Watch it at Amazon
33 out of 40 people found the following comment useful :- Gore and blood aplenty, 7 October 2007 Author: ClayDeaver from Waikiki a suburb of Honolulu
While special effects were pretty outstanding the over use of them, in my opinion made the sequel much weaker than the original. I also felt the character development was a bit shy of interesting. I can't help but compare it to the original which also had spectacular effects however hit a higher level of suspense in between the more gruesome scenes, also the sex, in particular that which went on in one pretty gross lesbian scene with mutilated ghosts, really served no purpose in my mind to the general plot which is of course about helping out the poor trapped souls, who still long for release from the insane asylum doctor's fortress on the hill. There was a lot less use of the simple terrifying look of vintage medical equipment and an old asylum in this film as well although there were glimpses of the old asylum which had a lot of lighting designed much later than the art-deco period the hospital was supposedly from. All in all I think there were some good actors practicing their craft and a weak location with a lot of skilled prop people trying to take the viewer to a scary old hospital. It must have been tough following the previous cast which had a real Oscar winner on board. This film is way to gruesome for the kids, and if you were impressed with the first one you may be a little disappointed with this obviously lower budget sequel. Still it was something to watch.
28 out of 40 people found the following comment useful :- Not Movie Gold But, Damn it was Fun!, 17 October 2007 Author: yabesthomie from United States
Geez, some people are rough on movies!! Awful? Think again. Great? No. Was it really meant to be? I don't think so. Its a Direct to DVD release. A Damn good one at that! If you hold it up to some horror classics, it will lose. Now put it next to some other Direct to DVD movies and it will win. It has everything you would want in a "fun" horror movie. Gore, Action, Hot naked ladies, and even some dumb jokes! What else do ya want? Sure the acting and Special FX could have been better but we can't win Every time. Does that really make it "awful"? Hell no. Give this film a little bigger budget and we have a winner. Maybe even better than the remake a couple of years ago. Fans of that one should definitely check this out. It has some back story that wasn't really touched on. So, think about it, its actually a sequel with a reason. More than you can say for a lot of Hollywood Blockbuster sequels... Am I right? Huh? Am I right? For all you haters, why would you watch it in the first place? Did you REALLY think it was going to be the next big thing? Chill out! Every movie doesn't have to be an Academy Award winner. Relax, Enjoy, and have fun...
17 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :- Inferior to it's predecessors, cheese without charm, 15 October 2007 Author: McQualude from North Carolina
Blood and guts everywhere... "What is this stuff?" "It appears to be organic."It's direct to video and all the common flaws are present... silly dialog, layers upon layers of clichés, dramatic lines delivered flatly, characters acting like stupid characters in a horror movie rather than like real people and logical inconsistencies in the plot (why would the ghosts direct you to do something and then attack you once you've done it?).Amanda Righetti delivers her lines flatly and was apparently hired as a Jennifer Garner lookalike rather than for her acting ability. Cerina Vincent manages to shine so dreary is the remainder of the cast. Jefferey Combs is given so little to do that anyone capable of fogging a mirror could have performed as admirably.The special effects are good for a direct to video production. Nothing you're going to remember but nothing you'll criticize too harshly. The plot, oh who cares, you aren't really watching this for the plot are you? Garcia is a special effects director and it shows as the film basically moves from one special effects scene to the next at the expense of a coherent storyline. The movie does have some good gore and manages to be mildly entertaining.Apparently the HD-DVD version has an interactive menu system that allows you to choose some actions of the characters. I can't imagine it being anything but a gimmick with little effect on the storyline but here's hoping.Stay through the end credits.
12 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :- Not bad for a direct-to-video offering, 22 October 2007 Author: undeniably3 from United States
I am glad that the ghost characters from the earlier film were explored further in this sequel. I never completely embraced the concept of what looked like a misty Rorschach Test enveloping and destroying characters in Dark Castle's first "Haunted Hill" venture.The role of the doctor (expertly played by Jeffrey Combs) is sufficiently eerie and he's given more to do in this film. Throw in his supernatural victims from years past and you have a great haunted house! Granted, the acting in this film is mostly sub-par, save for the lead actress (Righetti) and Andrew Lee Potts who provides comedic relief. Also, the kills are creative enough to keep die-hard horror fans entertained. And the DVD's extras are fun to watch, probably to make up for the film's short length.If Warner decides to cultivate its storehouse of horror remakes and make direct-to-video sequels, so be it. I would look forward to another "Thirteen Ghosts" film or "House of Wax" chapter.
25 out of 41 people found the following comment useful :- A big ole bite of a pooh samich!!!, 19 October 2007 Author: seraphaxg from United Kingdom
It's rare that I comment on films, but I really feel the need to say something about this pile of trash that has the cheek to, in any way, be associated to the masterpiece that is "House on Haunted Hill".To start with, I watched the first one and loved it ... very creepy setting, atmospheric music supplied by Marilyn Manson, reasonable story line, good acting for the main part, slightly disappointing ending ... but all-in-all a worthy remake to a good horror film.Return to house on haunted hill, well- I finished watching it and I felt like any hope I had left for the horror genre had been sapped from my soul over the hour and a half it took for this film to play out and finally come to an end. It felt like a life time- the plot was non-existent, the characters were awful, the acting was ... words escape me! The special effects were reasonable, but I just can't believe that anyone could, in good conscience, spend an investors money and turn out this heap of garbage. I really wish I hadn't seen it and I would advise anyone, who is a fan of the horror genre, to steer well clear.It's only redeeming quality was it did finish, I just which I'd never started watching it in the first place.You'll notice there's no spoilers in this review- watch the film and it manages to spoil itself plenty! Doesn't need my help.
16 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :- A Bit Much With the Computer, But a Decent Plot and Good Sequel, 19 October 2007 Author: Gavin Schmitt (gavin6942@yahoo.com) from Kaukauna, Wisconsin
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
The sister of the survivor from the first film must go to the house on haunted hill... (technically, the only people returning are us, since all the characters are new). She has a connection to the house (much like her sister did) and the inmates there. Also, a professor and a bounty hunter are in search of an ancient relic.I will say that the plot was good. There was an actual reason to go in the house, and I found it plausible -- well worth waiting nearly a decade for a sequel. The working in of the Knights Templar and the Baphomet statue was very nice, and will appeal to those who like the occult. I imagine a lot of horror fans also enjoy the works of Eliphas Levi and Aleister Crowley and will feel at home with the references -- it was certainly nothing new to me. (Although, historically, the Knights did not really worship Baphomet as the myth goes.) Jeffrey Combs returns, and has a sizable role here. Not a large role, no real dialogue, but more than the five minutes he's had in other films the past few years ("Satanic" comes to mind). So his fans will appreciate that. And if you're a horror fan, you're probably a Combs fan. That man has really milked his success ever since 1986's "Re-Animator" and I see no signs of it slowing down yet. Put his name on the cover of a film and I'll rent it.This film's strength is in the plot, and somewhat so in the acting. The characters are nothing special (they all have very one-dimensional motives) but they are acted superbly. Many will also enjoy the high blood content -- a man gets quartered, for example. And that's not the worst of it. There's even a death by refrigerator! Not quite creative on the level of, say, "Superstition" or even "2001 Maniacs", but not bad.All you really need to know is if you liked the first film, you'll love this. Many reviewers have commented this is the better of the two, and I'm inclined to agree (although I'll still watch the original Vincent Price version over either of them). Solid story, good acting, blood... this is a horror film that goes above and beyond the typical straight-to-video schlock.
13 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :- Another "Trapped in a Haunted House" Predictable Movie, 2 November 2007 Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
The editor of a fashion magazine Ariel Wolfe (Amanda Righetti) receives many calls from her sister Sara, but she does not return. When Sara is found dead, apparently after committing suicide, Ariel goes to her apartment with her friend and photographer Paul (Tom Riley). She meets Professor Richard (Steven Pacey), who is seeking Sara's journal to find a lead to the statue of the evil god Baphomet for a museum. Later, Ariel and Paul are kidnapped by the gang of the treasure hunter Desmond (Erik Palladino), who intends to find and sell the statue to a private collector for five million dollars. They go to the house, where they meet Richard, his assistant Kyle (Andrew Lee Potts) and the student Michelle (Cerina Vincent), but the criminals dominate the group. However, the house suddenly closes all the exits and they find trapped inside with vision of ghosts that are reliving their final moments in the place they died."Return to House on Haunted Hill" is another "trapped in a haunted house" predictable and forgettable movie. The story uses the same common clichés and it is very easy to foresee the next sequence. The unknown Amanda Righetti and the sexy Cerina Vincent are extremely gorgeous and have good performances in the role of the heroine Ariel and the treacherous Michelle. The cult Jeffrey Combs has a ham performance in the role of the sadistic and evil Dr. Richard Benjamin Vannacutt. The special effects are great but the cinematography and the sound effects are annoying. My vote is five.Title (Brazil): "De Volta a Casa da Colina" ("Return to the House on the Hill")
8 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :- Not a horrible sequel....., 25 October 2007 Author: arcticlvr1 from United States
I am giving this a 6 out of 10 because the movie had enough going on not to make me want to shut it off half way through. With that being said, I must say I am disappointed on how the characters get into the house so easily. Seriously, most of us as viewers are not idiots, and with what had happened in that house, I know it would there would have been some type of guard or security company working there. Second, they could have made the reason for the house being evil a little better then the Indiana Jones deal. But, for a DTV this is an okay movie that I think fills in the void for lack of gore movies. There are some good blood and guts scenes. So rent it and take the movie for what it is.
3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :- As a sequel, it's lame, as a movie, not too bad, 18 March 2008 Author: Kristine (kristinedrama14@msn.com) from Chicago, Illinois
I saw Return to House on Haunted Hill on sale the other day and figured to just check it out. For 8 bucks, what did I have to loose? I watched the film last night and over all, I'd say it wasn't too bad, I've seen a thousand times worse. The only major complaint, was the lesbian sex scene really necessary? Like, what did that have to do with the story at all? It's not like it was even realistic, it was some sick director's fantasy, because they are drop dead gorgeous girls who are moving like a porno film, it was just ridicules. The effects were actually kinda cool though, like the scene where the guy was torn apart by the ghosts was visually very cool to look at. The CGI is a little much, but to be honest, I'm at that point where I'm giving up and just accepting it, so I'm going to let go the over the top stuff go, but it's a cool horror story.Ariel's sister just supposedly killed herself and has a secret about the haunted hill house, there is a statue in there that is worth millions. Leading us to the "bad guys" who are in it for the money and are using Ariel and her boyfriend to the house to get it. But they meet a professor and his student who are also after the statue, leading like Indiana Jones, and claims the statue should be in a museum. But understandably Ariel just wants to get out of there, but the house won't let her.Return to House on Haunted Hill is not too bad, really. I'd say there is a good amount of scares and the story is decent enough, it's not your typical bad bad sequel that I expected. Would I recommend it to anyone? Not too many people, I think you'll have to see yourself, and be in a good mood to see a horror movie. Otherwise if you take the time to watch this, don't take it too seriously, because you are going to hate it. Gotta love the boy fantasy of having three women together naked and moving like a porno movie.4/10
3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :- Terrible, 16 December 2007 Author: jboyaquar from United States
Lacking scares, suspense or interesting characters, this sequel abides by the CGI-horror schlock that proved a box-office draw for two weeks upon its release in 1999. How should an audience become properly hooked by the mood of a supposed horror film when the director both accelerates the pace and includes an abundance of CGI images during the requisite full-scale extreme wide shot of the stark sanitarium and its surroundings? The attempt to add a haunting quality to the proceedings with the statue mythologizing is laughable...especially the coda, with actors cast out of Romance novels. Amanda Righetti, with football wide shoulders, has impressive physical stature, but the film wasn't interested in emphasizing her heroic qualities. Twas much more concerned with photographing its women from advantageous perspectives...(nipples, and Cerina Vincent's globular breasts) Speaking of, the lesbian scene was by the far the most enjoyable aspect...one had thin but magically dark brown hair - and the other surprisingly generous well-sculpted... Their expressions were reminiscent of Jean Rollin's vampire chicks from his Euro-trash classics of the 70's. Besides that, a waste of time.
Add another comment
