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.

lyrafowlpotter The original "House" with William Katt, is a grossly underrated mid- 1980's horror/comedy gem. Even though I do not really watch horror films anymore, I will always fondly remember "House", and it's dry sense of humor, but also fairly serious plot threads of overcoming the demons of your past, it is a movie that is serious while having a very dark sense of humor, that rises far above the low-brow humor of most horror comedies. This sequel "House II" is not a direct sequel, but rather a thematic sequel, it has an entirely new cast of characters, and a different house all-together, and it does not rehash the same story, but it is very much in the same spirit as the original house, although far less serious, if that is possible.The acting is surprisingly well-done, campy, and over-the-top, why yes it is! However, if you're coming to this movie with expectations of a serious film, you are sorely mistaken. This is a very goofy movie, with an even goofier plot, but the creativity is boundless, which makes for a fun and inventive viewing experience. Unlike some, I do not find the tone to be uneven, even though it starts with a fairly ominous beginning, and seems to "drop" this plot thread, it definitely doesn't, it is percolating in the background the entire film, and gave me an overall sense of dread, wondering when things were going to come back full circle. Everything ties together, and all of the plot threads due tie up by the end of the film, in a very goofy over-the-top fashion. The conclusion actually makes logical sense within the continuity of the film, and unlike more horror themed films, your not left thinking, "Yeah, but they just committed a ton of crimes in the process and getting away and will likely go to jail."The effects are better than in the original "House" and extremely well-done for the time it was made. Many of the effects still stand up today, though some of the stop-motion does look fairly dated. The caterpuppy is so adorable, and very uniquely 1980's creation which would fit right into the film "Labyrinth". While many questions are left unanswered by the end, I don't think of it as a bad thing, there just wasn't enough time to answer them all. The film is non-stop entertaining, from beginning to end, and yes, John Ratzenberger's cameo is hands-down, the best moment of the film, but Royal Dano is also endlessly entertaining as the great, great, great, grandfather. Some might be annoyed by Jonathan Stark's character, but his acting is always appropriately over-the- top, and Arye Gross, plays things mostly straight, and mostly anchors the film on his own as he deals with one ludicrous scenario after the next. A film worth watching if you love 1980's effects and fantasy films that have very outlandish plots, no offense to Ridley Scott, but this film is on the whole, a lot more entertaining than the straight-up fantasy film "Legend", which is often bogged down by a in-your-face moralistic message, a stilted love story, and stilted dialog, while "Legend" really would have benefited from some of the fun and adventurous tone of "House II", it obviously came out 2yrs before "House II". "House II" is watchable not because of a coherent plot, though it is more coherent than it should be, or because of deep character studies, there is none to be had, it is entertaining because that is what it seeks to do, be a fun entertaining popcorn movie, and it does well at that.Have the proper expectations and you'll be pleasantly surprised.God Bless ~Amy

jbullock8 This is a light-hearted film. Don't expect a traditional horror film. This is more of a fantasy comedy with some horror imagery. With a description like that, you should not approach this film too seriously. Do not try to make sense of the plot, just enjoy the ride. It is rarely scary, occasionally sweet, often hilarious and constantly amusing. Fans of the original shouldn't expect the same experience as this is not as brilliant as the first. It cuts back significantly on the horror, both in atmosphere and imagery. There are only one or two scenes that could be thought of as horror scenes. However, if you liked the practical special effects and the over the top sense of humor of the first, you will still find something to enjoy in this film as well.

Lee Sherman The enjoyable parts prevent this from being a truly bad film, but only just. The original "House" probably never made anyone's list of top horror movies, but it's entertaining in its own, modest way. I can't say the same for "House II." Nor can I honestly say it's a sequel. It doesn't feature any of the characters from the original. It's also a completely different house. The house in "House" was built on a weak spot between our world and the world of the dead, while the house in "House II" was built at the crossroads of time and space. This is, I believe, an important distinction. There doesn't seem to be any reason for calling this "House II," except to justify the clever subtitle.But that's not the only problem. The filmmakers clearly didn't know what kind of film they wanted to make, and the result is a jumbled mess. It starts off promising, and is shaping up to be a good haunted-house horror film when it suddenly and inexplicably becomes a fantasy-adventure comedy, during which time the ghost that the movie once seemed to be centered around is never seen and hardly mentioned. Then, after the viewer has adjusted to the new premise, the ghost comes back, and none of the threads brought up during the middle part are properly resolved. It's all pushed aside for a dramatic dénouement, followed by a final scene that raises further questions rather than answering any of the many existing ones.I should also add that this movie contains several insults to the viewer's intelligence, which I wouldn't excuse even if it were an out-and-out comedy. In one scene, our hero falls hundreds of feet, but falls into a portal that lets him out right above the floor in his own house. The problem is that his momentum shouldn't change, so he should still be dead. In another scene, a zombie is strangled until he loses consciousness. Just think about that one for a moment.So why did I give this an average review? Because there are good points. It's original, for starters. It may be hugely disjointed with little internal logic, but at least it isn't just retreading old clichés. It features characters who you care about, because they're fairly believable and interesting. It boasts special effects that are well above par for 1987, and some visually intriguing scenes and designs. The humor, as misplaced as it may be at times, is often quite funny. And, above all, there is John Ratzenberger as "Bill Towner, electrician and adventurer." The part with him is just great, not just because of his performance, but the way his character is written, and the sequence's juxtaposition of the banal and the otherworldly. Sadly, he's only in that one scene. If the movie had begun and ended with him, it could have been an '80s fantasy comedy classic (but still wouldn't really be a sequel to "House"). Actually, there are at least three different movies in here, all of which could have been good if they hadn't been thrown together to form a single, unfocused movie."House II" isn't a winner, nor is it a complete waste of time. Watch it if the things I've described have piqued your curiosity, but don't expect it to be too entertaining overall.