Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

dannydc-07666 Return to House on Haunted Hill picks off from a few years after the original story. It actually focuses on the sister of one of the participants of the original film Sarah. Sarah has been killed in this film as she failed to cooperate with thugs with information about the house. This story involves around a valuable statue which is located in the heart of the house, which the thugs want.The beginning of the film did actually make me feel kind of sad as we learn about Sarah's murder (framed as suicide). I thought the acting of her sister Ariel was pretty poor. Considering that her sister had committed suicide (No one knows of her actually being murdered at this point, she only shed a few tears. After a few minutes she was fine.Ariel and her boyfriend then get kidnapped and taken at gunpoint to the house, to find the statue. Then the movie really does start to get a bit disturbing. There's a lot of gruesome scenes with some death of the characters. What i do like is how the characters get shown flashbacks of what the house was like before they die, i thought that was a clever idea.The main part of this story is mostly getting the statue and escaping the house. It tends to drag at this point. Yeah a few characters die in quite disturbing ways but nothing much else.Towards the last half hour of the film we actually learn that the statue holds the key on releasing all of the trapped spirits in the house. Again i thought that this was a clever twist of the story. The thought never came into my mind about.Overall i thought this film was a good sequel to the first story. You got to see more of the fantastic design inside and outside of the house. My complaints of the other film was that there wasn't much to see of the exterior design, but in this version there is a lot more shown. There is an awful lot of blood, guts and limbs thrown everywhere; which is always cool! I do recommend this movie but only after you have seen the original in 1999; as this is technically part 2.

Al_The_Strange Eight years after the release of the House on Haunted Hill remake, this little film came to home video. It pretty much is direct-to-video trash, offering a few thrills, but nothing substantial.The best that can be said is that the film has some very wicked scenes of blood and gore, and some rather arousing nude scenes. Unfortunately, the film does drag at spots, and it feels uneven.The film does its best to build on its predecessor, as it uses the same settings, same production design, and going so far as bringing back Jeffrey Combs to play the same bad guy as in the first film. One other valuable aspect is that, as the ghosts kill off all the hapless characters, the film uses some really wicked flashbacks to explore more of the house's violent history.Unfortunately, that's all the good that can be said about it. The film employs some rather dull, lifeless characters who serve as little more than crazy-ghost-fodder. The story doesn't have much of a structure or point at all, and it's especially dumb in the way it explains away the hauntings with a mere demonic statue (which also serves as a rather weak and uninspired McGuffin).The film doesn't look too bad in terms of filming and editing. Acting and writing aren't anything worth praising though. This production has okay-looking sets, props, and costumes, and some rather weak special effects. Music isn't really great either.2.5/5 (Entertainment: Average | Story: Poor | Film: Poor)

RecceR In the sequel to the 1999 remake, a new group of people descend into the house to search for an ancient statue of Baphomet, which is worth millions. They soon come face to face with the evil within the house and must fight to survive. They also find a way to tie into the first movie, but it's the usual for these types of sequels; a relative of someone from the original cast. This is definitely an inferior sequel to a far more superior horror movie. However, you really should not be expecting more from a straight-to-DVD sequel to a 7 year old movie (at the time of its release). The characters were fairly basic without much to care about, besides the main character and a few others. The acting actually was not that bad, it just doesn't seem great due to the writing at times. The gore factor was up, and while it was never cheap looking, some of it felt out of place and done to gross people out. The amazing score from the previous movie was missing, though slight pieces showed up in a revamped form. The score for this movie was weak and generic, without much ability to affect a scene like the original. The plot had potential and actually gave some answers to why the house was evil, but some of it seemed a bit too out there.I wouldn't say this movie is absolutely horrible; it does have some decent portions. The thing that hurts the movie the most is that it is a sequel to a brilliant horror movie which takes all the brilliance out and replaces it with gore. Another thing that seriously hurt the movie was the changes to the house itself, inside and outside. Besides some archive footage for the opening, when showing the house, it was a CGI model. They also changed the entrance of front where it is a noticeably different set up, yet it leads to the exact same lounge/lobby area from the first movie. They ignore all the other rooms featured in the house, and most of the ones in this movie seem out of place. I'm assuming the budget could not warrant a proper reconstruction of all the previous sets or filming at the Griffith Park Observatory (for the entrance). Had this been given a bigger budget and done by William Malone and Dick Bebe, I think it would have been just as amazing. Unfortunately, we're stuck with a mediocre sequel that is mildly entertaining when you ignore the differences between it and the first one. I would say I'm on the fence with this one, but leaning more towards disliking it.

Sandcooler As far as cheap, unrelated, straight-to-video sequels to dubious horror classics go, you could probably do a lot worse than this. I mean, obviously it's nowhere near a decent movie, but you still get about what you'd expect. First of all you'll get to see some decent gore scenes, including some dude who gets torn apart by sheets or something like that. It's not a convincing scene, but it is a very entertaining one. Furthermore the main actress appears to be pretty hot, as we learn through about eight hundred close-up shots of her body parts. Subtlety is not this movie's strength, and why the hell should it be? The plot is also really silly, though not always in a good way. Never thought it was possible, but I'm getting kinda sick of secondary characters in horror movies wandering of from the group for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Wow, this house sure is haunted, now to walk into a random hallway all alone without telling anyone. Still, if you happen to fish this out of the bargain bin, I guess there are dumber ways to spend a buck.