jacobjohntaylor1 This movie is so underrated 4.6 just because it is a sequel. People are very bias about sequel. It is true sometimes they do suck. But people are so bias that when a sequel does suck you can not tell because they are always say every sequel suck. Most sequel are better then the original and this movie is no expectation. House on Haunted hill (1959) is very scary. House on haunted hill (1999) is also very scary. But this is scarier. This is one of the scariest movies of all time. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. Amanda Righetti is a great actress. Cerina Vincent is a also a great actress. All the House on haunted hill movie are most sees.

Leofwine_draca Another Dark Castle production, this time a sequel to a remake that nobody asked for in the first place. RETURN TO HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL sees a group of disparate types holing up in a haunted mansion one night, hoping to claim a jackpot but falling foul of the usual malignant spirit forces. This one is even further away from the fun spirit of the Vincent Price original than the first film was.The plot is entirely negligible here except to offer a group of unlikeable characters trapped and wandering around a single location. Evil doctor ghost Jeffrey Combs is the only cast member to return from the original, but he only has a scene or two. Instead, the film offers endless scenes of CGI-augmented gore to the viewer; bodies are pulverised, ripped limb from limb, and people have their faces cut off. It's all unbelievable, unremarkable, and quite uninteresting. The director goes out of his way to scare the viewer with jump scares and CGI ghosties floating about, but overkill is the order of the day here and as a result the film is a bit of a joke.

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.

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.