bbickley13-921-58664 The movie is very bland. Not scary, not frightening, not thrilling. It was fun to look at with very good Set design and lot of pretty naked girls to look at, but everything about the movie was obviously done as a gimmick and nothing else.The characters were not develop enough to care weather they got killed or not, and the death scenes were not cleaver enough to justify the weak characters.Possibly the only thing worth wild about the film was an interactive menu on the Blu Ray that allowed you to kind of "choose your own adventure". I'm thinking the content was just deleted scenes on an extended film version cleverly displayed to us, which is why certain plots could not be changed no matter what you select.But even this is not really worth seeing the movie over.

Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki Contrived sequel to the remake from eight years earlier (which didn't exactly call out for a follow up) starts out decently, but then progressively gets worse, as a group of obnoxious individuals that no one cares remotely about are forced to return to the house on Haunted Hill to find a Baphomet statue which no one cares remotely about either. Even at only 80 minutes, it still seems padded and slowly paced. The mutilated, lesbian ghost makeout session is the nadir of this barely-related, direct-to-DVD sequel to the 1999 remake of House On Haunted Hill. The 1999 remake was no prize winner, but offered a few more thrills than this dreck.Not even "so bad it's good", just terrible, contrived and convoluted, gory and ultimately rather pointless, because nobody cares about this film's MacGuffin. Its non-success has thankfully spared us Yet Another Return to House On Haunted Hill. I have a wonderful idea: how about if we never, ever, ever return the House on Haunted Hill again?

hr-boege-546-170392 i haven't seen the prequel, so my review is without any knowledge about the franchise. its basically just another cliché horror movie. the story is predictable and most of the main cast gets killed of one after one. in my opinion is this movie unnecessary, because its using some overdone material. the acting is, in true cliché horror movie style, not that great. and the plot has its dumb points too. for example, does the main door, that keeps the characters trapped, open for a few minutes, and they didn't notice it, even when standing 10 meters away. but if you want to turn your brain of and just watch a dumb movie, or you want to laugh at a bad movie, i will recommend this one for you.

RecceR In the sequel to the 1999 remake, a new group of people descend into the house to search for an ancient statue of Baphomet, which is worth millions. They soon come face to face with the evil within the house and must fight to survive. They also find a way to tie into the first movie, but it's the usual for these types of sequels; a relative of someone from the original cast. This is definitely an inferior sequel to a far more superior horror movie. However, you really should not be expecting more from a straight-to-DVD sequel to a 7 year old movie (at the time of its release). The characters were fairly basic without much to care about, besides the main character and a few others. The acting actually was not that bad, it just doesn't seem great due to the writing at times. The gore factor was up, and while it was never cheap looking, some of it felt out of place and done to gross people out. The amazing score from the previous movie was missing, though slight pieces showed up in a revamped form. The score for this movie was weak and generic, without much ability to affect a scene like the original. The plot had potential and actually gave some answers to why the house was evil, but some of it seemed a bit too out there.I wouldn't say this movie is absolutely horrible; it does have some decent portions. The thing that hurts the movie the most is that it is a sequel to a brilliant horror movie which takes all the brilliance out and replaces it with gore. Another thing that seriously hurt the movie was the changes to the house itself, inside and outside. Besides some archive footage for the opening, when showing the house, it was a CGI model. They also changed the entrance of front where it is a noticeably different set up, yet it leads to the exact same lounge/lobby area from the first movie. They ignore all the other rooms featured in the house, and most of the ones in this movie seem out of place. I'm assuming the budget could not warrant a proper reconstruction of all the previous sets or filming at the Griffith Park Observatory (for the entrance). Had this been given a bigger budget and done by William Malone and Dick Bebe, I think it would have been just as amazing. Unfortunately, we're stuck with a mediocre sequel that is mildly entertaining when you ignore the differences between it and the first one. I would say I'm on the fence with this one, but leaning more towards disliking it.