Return to House on Haunted Hill (2007)

When a group of thugs breaks into their home, the group and their hostages looking for a clue to find hidden treasure buried in a supposedly haunted house encounter a swarm of ravenous ghosts inside the house guarding the treasure and killing everyone who has ever set foot inside.Overall, this one was a lot better than expected and was a lot of fun at times. What really helps this one is the absolutely fun and enjoyable attacks featured here that are weaved along plenty of exciting times here, as the action is really worthwhile. This starts off with the rather fun encounter in the basement where the ghosts begin appearing behind the group without them knowing down in the corridor, though the other attacks on the group are even better. The lesbian encounter where the nude ghosts appear to the group member and begin erotically toying with her using her gear only to turn into their ghostly selves in a quick flash-cut is quite fun is quite fun as is the grisly aftermath, the later scene of the ghost attack on the singular member who cracks through the wall into the ghosts' chamber and the rather chilling scene where the ghosts take their surroundings into effect in putting the gang member in the drawn- and-quartered position which is all rather fun action scenes. The big final half here also gets really good here as the there's even more action placing a high-quality amount of scenes here with this one getting in scenes from the group turning the tables against the kidnappers, the big confrontation with the ghosts in the pool as they first float up to the surface before attack those that fell in, the highly chilling crawl through of the vent into the storage room where the statue's held and the big confrontation in the shower room where the ghosts get their big revenge here with the battle against the mad doctor which really makes this one enjoyable. Along with these factors, the same atmosphere featured from the original is again on display as the rooms and overall layout here give this one quite a sinister feel that gives the ghosts a rather creepy feel here, and with the graphic kills here make this one highly enjoyable. These here hold this off enough to overcome the minor flaws in this one, which almost all basically come from one area. this one here is barely over an hour long which is incredibly problematic since barely anything here that's explained about the cause of the statue's influence over everyone, from the initial corrupting of the original staff to the more modern corruption which makes this one quite confusing as to how anything happens. There's barely anything here about that since the film doesn't have the time for these taking so long to get them into the house and then rushing through the hauntings inside which are continuous and rapidly dished out that there's hardly anything else in here. That's really the biggest issue with this one.Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language and Nudity.

RELEASED TO VIDEO IN 2007 and directed by Víctor García, "Return to House on Haunted Hill" chronicles events when two factions enter the odd 'house' on the cliffside (actually an asylum) looking for a satanic idol on the very same night (!). One party consists of Ariel (Amanda Righetti) & her beau (Tom Riley) who had been kidnapped by a group of thugs looking for the priceless figurine (e.g. Erik Palladino & Calita Rainford). The other party consists of a college professor (Steven Pacey) and his student assistants (Andrew-Lee Potts & Cerina Vincent). Needless to say, all hell (literally) breaks loose. Jeffrey Combs is on hand as the house's resident mad doctor, Richard B. Vannacutt.This is a stand-alone sequel to the 1999 movie, "House on Haunted Hill," which I don't remember seeing, but I have seen the lame original 1959 film with Vincent Price. In any case, this sequel curiously adds the priceless Baphomet idol as the cause of Dr. Vannacutt's evil. It's an arbitrary plot device to get people back in the house and paves the way for subplots about suicides and gangsters, which are incongruent to the original film's simple premise (daring a group of strangers to stay in the house overnight for a million dollars). But does anyone really care about that in a direct-to-DVD stand-alone sequel? Not me. The question is: Does "Return" deliver as a competent haunted asylum flick? Palladino makes for a capable villain, the story's energetic, the asylum sets & CGI are creepily effective and there's a lot of gore. But I didn't care a wit about anyone who was threatened because the movie never took the time to establish characters for which the viewer might care. This is augmented by the fact that the bulk of the people are awfully unlikable, which destroys sympathy. There was no suspense or genuine scares. In one sequence, for instance, a man is literally drawn & quartered to bloody pieces and I busted out laughing. Also, for me, the film didn't deliver on the female front. Protagonist Righetti is decent, but comes across as a Grade-B Kate Beckinsale. Cerina Vincent is certainly one of the most voluptuously beautiful women to walk the planet, as seen in "It Waits" (2005) and "Sasquatch Mountain" (2006), but here she's painfully anorexic and in dire need of eating at McDonalds for four weeks straight. Calita Rainford is serviceable, but not enough is done with her and she doesn't last long anyway. There are a couple of fine-looking ghosts, however, in a lame wannabe-edgy lesbian sequence.The flick's just too by-the-numbers conventional, as far as modern horror goes, and evidently aimed at adolescent boys. There's no sense of artistry. If you want to see a haunted asylum film that balances conventional horror with kinetic editing & effects with an awesome sense of artistry, see 2005's "Death Tunnel" (and, no, I'm not kidding; see my review for details). THE MOVIE RUNS 79 minutes and was shot in Sofia & Burgas, Bulgaria, and Los Angeles. WRITER: Robb White. GRADE: C- (4.5/10)

It looked like it was trying to compensate for the bad acting by having gorgeous women in the movie. The most likable characters died early on and had few lines. The most easily dis-likable characters had the most lines, most screen time and lasted till the end or almost the end. I was rooting for the ghost to kill most of them. If you liked the first movie, I am certain this movie will let you down as a sequel. It was easily predictable. A lot of the lines I knew were going to be said before the actors even said them. The emotions the actors portrayed seemed like copies from movies they had seen before. Some lines seemed to be used from much better quality movies. I will say the movie had good atmosphere for about five minutes, but otherwise, if you are bored, go for it, if you want something scary and original, I would look somewhere else.

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.