Return to House on Haunted Hill

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

Another Dark Castle production, this time a sequel to a remake that nobody asked for in the first place. RETURN TO HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL sees a group of disparate types holing up in a haunted mansion one night, hoping to claim a jackpot but falling foul of the usual malignant spirit forces. This one is even further away from the fun spirit of the Vincent Price original than the first film was.

The plot is entirely negligible here except to offer a group of unlikeable characters trapped and wandering around a single location. Evil doctor ghost Jeffrey Combs is the only cast member to return from the original, but he only has a scene or two. Instead, the film offers endless scenes of CGI-augmented gore to the viewer; bodies are pulverised, ripped limb from limb, and people have their faces cut off. It's all unbelievable, unremarkable, and quite uninteresting. The director goes out of his way to scare the viewer with jump scares and CGI ghosties floating about, but overkill is the order of the day here and as a result the film is a bit of a joke.

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.

Survivor Sara Wolfe from the 1st movie dies in an apparent suicide. Her sister Ariel (Amanda Righetti) wants to find the cause of her sister's obsession. Professor Richard is seeking a statue of the evil Baphomet. They get kidnapped by a group of treasure hunters looking for the same statue.

The story isn't that great. It's messy and filled with unlikeable characters. The gore and the grotesque do make it a different movie than the original. The first one was more of a cartoon. This one is much more uglier and grittier. The FX works quite well. The one thing that's obviously inferior is the caliber of actors. This is strictly straight to video. I cared nothing about the characters, but I liked the FX.

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...