House II: The Second Story (1987)

House II: The Second Story (1987) ** 1/2 (out of 4)Jesse (Arye Gross) inherits his family's old house and soon he learns about a mysterious legend surrounding a crystal skull. Pretty soon his long dead grandpa (Royal Dano) is alive and they must look for the skull as well as battle the creatures who also want it.In 1985 HOUSE was released to some rather good reviews and the film ended up doing quite well at the box office. Of course, that means a sequel was bound to follow and two years later came HOUSE II: THE SECOND STORY. Unlike a lot of sequels that just try to copy the formula of the first film, this one here at least tried to actually deliver a "second story" and for the most part this was an entertaining picture.As was the case with the first movie, this one here does a nice job at mixing up the horror and comedy elements. I'd argue that this one here is much more comedy than the previous film but there's nothing wrong with that and especially since we get some pretty good bits here. I must say that the grandpa character was a lot of fun and made for some funny scenes and especially early on when he tries to get re- connected in a world that he's been away from for a hundred years.Gross makes for a good lead here and manages to keep you entertained through his character's journey. Jonathan Stark is also good as his friend who goes along for the adventure. Dano is the real standout here as he does a wonderful job in the role of the grandpa who is basically a zombie. THe supporting cast includes Bill Maher, John Ratzenberger and Lar Park-Lincoln.HOUSE II: THE SECOND STORY certainly shows its "B" movie roots but that's not a bad thing. The creature designs are quite good and for the most part the film is entertaining enough to make it worth watching.

House II: The Second Story has got to be one of the most random films I've seen, veering wildly from haunted house film to zombies to buddy flick to alternate dimension/time-travel tale to jungle adventure to western, with plenty of other goofy stuff sprinkled liberally throughout. Unsurprisingly, this scatter-shot approach rarely makes sense and can serve to irritate, but at the same time, it is this very eclecticism that keeps one glued to the screen; any film that features an electrician/adventurer (played by Cheers' regular John Ratzenberger), a drunken jerk who just happens to keep an Uzi in the trunk of his car, and a meal scene where the diners include a 170 year old man, a prehistoric bird, a dogerpillar (like a caterpillar, but with a dog's face), and a beautiful Aztec sacrificial virgin really has got to be seen to be believed!Also serving to make this film an enjoyably daft treat, particularly if you're fan of old-school fantasy/horror fans, are the various make-up and pre-CGI special effects: prosthetics, animatronics, and stop-motion techniques are utilised to bring a collection of supernatural creatures to life, and there are a few pretty cool matte painting shots used to help create convincing other-dimensional worlds. If the zany nature of the plot annoys you, just lap up the inventive visuals; after all, how often do you get to see a zombie gunslinger riding a skeletal horse?5.5 out of 10, rounded up to 6 for IMDb.

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.

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.