Michael_Elliott
House II: The Second Story (1987) ** 1/2 (out of 4)Jesse (Arye Gross) inherits his family's old house and soon he learns about a mysterious legend surrounding a crystal skull. Pretty soon his long dead grandpa (Royal Dano) is alive and they must look for the skull as well as battle the creatures who also want it.In 1985 HOUSE was released to some rather good reviews and the film ended up doing quite well at the box office. Of course, that means a sequel was bound to follow and two years later came HOUSE II: THE SECOND STORY. Unlike a lot of sequels that just try to copy the formula of the first film, this one here at least tried to actually deliver a "second story" and for the most part this was an entertaining picture.As was the case with the first movie, this one here does a nice job at mixing up the horror and comedy elements. I'd argue that this one here is much more comedy than the previous film but there's nothing wrong with that and especially since we get some pretty good bits here. I must say that the grandpa character was a lot of fun and made for some funny scenes and especially early on when he tries to get re- connected in a world that he's been away from for a hundred years.Gross makes for a good lead here and manages to keep you entertained through his character's journey. Jonathan Stark is also good as his friend who goes along for the adventure. Dano is the real standout here as he does a wonderful job in the role of the grandpa who is basically a zombie. THe supporting cast includes Bill Maher, John Ratzenberger and Lar Park-Lincoln.HOUSE II: THE SECOND STORY certainly shows its "B" movie roots but that's not a bad thing. The creature designs are quite good and for the most part the film is entertaining enough to make it worth watching.
divittokelly
Wow! This film was so incredibly awful, my two children are still mad at me for showing it. My wife was the smart one; she left after ten minutes to read a book. It's stunning how anyone could give this piece of cinematic basura a respectable review. I do a weekly film program at my library and showed the original House (one of my favorites!) and people loved it. I'll never understand why filmmakers try to make sequels convoluted and over-the-top. The first House had the right mixture of horror and comedy. William Katt was perfect in his role and Richard Moll a great villain. The 'Gramps' character was just plain stupid and the two main actors were Wonderbread bland. No one saw this disaster coming? In a nutshell: bad story + bad acting = bad movie!
trashgang
I didn't like the original House but naturally I had to see the franchise but what a mistake this was. Thousands and thousands of flicks I have seen since the end of the seventies all horror and sci-fi but this here is just one utterly boring flick that I even used the fast forward button, a thing I normally never do. House was one for teenagers but this here is for toddlers. Ethan Wiley, also involved in House (screenplay) did wrote and directed this dull flick. The directing was okay and so many genre actors were involved coming from Fright Night ((1985) Jonathan Stark), to Lar Park-Lincoln (Friday the 13th part VII (1988)) to Royal Dano (Something Wicked This Way Comes (1983)) but I just can't understand that they agreed to this childish flick. The creatures or animals looked really stupid and I didn't like them, for a horror. And the use of blue key (skeleton horse) and stop/motion (dinosaurs) really was outdated for 1987. The best part is only the last 15 minutes, at that part are a few nice effects. But overall it's just a family film in the tradition of Harry and the Hendersons (1987). Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 1/5 Comedy 0/5
Lee Sherman
The enjoyable parts prevent this from being a truly bad film, but only just. The original "House" probably never made anyone's list of top horror movies, but it's entertaining in its own, modest way. I can't say the same for "House II." Nor can I honestly say it's a sequel. It doesn't feature any of the characters from the original. It's also a completely different house. The house in "House" was built on a weak spot between our world and the world of the dead, while the house in "House II" was built at the crossroads of time and space. This is, I believe, an important distinction. There doesn't seem to be any reason for calling this "House II," except to justify the clever subtitle.But that's not the only problem. The filmmakers clearly didn't know what kind of film they wanted to make, and the result is a jumbled mess. It starts off promising, and is shaping up to be a good haunted-house horror film when it suddenly and inexplicably becomes a fantasy-adventure comedy, during which time the ghost that the movie once seemed to be centered around is never seen and hardly mentioned. Then, after the viewer has adjusted to the new premise, the ghost comes back, and none of the threads brought up during the middle part are properly resolved. It's all pushed aside for a dramatic dénouement, followed by a final scene that raises further questions rather than answering any of the many existing ones.I should also add that this movie contains several insults to the viewer's intelligence, which I wouldn't excuse even if it were an out-and-out comedy. In one scene, our hero falls hundreds of feet, but falls into a portal that lets him out right above the floor in his own house. The problem is that his momentum shouldn't change, so he should still be dead. In another scene, a zombie is strangled until he loses consciousness. Just think about that one for a moment.So why did I give this an average review? Because there are good points. It's original, for starters. It may be hugely disjointed with little internal logic, but at least it isn't just retreading old clichés. It features characters who you care about, because they're fairly believable and interesting. It boasts special effects that are well above par for 1987, and some visually intriguing scenes and designs. The humor, as misplaced as it may be at times, is often quite funny. And, above all, there is John Ratzenberger as "Bill Towner, electrician and adventurer." The part with him is just great, not just because of his performance, but the way his character is written, and the sequence's juxtaposition of the banal and the otherworldly. Sadly, he's only in that one scene. If the movie had begun and ended with him, it could have been an '80s fantasy comedy classic (but still wouldn't really be a sequel to "House"). Actually, there are at least three different movies in here, all of which could have been good if they hadn't been thrown together to form a single, unfocused movie."House II" isn't a winner, nor is it a complete waste of time. Watch it if the things I've described have piqued your curiosity, but don't expect it to be too entertaining overall.
