Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Wuchak RELEASED TO VIDEO IN 2007 and directed by Víctor García, "Return to House on Haunted Hill" chronicles events when two factions enter the odd 'house' on the cliffside (actually an asylum) looking for a satanic idol on the very same night (!). One party consists of Ariel (Amanda Righetti) & her beau (Tom Riley) who had been kidnapped by a group of thugs looking for the priceless figurine (e.g. Erik Palladino & Calita Rainford). The other party consists of a college professor (Steven Pacey) and his student assistants (Andrew-Lee Potts & Cerina Vincent). Needless to say, all hell (literally) breaks loose. Jeffrey Combs is on hand as the house's resident mad doctor, Richard B. Vannacutt.This is a stand-alone sequel to the 1999 movie, "House on Haunted Hill," which I don't remember seeing, but I have seen the lame original 1959 film with Vincent Price. In any case, this sequel curiously adds the priceless Baphomet idol as the cause of Dr. Vannacutt's evil. It's an arbitrary plot device to get people back in the house and paves the way for subplots about suicides and gangsters, which are incongruent to the original film's simple premise (daring a group of strangers to stay in the house overnight for a million dollars). But does anyone really care about that in a direct-to-DVD stand-alone sequel? Not me. The question is: Does "Return" deliver as a competent haunted asylum flick? Palladino makes for a capable villain, the story's energetic, the asylum sets & CGI are creepily effective and there's a lot of gore. But I didn't care a wit about anyone who was threatened because the movie never took the time to establish characters for which the viewer might care. This is augmented by the fact that the bulk of the people are awfully unlikable, which destroys sympathy. There was no suspense or genuine scares. In one sequence, for instance, a man is literally drawn & quartered to bloody pieces and I busted out laughing. Also, for me, the film didn't deliver on the female front. Protagonist Righetti is decent, but comes across as a Grade-B Kate Beckinsale. Cerina Vincent is certainly one of the most voluptuously beautiful women to walk the planet, as seen in "It Waits" (2005) and "Sasquatch Mountain" (2006), but here she's painfully anorexic and in dire need of eating at McDonalds for four weeks straight. Calita Rainford is serviceable, but not enough is done with her and she doesn't last long anyway. There are a couple of fine-looking ghosts, however, in a lame wannabe-edgy lesbian sequence.The flick's just too by-the-numbers conventional, as far as modern horror goes, and evidently aimed at adolescent boys. There's no sense of artistry. If you want to see a haunted asylum film that balances conventional horror with kinetic editing & effects with an awesome sense of artistry, see 2005's "Death Tunnel" (and, no, I'm not kidding; see my review for details). THE MOVIE RUNS 79 minutes and was shot in Sofia & Burgas, Bulgaria, and Los Angeles. WRITER: Robb White. GRADE: C- (4.5/10)

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)

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.

Lawson I actually didn't dislike this movie's prequel, House on Haunted Hill - I gave it a 7. Its good-sized budget and well-known cast probably swayed my decision some.This sequel appears to have a better budget than most direct-to-video releases, though of course it comes nowhere close to its predecessor. Same with its cast. The story, actually, seems to have more in common with Thir13en Ghosts, since each of the gang trapped in the haunted house meet different kinds of ghosts with distinct personalities, which was fairly entertaining. I think the problem with the movie is that it blew its limited budget on special effects and makeup but to ho-hum effect. The ghosties and set look decent but the scares weren't there and the story and cast weren't up to scratch.