House IV - Presenze impalpabili

I really like this series. This House movie contains less action &/or horror than the previous two (whatever happened to House III?), but is still fun. I love the fact that the daughter is paralysed and in a wheelchair -- yet Mom manages to not only get her into the Victorian house (not ground level by any means), but also into her upstairs bedroom without any visible lifts or elevators. Still, this movie does manage to have a good (not great, but good) storyline and fits well into the series. BTW - William Katt's character shouldn't be the same as in the first House. It takes place way too soon for this to be his second wife and second child and the first son to be gone.

And so House IV finishes off Sean Cunningham's secondary horror series (after Friday the 13th) and while it's an improvement on House 3 it doesn't have the maniacal energy of the first two movies, though it's not all bad.

This one has Roger Cobb return and he's inherited another spooky, old house from his recently dead daddy. His brother wants to sell to some evil toxic waste disposal company and cash-in but Roger wants to keep the promise he made to his old man and be a custodian to the house's mysterious past and secrets. After Roger is killed in a car accident his widow begins to experience visions and see ghosts, though they could actually be trying to help her, not scare her.

Original writer Ethan Wiley was not on board for this one, he checked-out after House 2 (still the best one), and a bunch of new writers have all pitched in with their own ideas, and are clearly trying to riff on Twin Peaks at one point, though they don't all add up. House IV was made because Sean Cunningham found himself with a budget for one last movie only he didn't have a script. He owed Lewis Abernathy a favor so allowed him to direct and develop the story. It was only after the script had been through a few drafts and some of the cast had been given their roles that they decided to continue/end the story from the first House by bringing back Roger Cobb. Though they did this very lazily, and I don't think the writing team even bothered to watch the first movie as there is absolutely zero connective tissue. Just a couple of lines of dialogue or a quick reference here and there would have made all the difference.

Shot in November 1990, but not released until 1992 due to marketing issues, House IV has a noticeable drop in production value, mainly down to the naff photography by James Mathers, who's career is all TV drivel and cheap schlock. Mac Ahlberg shot the first three movies with lots of shadow and atmosphere. He understood lighting and mood while Mathers doesn't seem to have a clue or any artistic vision and the quality of the film suffers under his lack of ability.

House 3 killed the accidental tradition of actors from Cheers appearing in this series (a quick cameo from Ted Danson or Frasier himself would have been that movie's saving grace) and House IV does nothing to remedy that, but there are three actors from this rather small cast who went on to appear in Con Air, which is odd.

Harry Manfredini scores all four films, but for budget reasons he's limited to a synthesizer to deliver the music for House IV, much like his terrible score to Jason Goes To Hell, though it's good enough without being the least bit memorable. Trust me, no one is going to be releasing a vinyl soundtrack for this movie.

It still manages to be an oddball horror/comedy and, despite a few shortcomings, holds together just enough to make it a good, if hardly spectacular, end for the House series.

I'm very confused about Lewis Abernathy though. This man has barely any credits at all and House IV is his only venture into directing, with a few other minor credits on smaller films here and there. But he played the significant role of Lewis Bodine (keeping his first name) in Titanic, dropping the movie's only F-bomb if I recall correctly. Who IS this man? I can only assume he became pals with James Cameron from working on Deepstar Six since he's a big fan of deep diving and had a fondness the movie.

I really expected something more from this movie. Despite the "House" franchise being very weak, the previous films proved to be more interesting. Without imagination, creativity or an effort to give us something really appealing, this film tried, however, to follow up the story of the first film. It was, still, a cold ending to a franchise that never really heated up.

The script returns to the figure of Roger Cobb, protagonist of the first film. After all the adventures of the first film, he's going to receive a house from his deceased father... which makes me think about the luck of this guy, who spends his life inheriting houses from several dying relatives... houses who are always haunted or have something supernatural. In fact, the film quite copies the structure of the initial film, with slight nuances that don't erase the feeling of "wait, I've seen this somewhere"...

Willian Katt returns to the role he played in the franchise's first film, but the quality of his work as an actor has notably declined. Without adequate material and without a direction demanding more, the actor is kind of left to himself and doesn't give us something really appealing. To make things even more difficult, the actor sees his character die extraordinarily quickly, so his appearance in this film is basically episodic. Despite her youth, Melissa Clayton also deserves a positive note, doing very well and stealing our attention, especially in the more comical scenes. Terri Treas also looks good to me in her character, even though the script reduces her to a screaming machine. Scott Burkholder is a cliché but fun villain. On the negative side, I must mention Ned Romero's very stereotyped performance and Denny Dillon's irritating acting, giving us the most out of place character.

With a mediocre script, poor direction and an uninspired cast, the redeeming characteristics of this film lie in the production values and, particularly, in the sensible and intelligent use of very good special effects, in which the production spent a good part of its budget. The movie is not very scary, it can almost be considered a family movie. The sets were also well-designed, the cinematography fulfills its role without any demerit and the editing seems to me quite discreet.

Let's see..."House 1","House 2","House 4".......what happened to part three???I have never found a part three and I'm not the only one.A good film,though not as good as the first two.Good for a laugh or two.Could make you think twice before ordering a pizza though.......

In some of the dream and scare sequences, the director of "House IV" shows considerable talent and imagination. But the plot is just a rehash of old cliches, and toward the end it goes all over the map and creates quite a few gaps. Even horror movies have to establish some rules and play by them, this movie goes every which way but loose. Still, it's better than the dreadful "House II". (**)