a little much, but to be honest, I'm at that point where I'm giving up and just accepting it, so I'm going to let go the over the top stuff go, but it's a cool horror story.

Ariel's sister just supposedly killed herself and has a secret about the haunted hill house, there is a statue in there that is worth millions. Leading us to the "bad guys" who are in it for the money and are using Ariel and her boyfriend to the house to get it. But they meet a professor and his student who are also after the statue, leading like Indiana Jones, and claims the statue should be in a museum. But understandably Ariel just wants to get out of there, but the house won't let her.

Return to House on Haunted Hill is not too bad, really. I'd say there is a good amount of scares and the story is decent enough, it's not your typical bad bad sequel that I expected. Would I recommend it to anyone? Not too many people, I think you'll have to see yourself, and be in a good mood to see a horror movie. Otherwise if you take the time to watch this, don't take it too seriously, because you are going to hate it. Gotta love the boy fantasy of having three women together naked and moving like a porno movie.

4/10
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Another "Trapped in a Haunted House" Predictable Movie
claudio_carvalho2 November 2007
The editor of a fashion magazine Ariel Wolfe (Amanda Righetti) receives many calls from her sister Sara, but she does not return. When Sara is found dead, apparently after committing suicide, Ariel goes to her apartment with her friend and photographer Paul (Tom Riley). She meets Professor Richard (Steven Pacey), who is seeking Sara's journal to find a lead to the statue of the evil god Baphomet for a museum. Later, Ariel and Paul are kidnapped by the gang of the treasure hunter Desmond (Erik Palladino), who intends to find and sell the statue to a private collector for five million dollars. They go to the house, where they meet Richard, his assistant Kyle (Andrew Lee Potts) and the student Michelle (Cerina Vincent), but the criminals dominate the group. However, the house suddenly closes all the exits and they find trapped inside with vision of ghosts that are reliving their final moments in the place they died.

"Return to House on Haunted Hill" is another "trapped in a haunted house" predictable and forgettable movie. The story uses the same common clichés and it is very easy to foresee the next sequence. The unknown Amanda Righetti and the sexy Cerina Vincent are extremely gorgeous and have good performances in the role of the heroine Ariel and the treacherous Michelle. The cult Jeffrey Combs has a ham performance in the role of the sadistic and evil Dr. Richard Benjamin Vannacutt. The special effects are great but the cinematography and the sound effects are annoying. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "De Volta a Casa da Colina" ("Return to the House on the Hill")
14 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Seriously??...
cmatthynssens7 May 2019
Okay, where to start... First off, there is no lead in on how the house became reopened. How did it open up after going into lock down to start? The whole obsessed sister thing is a poor way to kick off the beginning as well. Then who shoots the hell out of gears to stop Hill Ouse from going on lock down again, come on... I couldn't go further than the betrayal of the Professor before I had to flat out stop it.... If you're going to do a sequel you might want to get some things right.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Good concept stricken with errors
Darrellbjones24 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is equally bad as it is good. The acting is just terrible. You don't buy the fact that these people are dying. I came into this movie with high hopes, but the outcome was pretty ugly. Not one person acted well. A lot of the people had double personalities throughout so it was like them not being the same person. The deaths were cheesy, but were creative. The deaths themselves were good, but the way it was executed was bad. It was also not very realistic. Some of the scenes like Desmond burning in the cremetorium looked like green screen. This 5/10 is very generous for what this movie really is. 5/10 is really a rating a gave because these people attempted this. The trailer looked good, but the movie is definitely not. The entire movie was cheesy, badly acted, and corny. Although some scenes were smart and had good ideas, these ideas did not go well. That proves that these people were unexperienced. Even though this movie is under 80 minutes long, you want it to end in the first 15 minutes.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Time wasted.
todzed28 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I was excited when finally given the chance to catch this. Admittedly we didn't have the DTV version in Australia, so I can't commend on that one, but being a HUGE fan of the original I was excited anyway. Disappointment doesn't even begin to scrape the bottom of the "bad review barrel". If I ever meet the person who green-lit this, who wrote it or who directed, I cannot be held responsible for my actions.

I could already feel the migraine of a bad movie setting in from the point where Ariel(?) starts as some ice-queen executive too busy to answer Sara's phone message, and then all of the sudden becomes a vengeance seeking puzzle solving marksman? What the?

I know that a straight-to-DVD movie is meant to be taken with a pinch of salt, but instead this movie packed salt into the wound left by hideously unnecessary lesbian ghost scene. Again, painful. A complete departure from logic, plot and any relation to the original, I stuck by my "code" to watch every movie I see to the end, but this was beyond anything I have ever seen (read: painful). All in all, I can definitely say I'm going to have trouble sleeping tonight. And that's not from any "scares" attempted in this movie (or lack thereof), but more for myself wondering where the hell people come from who make a movie like this. Oh yea, Bulgaria...(see end credits for explanation to that one).
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
How stupid should you be to shoot a ghost?
swAppp7 October 2007
First, I haven't seen a good horror film in... EVER! There are true horror movies, that make me laugh, there are horror comedies, that are too scary to be funny, but luckily, there are some enjoyable movies, Return to House on Haunted Hill is one of little. I haven't seen the original one, haven't seen the remake, but does it matter? This movie is far better than a lot of todays remakes.. yeah, its a sequel, but the storyline is so moving. As usual, good guys, bad guys and bad guys pretending to be good guys... I have to say - actors made their part in this film, they looked so realistic and scared. It was really fun to see how smart those people there - at least they weren't trying to shoot a ghost!! Despite low budget of this movie, music, special effects and make-up was great - surprisingly. After giving all these pluses I must say - this movie is worth taking a look. Of course, youngsters should not watch it as they are probably going to pee their pants. Enjoy this 8/10 movie till the very last minute and expect more.
17 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Don't know where to begin...
strck918 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Boy, oh boy! It's like Hollywood doesn't even want us to go see movies anymore. This is a perfect example on how to completely ruin any chance on a cool series. The special effects were OK, but even low budget movies are approaching this level now...enough with the cheesy computer effects!! The quality of the fx were even lower in this than in the first movie. A scary nurse with only white, black, and grey makeup on? Woooooo!!! Super scary boys and girls!! And how the commando guy was quartered? I never knew a person EXPLODED when their limbs were torn off!!!!!! The tight camera shots and the spastic shaking (which i am most tired of seeing in movies) in most action scenes just go to show how little they spent on the sets, except for spider webs, was there some kind of crazy sale at the f/x store? The actors had the amazing ability to keep a strait face in uttering some of the worst dialogue i may have ever heard this side of an ED Wood movie. It is possible that the script was penned by the children of the studio execs, that would certainly clear a lot up. The actors also seem to have been told to show a complete lack of emotion during filming. I can understand fresh faces and all, but the acting in this was absolutely awful, no redeeming quality. Most situations in the movie are completely absurd, make no sense what so ever, and leave you wondering exactly who this is targeted at. This was filmed poorly, acted poorly, financed poorly, written poorly...you get the idea. Stay away from this. I watch bad horror for fun, lots of them. Want to see good/bad? See Santa's Slay, thats good, this is just horrid. It makes you wonder how Hollywood can complain that we movie goers don't see enough movies. When crappy movies like this keep getting pumped out by the dozen, lowering our IQ's by double digits, it's easy to see why Hollywood is imploding on itself. Note to Hollywood: Stop making these movies, save your money...a lot of it. Now hire some real script writers, don't let ANYONE revise the scripts! Make some really nice, large sets. Invest in some quality actors, but do they really need to make 20mill a film??? Some countries don't even have this kind of money! If they balk at a pay reduction...fire them. I'm sure they will be fine. Find camera people without nervous disorders. And remember, athletes, wrestlers, musicians, and friends of the family are NOT actors!!
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Predictable from moment one
leandros-120 October 2007
First I have to say that I am not that crazy about horror movies, especially when there is a lot of "blood-splattering" around.

However, I did enjoy the old movies of "The house on haunted hill". In black/white, but my, oh my..... they kept me on the edge of my seat.

And now I have seen this movie.... I had more problems in keeping awake, then getting into the movie. How boring, uninspired and most of all: Predictable.

The effect were more humorous than scary. The acting was more scary.... meaning that it was very bad. Just some actors plucked from some dumb cheap sitcom, instead of characters.

Well - to cut a long story short: This movies can be flushed into the loo....
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worse than a bad roleplaying session.
soulassassinx13 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
There was a time when me and my friends used to drink heavily and dance like crazy people. When the club shut we ran back to our roleplaying club and improvised different scenarios, many which contained horror, sex and gunplay, very similar to Return to the house on haunted hill.

When six drunks can come up with a story in fifteen minutes ten times better than this one, one might just ask: How in the hell could this be made?

Story: An idol of Baphomet (which in actuality is a bad figurine resembling Cthulhu) is placed in a basement of a mental hospital, for some reason. Pornstar lookalikes and former wrestlers go to this place to retrieve this idol and gets killed in violent ways featuring such killings as a brain being ripped out of a mans skull and a woman having her head gooifyed by a flying refrigerator. Marvelous.

It also features the classic horror movie muppets such as the-stop and-run women with long hair and wet feet seen in ALL Asian horror movies, the eyeless monster (an Ittenbach favourite) and a few porn actresses in minimal nurse outfits and a lot of mascara.

Plot holes: Why would the house be left unattended by the authorities from what happened in the first film?

Why did all the ghosts try to stop the heroes from getting the idol when the house wanted to present the statue to the world and spread its evil ways?

Why didn't the statue have any impact on the world before it ended up in the hospital.

Why do the ghosts wait to attack the heroes until the movie has the right mood for violence and horror?

Why is the electricity on?

How could the hospital be rid of the haunting by throwing the idol in to a sewer? And why does this heavy figurine, which seems to weigh at least 3 - 5 kilos, float like it was made out of plastic?

How is this connected in any way to the first movie. What happened to that computer animated blackness in the first film and why does the hospital look different in it's architecture (on the inside)?

Rating: There is no humour, no self irony; everything is dead serious in every scene. The scenes when people walk alone in dark hallways they feel the need to have stupid monolouges like: "Hm, this hallway is to dark and spooky. I'll better enter anyway. Hm, who is breathing down my neck? Ah well, I better press forward so the ghost can kill me in a lit up room further down?"

This could have been fun to watch like Ittenbachs movies but instead it renders the viewer the feeling of unispiration just like Boll's House of the Dead and Alone in the Dark or the horrible travesti Day of the Dead 2 - Contagium.

And the most fun part was when I predicted the ending, although this scene comes after the end credits. Apart from inventive killings and horrible over the top violence most scenes have already been made. To real movie buffs it's fun though, that the acacdemic investigator is called Hammer and the name Price is mentioned, this can be hommages to Hammer Horrors from 1960's and 1970's produced in The United Kingdom and these often featured actor Vincent Price.

In all, this is a dull session with few or barely anything new material at all.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not bad to watch, but failed completely as a horror film.
gijzel11 October 2007
I never saw the version before so thats not taken in consideration.

This film was alright, actors weren't outstanding but horrible. The graphics and the story line were pretty good imo. But this is supposed to be a horror film?

There were many scenes in this film they could have made A LOT scarier. I see a lot of horror films and I don't think the saw movies are scary at all, now this film, was even less scary then any of the saw movies. So if you want to see this movie for the kick of scary moments and the thrill of watching, don't watch it. I don't even know why I watched it until the end, I guess its not that bad to watch.

Oh, and what I really got sick of, is the RIPPED OFF Starcraft sound effects. I know they are excellent but to steal them is really stupid and annoying.

Anyhow, started with the idea the movie was alright, but at the end of my review I feel like this was a terrible movie. I wouldn't recommend this movie personally but if you are bored and scared easily this film would be good to kill the time.

Cheers
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Vannacut's back!
mattressman_pdl20 November 2007
Although this pleasant little direct to video sequel to 1999's smash remake was completely unexpected, this reviewer went into it with an open mind. And for a direct to video sequel, I wasn't let down in the least. A woman, the sister of the survivor of the first film, is forced by a group of mercenaries to lead them into the infamous House on Haunted Hill looking for a priceless statue that is the supposed source of the house's evil. A professor and two students are also mixed into the action. For cost issues, the film was shot in the UK, which wouldn't be a bad thing except the acting kind of suffers from it. Erik Palladino was fun in one of his first bad guy roles and Jeffrey Combs, reprising his ghostly presence from the original, is given more to do as the dreadful, soulless Dr. Vannacut. The kills on display here are top-notch and must be seen to be believed and for those viewers interested in such things, nudity is also on view here. All in all, one of the best straight to video horror films/sequels in the past ten years. A good double bill with the equally impressive Wrong Turn 2.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
i didn't like it as much as the first one,but...
disdressed1228 October 2007
(this comment refers to the unrated version of the film)i thought it was still an entertaining movie.there are a few pretty creative kills which are pretty gory.but overall i thought the gore factor was a lot less in this one.so if you're a hard core gore hound,this movie might not satisfy you.i didn't really care for the acting that much,but i've seen worse.i also felt that most of the characters were stereotypical for the genre.and for me,the storyline wasn't very good.it felt too contrived to me.however,i did like the explanation they gave for the root of the evil.i thought it was inventive.there is some nudity in this movie,most of which i felt was not necessary and had nothing to do with the story.it could have been used as filler,to pad the film's short running time.this film also lacked the high tension of the first one.in fact,i didn't really think the film had much atmosphere.the ending to the movie was pretty typical,in my mind.but still,like i said,i felt it was entertaining and had a bit of creativity.this is just my opinion of course,but my vote for Return to House on Haunted Hill is a 7/10
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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


Recently Viewed