Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Wordiezett So much average

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

dannydc-07666 Return to House on Haunted Hill picks off from a few years after the original story. It actually focuses on the sister of one of the participants of the original film Sarah. Sarah has been killed in this film as she failed to cooperate with thugs with information about the house. This story involves around a valuable statue which is located in the heart of the house, which the thugs want.The beginning of the film did actually make me feel kind of sad as we learn about Sarah's murder (framed as suicide). I thought the acting of her sister Ariel was pretty poor. Considering that her sister had committed suicide (No one knows of her actually being murdered at this point, she only shed a few tears. After a few minutes she was fine.Ariel and her boyfriend then get kidnapped and taken at gunpoint to the house, to find the statue. Then the movie really does start to get a bit disturbing. There's a lot of gruesome scenes with some death of the characters. What i do like is how the characters get shown flashbacks of what the house was like before they die, i thought that was a clever idea.The main part of this story is mostly getting the statue and escaping the house. It tends to drag at this point. Yeah a few characters die in quite disturbing ways but nothing much else.Towards the last half hour of the film we actually learn that the statue holds the key on releasing all of the trapped spirits in the house. Again i thought that this was a clever twist of the story. The thought never came into my mind about.Overall i thought this film was a good sequel to the first story. You got to see more of the fantastic design inside and outside of the house. My complaints of the other film was that there wasn't much to see of the exterior design, but in this version there is a lot more shown. There is an awful lot of blood, guts and limbs thrown everywhere; which is always cool! I do recommend this movie but only after you have seen the original in 1999; as this is technically part 2.

Al_The_Strange Eight years after the release of the House on Haunted Hill remake, this little film came to home video. It pretty much is direct-to-video trash, offering a few thrills, but nothing substantial.The best that can be said is that the film has some very wicked scenes of blood and gore, and some rather arousing nude scenes. Unfortunately, the film does drag at spots, and it feels uneven.The film does its best to build on its predecessor, as it uses the same settings, same production design, and going so far as bringing back Jeffrey Combs to play the same bad guy as in the first film. One other valuable aspect is that, as the ghosts kill off all the hapless characters, the film uses some really wicked flashbacks to explore more of the house's violent history.Unfortunately, that's all the good that can be said about it. The film employs some rather dull, lifeless characters who serve as little more than crazy-ghost-fodder. The story doesn't have much of a structure or point at all, and it's especially dumb in the way it explains away the hauntings with a mere demonic statue (which also serves as a rather weak and uninspired McGuffin).The film doesn't look too bad in terms of filming and editing. Acting and writing aren't anything worth praising though. This production has okay-looking sets, props, and costumes, and some rather weak special effects. Music isn't really great either.2.5/5 (Entertainment: Average | Story: Poor | Film: Poor)

mokienatrix Horror sequels are generally lazy attempts to cash in on a popular film's name, but "Return to House on Haunted Hill" hits a low that most franchises don't dip to until the fourth or fifth installment.After using a paper-thin premise to get a new lot of victims (complete with Geoffrey Rush and Famke Janssen wannabes) into the murderous house, the film dispenses with all attempts at characterization or suspense-building. Instead, it cuts straight to overacted deaths, lesbian ghosts, Mexican standoffs, and dialogue so bad hitting "mute" improves the film.Unfortunately, the money saved on screenwriters was not spent on special effects. Where the original film had half-seen figures jerkily moving across a screen in ways people don't, this has curvy girls in Halloween face paint that wouldn't have passed muster in 1982, pretending to be turned on and overcaffeinated.Upside: no 'cat scares.' Downside: no other scares, either.The filmmakers have no clue how to build tension by teasing viewers with hints and threats and things unseen, and instead just throw terrible effects on the screen every couple of minutes, or jump around to black-&-white footage of what they think passes for back story.Don't buy it. Don't watch it. For the love of all that is horror, don't encourage these hacks.

Lawson I actually didn't dislike this movie's prequel, House on Haunted Hill - I gave it a 7. Its good-sized budget and well-known cast probably swayed my decision some.This sequel appears to have a better budget than most direct-to-video releases, though of course it comes nowhere close to its predecessor. Same with its cast. The story, actually, seems to have more in common with Thir13en Ghosts, since each of the gang trapped in the haunted house meet different kinds of ghosts with distinct personalities, which was fairly entertaining. I think the problem with the movie is that it blew its limited budget on special effects and makeup but to ho-hum effect. The ghosties and set look decent but the scares weren't there and the story and cast weren't up to scratch.