simonconnolly72-467-863881 Where there's a buck to be made, it will be, and a popular film will always spawn sequels. They don't care, just knock 'em out. The first film looks like a masterpiece compared to the following three, which shows how poor the sequels are. they are not the worst sequels in the world ( with the exception of house 2) but they fail on all levels.The second was childish schlock, the third a "shocker" type film saved only by Lance Henriksen. The fourth was ok but gaping plot holes ruin it. 1. The ghosts seem to like the owners and want them to stay, helping them out in the end to defeat the baddies, yet through the whole film they seem to terrorise them. I can understand Roger Cobb's hand coming up through the spilt ashes can seem like horror when in fact he is showing he is around in spirit, but the blood in the shower and " get out or die" on the steam covered bathroom mirror? This is a huge contradiction. Do the bad guys at the chemical company get convicted? I'm assuming the step brothers confession might lead there but it's not clear.I didn't like the Roger Cobb death. I kind of feel after all he went through in house 1, to then die prematurely, and so horribly in house 4, was kind of a let down. Little did we know in house 1 what was in store. I know life happens, and this could be a possibility, but it gives it a depressing slant and taints the original.The original House is the only one worth watching. Like is the cast with most sequels.

Phil Hubbs Last entry for this quite decent 'Horror' franchise, well actually its officially the third film but we won't go down that confusing alley again.Unfortunately the franchise bows out with a disappointing story which isn't really scary nor funny. A young couple that own a big house are being slowly hounded into selling by a relation with connections to the mafia. Of course the man of the house is taken out of the picture leaving the young widow to fend for herself.Katt returns as his character of Cobb, he is married and has one young girl. This plot doesn't connect in any way to the previous films but simply a new story. The story in question is slow and dull containing many flashbacks and not really much else. The same theme of the young widow being tormented by her dreams and Cobb's dastardly brother in law who wants the land is repeated over and over until finally we get somewhere towards the finale.Guess what? the house was built on an ancient Native American well (originality much?) and the spirits of the Native Americans and Cobb are trying to help her against Cobb's brother in law and the mob. Its very easy to predict and pretty tame stuff, no real ghosts or ghouls to be seen, no monsters, no blood or gore etc...just odd flashbacks and blinking lights. In no way a thriller, not a horror comedy and not a horror, more of a very light-hearted spooky tale.2/10

atinder House 4: The Repossession (Video 1992) This one wasn't no were near as good as the first movie but maybe improvement on second movie the series as wasn't too silly.Roger Cobb (William Katt) is killed in a car accident. His family must move into the house that has haunted him for several years. Soon the family begins to experience scary and unexplained phenomena.This is about the houseI didn't really get into this movie at all, I found it really dull and kinda of boring for most parts. There went many bumps in the night and some strange thing the house help to fight off some robbers! I kinda of liked the sweet ending to the movie. 3 out of 10

TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews The first film was perhaps watchable, the second not even that, and now the series reaches utter... what is the film, even? I'm not sure I'd call it horror. It seems almost like they had an idea or two for something to put in a House flick, and wrote an overall plot(well...) around it, and hoped everyone would go along with it. William Katt(whom you may recognize from Carrie, and... uh...) returns, possibly in some attempt to give the movie some merit... it doesn't work. Some completely gratuitous nudity is included. Some utterly disgusting stuff is, as well, for nothing even resembling a good reason. The film sacrifices sense for... not sure I could tell you, but off goes sense to the slaughterhouse, nevertheless, several times, and is seldom all that present or noticeable for the rest of the feature. The plot is pretty bad. It doesn't seem like anything was terribly developed, more thrown together in a hurry(were they afraid of losing the rights? There are worse things, you know...), and the movie can't seem to make up its mind, what exactly it wants to be or say. Some of the writing is painfully obvious and predictable. I'm not sure any of it could be construed as "scary", if there are some attempts at it. The movie ends about as soon as enough time has passed to classify it as feature-length. The special effects vary. Editing, filming and cinematography seem amateurish. I recommend this to... people who just cannot stand the notion that there's a "haunted house" and/or House movie that they haven't watched. 1/10