BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

Grimerlana Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

atinder Why is this rated 15? , He Should have been a PG! as this as got to be the babies horror movie I ever sat thought, it was Absolutely ridiculous.The whole movie felt like watching Kids TV show like Sesame Street, the next time I baby siting i will show my nephew (Who is 8), I got him into Chucky When he was 5. He love watching Seed of Chucky!, I am sure that even he won't find this movie funny or scary at all! I just found the whole movie very childish and Creatures in this movie, what the hell, Well that dog was kinda of Cute lol.The acting was well very cheesy in this movie, it fitted in really well rest of really too cheesy movie.I didn't not find this movie funny at all and it was not scary at all and it was not even rude, there were no swear words in this movie 3 out of 10, Really Silly

trashgang I didn't like the original House but naturally I had to see the franchise but what a mistake this was. Thousands and thousands of flicks I have seen since the end of the seventies all horror and sci-fi but this here is just one utterly boring flick that I even used the fast forward button, a thing I normally never do. House was one for teenagers but this here is for toddlers. Ethan Wiley, also involved in House (screenplay) did wrote and directed this dull flick. The directing was okay and so many genre actors were involved coming from Fright Night ((1985) Jonathan Stark), to Lar Park-Lincoln (Friday the 13th part VII (1988)) to Royal Dano (Something Wicked This Way Comes (1983)) but I just can't understand that they agreed to this childish flick. The creatures or animals looked really stupid and I didn't like them, for a horror. And the use of blue key (skeleton horse) and stop/motion (dinosaurs) really was outdated for 1987. The best part is only the last 15 minutes, at that part are a few nice effects. But overall it's just a family film in the tradition of Harry and the Hendersons (1987). Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 1/5 Comedy 0/5

warrenth For a movie that has almost no "names" attached, this is surprisingly good. The actors are well cast, their characters are charming, and the jokes are well paced. It takes itself just seriously enough that you don't feel insulted by the storytelling. You can't have the wrong expectations. I think if you've seen the first and are expecting something similar you will be disappointed. I do however think this is a very well put together film. The pacing is solid, the comedy is more well done than a lot of big budget comedy from around the same time, and there are some well done quirky moments that really elevate the experience.The main area that it falls down is the lack of depth. There is maybe one moment that really touches something real, but it's brief. The rest is straight adventure. But it's well done. Given the choice between seeing this again or re-watching the new Indie movie about crystal skulls, I'd choose this since it's at least as entertaining but doesn't let you down like Indie did.The last criticism is perhaps the most damning. This is not a must see movie. If you live your entire life without seeing it, you'll be fine. I don't really even recommend it. But if you do watch it, I recommend you enjoy it for what it is and don't lament that it isn't better. I would recommend it for kids 9-12. It's perfect for that age. Kind of scary, plenty of snicker and giggle moments. Plenty of cute. Plenty of weird. There may be some language but it's situation appropriate and pretty tame. No nudity, a little cleavage, nothing you won't see on a visit to the mall.

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.