BoardChiri
Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay
Teringer
An Exercise In Nonsense
Scarlet
The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
simonconnolly72-467-863881
I remember seeing the original House when it first came out when I was 15, and being quite disappointed. The trailers made it look quite scary but it was more silly and fun. It wasn't quite a horror and not quite a comedy and fell in a grey area, though saying that it was quite a good idea and inventive in parts. This sequel however makes that movie look like a masterpiece. The main problem I have with it is that it just seems like it's a kid's movie, but the 15 rating and the deaths at the beginning show that it's not meant for a very young audience. It all just therefore comes across as juvenile. We have childish cute plastic and fluffy type characters from another dimension, and it doesn't have the gore, monsters and sense of eeriness and atmosphere that the first one had. It becomes more a fantasy and a silly one at that.
thesar-2
If the Shockwaves podcast didn't make me interested in what "Part III" had to offer and rave so much about "the final chapter" or Part IV, I would've stopped here in the series.While the first entry was definitely a Rated-R movie without being Hard- R, this is its Hard-G version. Fine, PG, but still for 8-12 year-olds. (Yes, they rated it PG-13, but seriously, this movie was for kids.)Some of the things I appreciate most here, was an 80s horror sequel that did NOT retread the original. That probably happened 80% of the time and it was refreshing to see a part II of a soon-to-be franchise that took a different route. Also, like the first one with TV's George Wendt, his Cheers co-star, John Ratzenberger was the real star of the movie, despite his very small appearance. House II is the goofy story of a baby sent away from a castle, er, "house," only to return decades later and discover the legendary Crystal Skull that would eventually derail the Indiana Jones franchise. Along the way, he loses it constantly, but must gain it back to keep his Great-Great-Grandfather's zombified body alive. Oh, and there's a random Halloween party, bad-FX time travelling dimensions and story lines that vanish faster than the audience.Admittedly, when Ratzenberger was on screen, I had a blast and I loved seeing my Friday the 13th "Carrie" in what appeared to be a lead role up front, but turned out to be one of the many abandoned subplots. Also, everyone seemed to be having a good time making this, despite how bad it was. That's always nice to see.That all said, it's thoroughly not recommended for anyone above 12 and those younger better be from an Amish community to accept such bad graphics in this day and age. Can't even recommend it to lovers of the first House since this has absolutely nothing to do with that movie.So, I guess, skip this House and go onto the next one.***Final thoughts: When doing a breezy research for this, I happened to click upon Lar Park-Lincoln's IMDb page. Here, she played "Kate," love interest in our hero, but also "Tina" from Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood. Never before have I seen an IMDb page shout so much. Here's what it had, as of 7/29/17, at least:"Lar Park Lincoln has 38 years in the industry! Her book, "Get Started Not Scammed" guides Hollywood hopefuls to Stardom! Her specialties are TV and film, on-camera training, auditions, and career guidance. She has written her own method of on-camera training, "The Autograph", which super-speeds the training and booking rates of actors!..."
gavin6942
The new owner (Arye Gross) of a sinister house gets involved with reanimated corpses and demons searching for an ancient Aztec skull with magic powers.Ethan Wiley (who wrote part one) wrote the story and also takes over as director, with Sean Cunningham staying on as producer. Wiley's background, interestingly enough, was in practical effects for "Return of the Jedi" and "Gremlins" working under Chris Walas. Steve Miner, the director of part one, was too busy making "Soul Man" to return, but did make his mark just the same: he recommended the lead actor, Arye Gross.Special mention must be given to Gregg Fonseca (1952–1994) who was production designer and made a tiny budget look like a big movie. The set designer does not often get much credit, but this is the sort of film where they should: look at depth and richness of the sets, and the wide variety Fonseca had to create. If the budget really was as low as they claim, he was working his butt off to get the job done.Some have said this film is "boring", but this is simply not true. If anything, it could be accused of being silly or just too much nonsense. But, for whatever reason, this is largely what is most appealing about the film... In fact, this film is generally better than the first, though it makes far less sense and it does not quite have the acting power that you get from William Katt. John Ratzenberger does outdo George Wendt, however, with all due respect to Wendt.What may have gotten the film a bad rap is its reception from horror fans. This film is like a "Friday the 13th" reunion, with Lar Park Lincoln, Kane Hodder, and Sean Cunningham. Not to mention other behind-the-scenes players. And that may be harmful, as those expecting horror really are not going to find it here. Despite the ghoulish cover art, this is really a "fantasy adventure" film. There is no blood or guts and really nothing in the way of scares.This film is followed by a part three (sort of, with "The Horror Show" not even using the same title) and a part four that actually picks up where the first left off... such a bizarre, unpredictable franchise, even by 1980s standards. Either two or four of these films is available in a box set from Arrow Video, depending on your region. For "House II", they not only ported over an earlier audio commentary, but add on a full-length documentary on its making, with interviews from not only the usual suspects, but some lesser-seen faces such as Chris Walas.
Stephanie Wells
This is a great movie I watched as a kid. My husband and I found it on Netflix recently and sat down and watched it with the family. My eight year old loves it! I rank it up there with something like The Monster Squad. Some edgy subjects for kids but a really cool movie nonetheless. I can't believe this movie has a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It's a classic! I sit and watch it as an adult, and OK, it's very cheesed and there are several plot holes, but it's still a really good concept. My husband even jokes about using it for a D&D campaign. The first house still has it's merits and I haven't seen any other sequels, but I like them both as sequels and on their own.
