In some of the dream and scare sequences, the director of "House IV" shows considerable talent and imagination. But the plot is just a rehash of old cliches, and toward the end it goes all over the map and creates quite a few gaps. Even horror movies have to establish some rules and play by them, this movie goes every which way but loose. Still, it's better than the dreadful "House II". (**)
42 Reviews
oh god...
gothic_a66627 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is the kind of movie that is so bad it is *almost* good. Yet there are way too many things that simply don't add up.
***Warning, contains spoilers*** First of all, the spirits seem to want to drag Kelly and Laurel out of the house. Hence the dream sequence with the knife (a complete rip off of Nightmare in Elm Street part II), the shower scene (Psycho meets Elm Street again) with the very clichéed warning "Get out or die". Clearly, their message is very simple and not susceptible to multiple readings.
Yet, in the end, it turns out the spirits were actually good, that they represented the forces of good that opposed those of evil, here represented by a very disgusting little man who owns some sort of company that apparently requires the fountain to dump all their waste material.
And here comes of the most stupid scenes ever seen in a movie: as the workers are filling barrels of some toxic stuff that is never explained (we know that it is green and foamy), these same barrels contain the "WARNING toxic" tag, to which they super impose the word "NON" over the "WARNING" and slash the skull. Now, why have the tags IN THE FIRST PLACE?!
Why go to all that trouble just to get THAT particular place to dump it? Wouldn't any other hole pretty much serve the same purpose? As for Burke...how did he KNOW about the seal, to start with?
Other awful scenes include the killing/singing pizza (another trying-to-be Elm Street attempt) and the overall post-poltergeist feeling that pervades the whole thing.
What is good about this? The House itself. It does look very odd and creepy, especially since it is placed, quite literally, in the middle of nowhere. The inside of the house partakes from the general feeling of strangeness, but sadly, it has been done over and over again. Mr Grosso is also a must. He is disgusting and his factory, if we ignore the whole barrel incident is pure post-industrial nightmarish, albeit clichéed. The final sequence, with the jet of water bursting through the roof is, in terms of imagery, quite impressive.
But it cannot save the flat plot, the annoyingly smiling Pater Familias that ends up "saving" the day, nor the dreadfully lame and repetitive soundtrack.
***Warning, contains spoilers*** First of all, the spirits seem to want to drag Kelly and Laurel out of the house. Hence the dream sequence with the knife (a complete rip off of Nightmare in Elm Street part II), the shower scene (Psycho meets Elm Street again) with the very clichéed warning "Get out or die". Clearly, their message is very simple and not susceptible to multiple readings.
Yet, in the end, it turns out the spirits were actually good, that they represented the forces of good that opposed those of evil, here represented by a very disgusting little man who owns some sort of company that apparently requires the fountain to dump all their waste material.
And here comes of the most stupid scenes ever seen in a movie: as the workers are filling barrels of some toxic stuff that is never explained (we know that it is green and foamy), these same barrels contain the "WARNING toxic" tag, to which they super impose the word "NON" over the "WARNING" and slash the skull. Now, why have the tags IN THE FIRST PLACE?!
Why go to all that trouble just to get THAT particular place to dump it? Wouldn't any other hole pretty much serve the same purpose? As for Burke...how did he KNOW about the seal, to start with?
Other awful scenes include the killing/singing pizza (another trying-to-be Elm Street attempt) and the overall post-poltergeist feeling that pervades the whole thing.
What is good about this? The House itself. It does look very odd and creepy, especially since it is placed, quite literally, in the middle of nowhere. The inside of the house partakes from the general feeling of strangeness, but sadly, it has been done over and over again. Mr Grosso is also a must. He is disgusting and his factory, if we ignore the whole barrel incident is pure post-industrial nightmarish, albeit clichéed. The final sequence, with the jet of water bursting through the roof is, in terms of imagery, quite impressive.
But it cannot save the flat plot, the annoyingly smiling Pater Familias that ends up "saving" the day, nor the dreadfully lame and repetitive soundtrack.
The Pizza Man!
deandraslater15 April 2019
From what I can tell, the House series never exactly lit the box office on fire, so why there are 4 of them (if you include The Horror Show) is totally beyond me. The original was a mildly fun diversion, but each sequel gets worse and worse as you go along finally culminating in this odd duck of a movie.
William Katt is back via flashbacks that appear to have all been shot in an afternoon and his wife and daughter are in danger. You see, they've moved into this house in the desert that's haunted. No, it's not the same house from the original, but a different one. Yep, poor William Katt just seems to attract houses that are haunted. In fact, his appearance in this film is the only way you'd ever know this was a sequel to the original film which gives me the impression that this wasn't originally meant to be a sequel in the franchise, but they figured it would sell better if it was part of a series.
The one thing you'll probably remember from this is the pizza man. There's a catchy song involved and a pizza with a human face attached. It's pretty wacky.
William Katt is back via flashbacks that appear to have all been shot in an afternoon and his wife and daughter are in danger. You see, they've moved into this house in the desert that's haunted. No, it's not the same house from the original, but a different one. Yep, poor William Katt just seems to attract houses that are haunted. In fact, his appearance in this film is the only way you'd ever know this was a sequel to the original film which gives me the impression that this wasn't originally meant to be a sequel in the franchise, but they figured it would sell better if it was part of a series.
The one thing you'll probably remember from this is the pizza man. There's a catchy song involved and a pizza with a human face attached. It's pretty wacky.
I Think They're Forgetting Something...
Taiyo10 December 1998
Warning: Spoilers
In a sense, "House IV" picks up where "House I" left off, with author Roger Cobb. He doesn't last long though, since he is killed off in a freak automobile accident in the first ten minutes of the movie. His wife Kelly and daughter Laurel (neither of which existed in the original "House I" -- Cobb had an estranged wife Sandy, and a son Jimmy) move into the Cobb's old family summer home.
This movie isn't a stinker, but at the same time, it doesn't even come close to the level of excellence seen in "House I" and "House II". The characters in this story, from the old Indian to the snoopy housekeeper, aren't nearly as well-developed as the characters from the previous "House" movies, nor are they as interesting. Melissa Clayton does an excellent job as Cobb's 12-yr-old daughter Laurel, though, bringing both presence and humor to the role. There is humor in this movie, although not a whole lot of it, and what little there is happens to be fairly dark humor.
"House" and "House II" were unique in that they were horror for a wide audience range, but "House IV" does not continue the tradition. The excellent shower scene is marred by a nude shot, and this movie contains foul language not seen in the other two films. The violence level is slightly higher, but that accounts for the almost complete lack of supernatural horror that marked the first two. All in all, I'd give it a six out of ten.
This movie isn't a stinker, but at the same time, it doesn't even come close to the level of excellence seen in "House I" and "House II". The characters in this story, from the old Indian to the snoopy housekeeper, aren't nearly as well-developed as the characters from the previous "House" movies, nor are they as interesting. Melissa Clayton does an excellent job as Cobb's 12-yr-old daughter Laurel, though, bringing both presence and humor to the role. There is humor in this movie, although not a whole lot of it, and what little there is happens to be fairly dark humor.
"House" and "House II" were unique in that they were horror for a wide audience range, but "House IV" does not continue the tradition. The excellent shower scene is marred by a nude shot, and this movie contains foul language not seen in the other two films. The violence level is slightly higher, but that accounts for the almost complete lack of supernatural horror that marked the first two. All in all, I'd give it a six out of ten.
Knock this house down!!!
TheRowdyMan22 December 2007
This is a terrible movie. This is one of those films that you show to film-students to teach them how NOT to make a horror movie.
Flat looking, with a total disregard for creating any sort of atmosphere and a script that reads like it was banged out in an hour.
The second act of this "masterpiece" (out of nowhere) dives head first into some Full Moon style Comedy/Horror that's so painful, even Charles Band himself couldn't replicate it's sheer awfulness (at least his films are fun).
This particular film held a bit of interest for me. It was never released in Australia until DVD in 2002. After finally wasting $4 and watching it, I found out why.
Horror movie schlock-meister Sean S. Cunningham (Friday the 13th) was a producer on this dreck. He must of hit someone's kid with a car to have been forced into sinking money into this garbage. You'd think that after being in the biz that long, he would have come up with better schemes for tax write-offs.
Another interesting little footnote is the director Lewis Abernathy later appeared in the 1996 blockbuster Titanic. I'm sure you people can think of better ironic sinking ship jokes than I can be bothered writing.
Flat looking, with a total disregard for creating any sort of atmosphere and a script that reads like it was banged out in an hour.
The second act of this "masterpiece" (out of nowhere) dives head first into some Full Moon style Comedy/Horror that's so painful, even Charles Band himself couldn't replicate it's sheer awfulness (at least his films are fun).
This particular film held a bit of interest for me. It was never released in Australia until DVD in 2002. After finally wasting $4 and watching it, I found out why.
Horror movie schlock-meister Sean S. Cunningham (Friday the 13th) was a producer on this dreck. He must of hit someone's kid with a car to have been forced into sinking money into this garbage. You'd think that after being in the biz that long, he would have come up with better schemes for tax write-offs.
Another interesting little footnote is the director Lewis Abernathy later appeared in the 1996 blockbuster Titanic. I'm sure you people can think of better ironic sinking ship jokes than I can be bothered writing.
This house should be condemned! (spoiler)
davejessop-119 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Now, I thought this was supposed to be a straight sequel to House. Usually there is some sort of continuity in sequels. First the house was in a suburban neighbourhood in the original. In House 4 the property looks to be close to a desert.
Also Roger Cobb had a son in House. In the sequel there is a daughter.
Did the director even watch the original to get even a semblance of a continuous story? - doesn't look like it.
William Katt must have thought it good luck that he was killed off in the first 5 minutes. Relief for him - pain and regret for the rest of us.
This film is one of the worst I've seen - and I've seen some bad films.
Also Roger Cobb had a son in House. In the sequel there is a daughter.
Did the director even watch the original to get even a semblance of a continuous story? - doesn't look like it.
William Katt must have thought it good luck that he was killed off in the first 5 minutes. Relief for him - pain and regret for the rest of us.
This film is one of the worst I've seen - and I've seen some bad films.
This house? Condemned.
BandSAboutMovies17 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Roger Cobb (Willaim Katt, reprising his role from the first film for as long as it takes to get his paycheck) is now married to someone named Kelly and they have a daughter named Laurel. There's no mention of his first wife, Sandy, or his son Jimmy. They visit the old Cobb house after Roger's father dies - this must be a side universe, the universe where no one gives two shits about continuity - and have to deal with Burke, the stepbrother who keeps trying to get Roger to sell out on his promise to their father to never sell the house.
This isn't the actual house from House, so that's already a strike against this one. But if the interior of the house looks familiar to you, that's because the same sets were used in The People Under the Stairs.
Were you excited to see William Katt? Well, he dies around five minutes in, the victim of a car crash that leaves his daughter in a wheelchair - the kind of wheelchairs that old ladies roll around in and leave in their bedrooms to haunt you (see Burnt Offerings). Like do they even make wicker wheelchairs any more?
Burke has the mafia making him try and take the house, as they want to dump illegal waste there. Their leader is a little person who needs a machine to remove all of the phlegm in his throat, I shit you not.
Roger is still in the house and various magical Native Americans are kindly enough to protect Roger's family. Oh yeah - Denny Dillon, who was on HBO's Dream On and the disastrous Jean Doumanian produced season of Saturday Night Live is in this as a maid.
I like one scene in here a lot, where snakes take over the minds of two mafia guys and they see one another as human snakes. The practical effects are great here, yet wasted for what's a really quick scene.
There's also a pizza that comes to life and sings a song before being tossed in a trash compactor. This scene is Troll 2 level inanity and stupidity. It's also one of the few good parts of this slog of a motion picture.
PS - That's Kane Hodder's face in the pizza.
This is one of the late 80's/early 90's movies that has no real handle on when it should be a comedy and when it should be horror. If it was an Italian film, that would be forgiven because there'd be loads of gore.
You've seen worse movies - and worse House movies - than House IV. But in a world packed with strange new films to discover and old favorites to enjoy again and again, let me be the one to do the watching for you. You don't really need to see this.
This isn't the actual house from House, so that's already a strike against this one. But if the interior of the house looks familiar to you, that's because the same sets were used in The People Under the Stairs.
Were you excited to see William Katt? Well, he dies around five minutes in, the victim of a car crash that leaves his daughter in a wheelchair - the kind of wheelchairs that old ladies roll around in and leave in their bedrooms to haunt you (see Burnt Offerings). Like do they even make wicker wheelchairs any more?
Burke has the mafia making him try and take the house, as they want to dump illegal waste there. Their leader is a little person who needs a machine to remove all of the phlegm in his throat, I shit you not.
Roger is still in the house and various magical Native Americans are kindly enough to protect Roger's family. Oh yeah - Denny Dillon, who was on HBO's Dream On and the disastrous Jean Doumanian produced season of Saturday Night Live is in this as a maid.
I like one scene in here a lot, where snakes take over the minds of two mafia guys and they see one another as human snakes. The practical effects are great here, yet wasted for what's a really quick scene.
There's also a pizza that comes to life and sings a song before being tossed in a trash compactor. This scene is Troll 2 level inanity and stupidity. It's also one of the few good parts of this slog of a motion picture.
PS - That's Kane Hodder's face in the pizza.
This is one of the late 80's/early 90's movies that has no real handle on when it should be a comedy and when it should be horror. If it was an Italian film, that would be forgiven because there'd be loads of gore.
You've seen worse movies - and worse House movies - than House IV. But in a world packed with strange new films to discover and old favorites to enjoy again and again, let me be the one to do the watching for you. You don't really need to see this.
They skipped part three and went straight to four.
Aaron137521 April 2003
Yes, there is no real part three in the series. There is a movie called "The Horror Show" that was called House 3 overseas so this one is called four, but "Horror Show" is not a true entry to the series. I have never seen that one though so I can't comment on it. I have seen this one, and it is terrible. About a family where the father dies in a car accident and the daughter is left paralyzed. The mother and daughter move into a house and all this strange things start to happen. Though nothing scary as this one is sort of a comedy, but it isn't funny. There are some bad scenes all around in this one as it also has a corporation that wants the house cause there is a well underneath and they want to dump waste there. Why is it these corporations always want to dump waste in movies? What the heck do they manufacture that would create such stuff? All in all a movie that you might as well ignore and skip, cause you wouldn't be missing much. There is a rather gross scene involving drool, and a rather stupid scene involving pizza...but these are the only memorable scenes in this turkey.
This is really pretty decent for a fourth instalment in a horror franchise
Red-Barracuda13 October 2021
After the diversion in tone and content in the third entry, House IV is a return to the comedy with horror formula covered in the first two movies. It even has William Katt return as Roger Cobb, although he almost seems like a different character, which is a bit strange. Whatever the case, he has little more than a cameo and is killed off early, with the remainder of the picture focusing on his wife and daughter who live in a haunted house which is coveted by Katt's evil step brother. While this is a pretty limited film in a lot of ways, I sort of found it kind of hard to dislike. Unlike the earlier films, the comedy isn't particularly funny though, while the horror is once again playing second fiddle and is probably even more diluted here than before. Still, it does have good moments such as the scenes with the sinister dwarf businessman Mr Grosso, while the characters and story were good enough to ensure I was never bored.
House of Origins
Vomitron_G8 March 2012
I recall from back in my teen days that I actually liked this sequel. And guess what? Having just re-watched it, I still kind of like it! Oh sure, the plot feels like incoherent rubbish, the humor is infantile, the drama is pretty lame (and way too much focused on in the first half of the film) and the horror is ridiculous. But "House IV" does make an effort to tie in with Steve Miner's original from 1986. Not only by starring William Katt playing Roger Cobb again (thereby somewhat serving up a story that could be a continuation - after several years - of the first film, ignoring the franchise's two other stand-alone installments), but also the tone of this 4th film and the nature of the events pretty much try to be in sync with what the original was all about (basically mixing horror & comedy with an anecdotal result). If you've enjoyed the first 'House', then 'House IV' almost feels right. Almost, as it just doesn't work as well as the first one. You'll still get a film rigged together with some amusing moments, most of the time involving fun SFX (the pizza-face man, the silly snake vs insect villain shout-out, the 'watery climax'). And I suspect they threw in that irrelevant Indian mumbo-jumbo sub-plot because a film like "Poltergeist II: The Other Side" got away with it too (or well, maybe it didn't, but they threw it in anyway). Whether you'll find "House IV" stupid or amusing, it's certainly stuff they're not making anymore these days. So I'd say it's worth a peek for that alone.
This House should be condemned.
Son_of_Mansfield7 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
If you go into this expecting a pleasant sequel to House(1986), you will be vastly disappointed. This is a message horror movie about the evils of toxic waste and killing Native Americans. There is an odd feel to the movie, but not in a good way. Mostly it is either dumb, beating a failed henchman with a sex doll, or sick, watching a little person hack up lung butter. There is only one scene that really came close to being as funny and scary as scenes in the original house. Mrs. Cobb opens up a pizza box and the pizza has a face which starts singing to her. William Katt does return in this movie to be killed and also in one scene as a ghost. Thanks a lot. Thankfully this was the third and final House film, seeing as House 3: The Horror Show is a sequel like Zombie 2 is a sequel. Stick with the original, you can never fail with William Katt and George Wendt.
House IV
Rautus8 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
House IV is actually House III but because of The Horror Show being named House III overseas they had to call this one House IV although this did cause a bit of confusion. House IV is not really scary but instead more of a comedy since there's a scene with a singing Pizza head, William Katt returns to play Roger Cobb but except this is a different Roger Cobb since he's got a daughter and a different wife (The Roger Cobb in House had a son and a wife who was an actress.) also the DVD extra's even say that he's a different Roger Cobb.
House IV sees Roger and his family visiting his old family house where his half brother want's to buy it but Roger won't let him, after a car accident Roger is burnt to a crisp and his daughter is paralysed. Afterwards his wife Kelly and daughter Laurel decide to live in Roger's family house but soon find strange things happening since the place his haunted, Roger's brother still wants to buy the House and demolish it so they can dump Toxic Waste there. He tries to get Kelly to sell it but she won't, she soon learns that Roger's spirit is trapped inside the House and if the House gets destroyed so does Roger.
House IV isn't a bad film, it's got some funny moments and is more of a comedy. If you like haunted house movies or silly comedies then check House IV out.
House IV sees Roger and his family visiting his old family house where his half brother want's to buy it but Roger won't let him, after a car accident Roger is burnt to a crisp and his daughter is paralysed. Afterwards his wife Kelly and daughter Laurel decide to live in Roger's family house but soon find strange things happening since the place his haunted, Roger's brother still wants to buy the House and demolish it so they can dump Toxic Waste there. He tries to get Kelly to sell it but she won't, she soon learns that Roger's spirit is trapped inside the House and if the House gets destroyed so does Roger.
House IV isn't a bad film, it's got some funny moments and is more of a comedy. If you like haunted house movies or silly comedies then check House IV out.
Flawed
claudio_carvalho25 March 2018
The family man Roger Cobb (William Katt) is visiting an old house that belongs to his family with his wife Kelly (Terri Treas) and their daughter Laurel (Melissa Clayton). His stepbrother Burke (Scott Burkholder) wants to buy the house but Roger refuses since he had promised his father to keep the real estate with his family. While returning home, the car has a flat tire and the car overturns. Roger dies and Laurel becomes paraplegic. Kelly decides to move with Kelly to the house and soon weird things happen. Soon she learns that the house was built over an Indian sacred soil crowded of spirits, Meanwhile Burke decides to press Kelly with his gangsters to force her to sell the house. What will she do?
"House IV" is an entertaining film with many flaws where the viewer cannot think. There are good scenes (maybe the shower scene is the best) but the story has many holes. Is Roger Cobb the same writer of "House" that retrieved his son Jimmy? If so, the guy has inherited another old haunted house and left his previous family? Kelly cannot afford to pay the plumber but the man is simply forgotten. Why Verna came to the house? Roger protects his family from beyond but is not capable to save the house? What Kelly and Laurel will do with the house burnt to the ground and without money? Y vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "House IV - A Casa do Espanto" ("House IV - The Frightening House")
"House IV" is an entertaining film with many flaws where the viewer cannot think. There are good scenes (maybe the shower scene is the best) but the story has many holes. Is Roger Cobb the same writer of "House" that retrieved his son Jimmy? If so, the guy has inherited another old haunted house and left his previous family? Kelly cannot afford to pay the plumber but the man is simply forgotten. Why Verna came to the house? Roger protects his family from beyond but is not capable to save the house? What Kelly and Laurel will do with the house burnt to the ground and without money? Y vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "House IV - A Casa do Espanto" ("House IV - The Frightening House")
Very Frustrating...
CMRKeyboadist2 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I haven't written anything on IMDb in a long while. After seeing this movie last night I felt that I had to comment on a few things that truly frustrated me. But before I go into that I will give a brief summary of the movie...
Roger Cobb, his wife Kelly and their daughter, Laurel, must make a decision about the old family house out in the middle of nowhere. Roger's half-brother, Burke, wants to sell the house and have it destroyed. Roger disagrees and decides to keep the house. On their way home, the Cobb family gets in a bad accident, killing Roger and almost paralyzing Laurel. Kelly and Laurel decide to move into the house after the accident. Now, they are being hounded by Burke to sell the house and they seem to have a slight poltergeist problem.
First, I will start by saying that this was the worst of the House series.
Second, I don't know what Sean S. Cunningham was thinking when he produced this. This is suppose to be a sequel to House 1 but where is the continuity? In the first movie, Roger had a son and was in the middle of a divorce with Sandy. The whole storyline to the first movie was about him rescuing his son. In this movie Roger doesn't have a son. He has a daughter. Also, what happened to Sandy? Sure, we can assume that Roger remarried and had a daughter but this is never mentioned. It's like the events of the first movie never happened and we are dealing with a Roger Cobb from another universe. This was something that really bugged me through the whole film.
Third, about this so called house. It was a great house to pick for the movie but they never used it to its full potential. The thing that made House 1 and 2 so great was that there was infinite possibilities that could happen. In the first House, Roger is battling monsters, traveling through time and other universes. In the second movie, the stars are also battling bizarre creatures and traveling through time as well. This is what made the movies so much fun because you really didn't know what was going to happen next. House 4 (or should I say House 3) doesn't attempt anything fun like the first two movies. It had chances where it could have been a fun movie but never took those chances. Instead, we have about two note worthy scenes. The face on the pizza and the bloody shower scene. That's it. The one scene that could have changed the movie altogether was when Kelly sees her daughter being sucked into the bed and disappears. I thought to myself "Finally, Kelly is going to have to go in after her and travel through bizarre universes to find and save her". But no, it was all a sort of dream.
Well, you see where I stand with this movie. If you want to see a good House movie, check out the first two. They are fun and adventurous films that took chances and made them work. 3/10
Roger Cobb, his wife Kelly and their daughter, Laurel, must make a decision about the old family house out in the middle of nowhere. Roger's half-brother, Burke, wants to sell the house and have it destroyed. Roger disagrees and decides to keep the house. On their way home, the Cobb family gets in a bad accident, killing Roger and almost paralyzing Laurel. Kelly and Laurel decide to move into the house after the accident. Now, they are being hounded by Burke to sell the house and they seem to have a slight poltergeist problem.
First, I will start by saying that this was the worst of the House series.
Second, I don't know what Sean S. Cunningham was thinking when he produced this. This is suppose to be a sequel to House 1 but where is the continuity? In the first movie, Roger had a son and was in the middle of a divorce with Sandy. The whole storyline to the first movie was about him rescuing his son. In this movie Roger doesn't have a son. He has a daughter. Also, what happened to Sandy? Sure, we can assume that Roger remarried and had a daughter but this is never mentioned. It's like the events of the first movie never happened and we are dealing with a Roger Cobb from another universe. This was something that really bugged me through the whole film.
Third, about this so called house. It was a great house to pick for the movie but they never used it to its full potential. The thing that made House 1 and 2 so great was that there was infinite possibilities that could happen. In the first House, Roger is battling monsters, traveling through time and other universes. In the second movie, the stars are also battling bizarre creatures and traveling through time as well. This is what made the movies so much fun because you really didn't know what was going to happen next. House 4 (or should I say House 3) doesn't attempt anything fun like the first two movies. It had chances where it could have been a fun movie but never took those chances. Instead, we have about two note worthy scenes. The face on the pizza and the bloody shower scene. That's it. The one scene that could have changed the movie altogether was when Kelly sees her daughter being sucked into the bed and disappears. I thought to myself "Finally, Kelly is going to have to go in after her and travel through bizarre universes to find and save her". But no, it was all a sort of dream.
Well, you see where I stand with this movie. If you want to see a good House movie, check out the first two. They are fun and adventurous films that took chances and made them work. 3/10
Been There, Done That
Michael_Elliott7 September 2017
House IV (1992)
** (out of 4)
Roger Cobb (Willian Katt) is riding with his wife Kelly (Terri Treas) and their young daughter Laurel (Melissa Clayton) when their car crashes. Roger is killed so the wife and daughter follow his wishes and move into the house that he loved. Pretty soon strange things begin to happen.
HOUSE IV is without question the weakest film in the series because there's really just nothing new here. It's the same type of haunted house film that we've seen throughout the history of haunted house movies and there's very little to nothing new here. With that said, I do give the filmmakers credit for bringing the Roger character back, although they change elements from the first movie.
Obviously it's pretty cool getting to see Katt returning to the role but he's not in the film too long. Treas is okay in the role but I'm not sure she was strong enough to carry the picture but you've also got to mainly blame the screenplay since it really doesn't give her too much to do except for scream and run around into one trap after another. Clayton is nice in the role of the young daughter and Scott Burkholder is good as well.
The film's most memorable moments are the special effects, which are quite good. There are various "haunted" things that happen but none of them are overly scary so we resort back to the "fun" effects including one scene where a pizza comes to life. Even with the nice special effects, there's just not much else here so it's hard to really support the film. HOUSE IV isn't awful but it's just rather bland and unoriginal.
** (out of 4)
Roger Cobb (Willian Katt) is riding with his wife Kelly (Terri Treas) and their young daughter Laurel (Melissa Clayton) when their car crashes. Roger is killed so the wife and daughter follow his wishes and move into the house that he loved. Pretty soon strange things begin to happen.
HOUSE IV is without question the weakest film in the series because there's really just nothing new here. It's the same type of haunted house film that we've seen throughout the history of haunted house movies and there's very little to nothing new here. With that said, I do give the filmmakers credit for bringing the Roger character back, although they change elements from the first movie.
Obviously it's pretty cool getting to see Katt returning to the role but he's not in the film too long. Treas is okay in the role but I'm not sure she was strong enough to carry the picture but you've also got to mainly blame the screenplay since it really doesn't give her too much to do except for scream and run around into one trap after another. Clayton is nice in the role of the young daughter and Scott Burkholder is good as well.
The film's most memorable moments are the special effects, which are quite good. There are various "haunted" things that happen but none of them are overly scary so we resort back to the "fun" effects including one scene where a pizza comes to life. Even with the nice special effects, there's just not much else here so it's hard to really support the film. HOUSE IV isn't awful but it's just rather bland and unoriginal.
Four Closure
CuriosityKilledShawn18 November 2019
And so House IV finishes off Sean Cunningham's secondary horror series (after Friday the 13th) and while it's an improvement on House 3 it doesn't have the maniacal energy of the first two movies, though it's not all bad.
This one has Roger Cobb return and he's inherited another spooky, old house from his recently dead daddy. His brother wants to sell to some evil toxic waste disposal company and cash-in but Roger wants to keep the promise he made to his old man and be a custodian to the house's mysterious past and secrets. After Roger is killed in a car accident his widow begins to experience visions and see ghosts, though they could actually be trying to help her, not scare her.
Original writer Ethan Wiley was not on board for this one, he checked-out after House 2 (still the best one), and a bunch of new writers have all pitched in with their own ideas, and are clearly trying to riff on Twin Peaks at one point, though they don't all add up. House IV was made because Sean Cunningham found himself with a budget for one last movie only he didn't have a script. He owed Lewis Abernathy a favor so allowed him to direct and develop the story. It was only after the script had been through a few drafts and some of the cast had been given their roles that they decided to continue/end the story from the first House by bringing back Roger Cobb. Though they did this very lazily, and I don't think the writing team even bothered to watch the first movie as there is absolutely zero connective tissue. Just a couple of lines of dialogue or a quick reference here and there would have made all the difference.
Shot in November 1990, but not released until 1992 due to marketing issues, House IV has a noticeable drop in production value, mainly down to the naff photography by James Mathers, who's career is all TV drivel and cheap schlock. Mac Ahlberg shot the first three movies with lots of shadow and atmosphere. He understood lighting and mood while Mathers doesn't seem to have a clue or any artistic vision and the quality of the film suffers under his lack of ability.
House 3 killed the accidental tradition of actors from Cheers appearing in this series (a quick cameo from Ted Danson or Frasier himself would have been that movie's saving grace) and House IV does nothing to remedy that, but there are three actors from this rather small cast who went on to appear in Con Air, which is odd.
Harry Manfredini scores all four films, but for budget reasons he's limited to a synthesizer to deliver the music for House IV, much like his terrible score to Jason Goes To Hell, though it's good enough without being the least bit memorable. Trust me, no one is going to be releasing a vinyl soundtrack for this movie.
It still manages to be an oddball horror/comedy and, despite a few shortcomings, holds together just enough to make it a good, if hardly spectacular, end for the House series.
I'm very confused about Lewis Abernathy though. This man has barely any credits at all and House IV is his only venture into directing, with a few other minor credits on smaller films here and there. But he played the significant role of Lewis Bodine (keeping his first name) in Titanic, dropping the movie's only F-bomb if I recall correctly. Who IS this man? I can only assume he became pals with James Cameron from working on Deepstar Six since he's a big fan of deep diving and had a fondness the movie.
This one has Roger Cobb return and he's inherited another spooky, old house from his recently dead daddy. His brother wants to sell to some evil toxic waste disposal company and cash-in but Roger wants to keep the promise he made to his old man and be a custodian to the house's mysterious past and secrets. After Roger is killed in a car accident his widow begins to experience visions and see ghosts, though they could actually be trying to help her, not scare her.
Original writer Ethan Wiley was not on board for this one, he checked-out after House 2 (still the best one), and a bunch of new writers have all pitched in with their own ideas, and are clearly trying to riff on Twin Peaks at one point, though they don't all add up. House IV was made because Sean Cunningham found himself with a budget for one last movie only he didn't have a script. He owed Lewis Abernathy a favor so allowed him to direct and develop the story. It was only after the script had been through a few drafts and some of the cast had been given their roles that they decided to continue/end the story from the first House by bringing back Roger Cobb. Though they did this very lazily, and I don't think the writing team even bothered to watch the first movie as there is absolutely zero connective tissue. Just a couple of lines of dialogue or a quick reference here and there would have made all the difference.
Shot in November 1990, but not released until 1992 due to marketing issues, House IV has a noticeable drop in production value, mainly down to the naff photography by James Mathers, who's career is all TV drivel and cheap schlock. Mac Ahlberg shot the first three movies with lots of shadow and atmosphere. He understood lighting and mood while Mathers doesn't seem to have a clue or any artistic vision and the quality of the film suffers under his lack of ability.
House 3 killed the accidental tradition of actors from Cheers appearing in this series (a quick cameo from Ted Danson or Frasier himself would have been that movie's saving grace) and House IV does nothing to remedy that, but there are three actors from this rather small cast who went on to appear in Con Air, which is odd.
Harry Manfredini scores all four films, but for budget reasons he's limited to a synthesizer to deliver the music for House IV, much like his terrible score to Jason Goes To Hell, though it's good enough without being the least bit memorable. Trust me, no one is going to be releasing a vinyl soundtrack for this movie.
It still manages to be an oddball horror/comedy and, despite a few shortcomings, holds together just enough to make it a good, if hardly spectacular, end for the House series.
I'm very confused about Lewis Abernathy though. This man has barely any credits at all and House IV is his only venture into directing, with a few other minor credits on smaller films here and there. But he played the significant role of Lewis Bodine (keeping his first name) in Titanic, dropping the movie's only F-bomb if I recall correctly. Who IS this man? I can only assume he became pals with James Cameron from working on Deepstar Six since he's a big fan of deep diving and had a fondness the movie.
final and worst installment of the "House" series(i'm not joking)
disdressed1227 October 2006
how low can you go?not much lower than this,the 4th and final(hopefully)installment int the dreadfully awful "House" series.each previous entry outdid the last for sheer crap.the last installment,made it about 30 minutes,when we realized we couldn't go any further.we never laughed once ,nor jumped out of our seats once.these movies are billed as horror/comedy, so shouldn't they contain elements of horror and comedy?the fact this series was ever released onto an unsuspecting public is horrifying indeed.i don't know if i've ever been this bored in my entire life.i mean,what the hell were these people(anyone involved in this crap fest)smoking?some movies are so bad,they'r good. i wish this movie was that good.after torturing ourselves for way too long,we went outside and watched the grass grow to relieve the boredom.0*
Remember when this series was good?... me neither. ... well... remember when it was tolerable?
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews31 January 2008
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
Made for TV? It could have been....
Willie-317 May 1999
I really enjoyed the first House movie, and the second one was pretty good as well. This one had at least one character from the first, but overall, it didn't have anything to do with the House I story. It also wasn't scary at all, just weird. All of a sudden, the house's ghost is a friendly one, and the vilest character in the film is that "landlord" guy who is trying to buy the house from Roger Cobb's family (who, incidentally, takes part in some superfluously disgusting scenes). The acting and directing of this movie made it seem like something made for TV. I would not have seen it in the theater. If you liked the other House films, see this one. Otherwise, you might want to spend your money on something else.
Shouldn't this be house 3 or house 2.5?
frightenedwalmarthomo14 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
3.5 stars House 3 was an entirely different movie which was re-edited and rebadged. House 4 has the same actor as roger cobb but has no connection the the first 2 movies. This movie is pretty terrible. The storyline seems to have been thought up and written on the fly and is too childish. The acting is lame and stale. It does have good video/sound quality and OK editing. It is mildly entertaining sort of like the birds 2 (lands end), but its just really low quality in every deparment except video/sound quality. It especially lacks in the writing department.
Beware
a murderous pizza!!
Coventry12 May 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Man, I hate the `House'-series (and yet, I've seen all four of them
go figure!). This franchise never really could decide whether it wanted to bring horror
or comedy. This fourth entry isn't an exception on that. For one thing, this film introduce us to a family dramatically torn apart by a terrible car-accident and for another, it adds absurd elements like bloodthirsty pizza's (!), dogs with lampshades attached to their head and comic-book style villains. What's the deal? Are we supposed to be scared or bring out the beer and laugh? The plot is dreadfully lame involves ghost-house, build on a spiritual Indian ground
Oh, how original. Yet, if these were the only problems House 4 suffered from, it would still be more or less reasonable. The biggest letdown lies in the entirely illogical structure. I don't know if this ever occurred to cast and crew but
their story doesn't make sense at all! By the way
SPOILERS will follow here, in case you care. At first, the `spirits' of the house seem to turn against Kelly and almost even force her to kill her daughter, while suddenly and for unexplained reasons, these exact same spirits start helping her in fighting the bad guys. Did the miserable, two-minute séance cause this? If so, I must say that is very, very poor! Dreadful film
dreadful series
avoid them all!
why horror failed around the nineties
trashgang25 April 2012
The House franchise. You love it or you hate it. And I must say that I didn't liked it. House 1 and 2 were so stupid, it was even watchable by toddlers. Nevertheless, it had it success back then that Sean S. Cunningham (producer) was moving further with the franchise towards part 4, but there was a problem. It had to be called Part 3 but in Europe and the UK The Horror Show (1989) was released as House 3 for commercial reasons, even as it had nothing to do with the franchise and funny is that it was the best entry.
House 4 was released when major pulled out the plug in horror and even in the popular franchises like Nightmare On Elm Street, Halloween and Friday The 13th. The end of the eighties and early nineties were a bad period for horror. This flick sadly shows why.
It really had nothing to offer, cheap effects (outdated even), nothing frightening and even almost no red stuff. It was really Terri Treas (Kelly Cobb) who saved this flick. Her performance was excellent but this script was a throwaway. It picks in perfectly on House 1 and even William Katt (Roger Cobb) came back but after a while the script really moves to stupidity. Terri do goes for a shower scene but it's also low on nudity.
Many people love 'House' but for a horror buff like me it didn't offer a thing and is a perfect example why horror failed in that era. Kane Hodder did the stunt coordination, Harry Manfredini did the score.
Gore 0/5 Nudity 0,5/5 Effects 1/5 Story 1/5 Comedy 0/5
House 4 was released when major pulled out the plug in horror and even in the popular franchises like Nightmare On Elm Street, Halloween and Friday The 13th. The end of the eighties and early nineties were a bad period for horror. This flick sadly shows why.
It really had nothing to offer, cheap effects (outdated even), nothing frightening and even almost no red stuff. It was really Terri Treas (Kelly Cobb) who saved this flick. Her performance was excellent but this script was a throwaway. It picks in perfectly on House 1 and even William Katt (Roger Cobb) came back but after a while the script really moves to stupidity. Terri do goes for a shower scene but it's also low on nudity.
Many people love 'House' but for a horror buff like me it didn't offer a thing and is a perfect example why horror failed in that era. Kane Hodder did the stunt coordination, Harry Manfredini did the score.
Gore 0/5 Nudity 0,5/5 Effects 1/5 Story 1/5 Comedy 0/5
Predictable......But Not Lame
The Creeper10 December 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Okay. House IV Is Slightly Predictable, But Not Lame. I Thought it Was Great, but Slow. Slow because Really only about 5 or 6 REALLY Scary Scenes Happen.....But all it takes is one of these Classic Scenes to Frighten House Fans for Years To Come.!NEXT SENTENCE IS A POSSIBLE SPOILER! If you Thought Psycho Made you not Want to Take a Shower, Watch This One. People Who have Seen This Film Know What I Mean. Last But Not Least, I Would Say That This the Second Best of The House Series, and Delivers Just What you Would Expect From a House Movie for Viewers of the First III. JUST The House Series. All in All It's a Good Movie that Could have been Rated PG-13 if They Didn't Have Swearing. CHECK IT OUT. Also Recommended: The Amityville Series
Hokey, but fits in well
HankyP18 November 1998
I really like this series. This House movie contains less action &/or horror than the previous two (whatever happened to House III?), but is still fun. I love the fact that the daughter is paralysed and in a wheelchair -- yet Mom manages to not only get her into the Victorian house (not ground level by any means), but also into her upstairs bedroom without any visible lifts or elevators. Still, this movie does manage to have a good (not great, but good) storyline and fits well into the series. BTW - William Katt's character shouldn't be the same as in the first House. It takes place way too soon for this to be his second wife and second child and the first son to be gone.
A cold ending to a franchise that never really heated up.
filipemanuelneto26 November 2021
I really expected something more from this movie. Despite the "House" franchise being very weak, the previous films proved to be more interesting. Without imagination, creativity or an effort to give us something really appealing, this film tried, however, to follow up the story of the first film. It was, still, a cold ending to a franchise that never really heated up.
The script returns to the figure of Roger Cobb, protagonist of the first film. After all the adventures of the first film, he's going to receive a house from his deceased father... which makes me think about the luck of this guy, who spends his life inheriting houses from several dying relatives... houses who are always haunted or have something supernatural. In fact, the film quite copies the structure of the initial film, with slight nuances that don't erase the feeling of "wait, I've seen this somewhere"...
Willian Katt returns to the role he played in the franchise's first film, but the quality of his work as an actor has notably declined. Without adequate material and without a direction demanding more, the actor is kind of left to himself and doesn't give us something really appealing. To make things even more difficult, the actor sees his character die extraordinarily quickly, so his appearance in this film is basically episodic. Despite her youth, Melissa Clayton also deserves a positive note, doing very well and stealing our attention, especially in the more comical scenes. Terri Treas also looks good to me in her character, even though the script reduces her to a screaming machine. Scott Burkholder is a cliché but fun villain. On the negative side, I must mention Ned Romero's very stereotyped performance and Denny Dillon's irritating acting, giving us the most out of place character.
With a mediocre script, poor direction and an uninspired cast, the redeeming characteristics of this film lie in the production values and, particularly, in the sensible and intelligent use of very good special effects, in which the production spent a good part of its budget. The movie is not very scary, it can almost be considered a family movie. The sets were also well-designed, the cinematography fulfills its role without any demerit and the editing seems to me quite discreet.
The script returns to the figure of Roger Cobb, protagonist of the first film. After all the adventures of the first film, he's going to receive a house from his deceased father... which makes me think about the luck of this guy, who spends his life inheriting houses from several dying relatives... houses who are always haunted or have something supernatural. In fact, the film quite copies the structure of the initial film, with slight nuances that don't erase the feeling of "wait, I've seen this somewhere"...
Willian Katt returns to the role he played in the franchise's first film, but the quality of his work as an actor has notably declined. Without adequate material and without a direction demanding more, the actor is kind of left to himself and doesn't give us something really appealing. To make things even more difficult, the actor sees his character die extraordinarily quickly, so his appearance in this film is basically episodic. Despite her youth, Melissa Clayton also deserves a positive note, doing very well and stealing our attention, especially in the more comical scenes. Terri Treas also looks good to me in her character, even though the script reduces her to a screaming machine. Scott Burkholder is a cliché but fun villain. On the negative side, I must mention Ned Romero's very stereotyped performance and Denny Dillon's irritating acting, giving us the most out of place character.
With a mediocre script, poor direction and an uninspired cast, the redeeming characteristics of this film lie in the production values and, particularly, in the sensible and intelligent use of very good special effects, in which the production spent a good part of its budget. The movie is not very scary, it can almost be considered a family movie. The sets were also well-designed, the cinematography fulfills its role without any demerit and the editing seems to me quite discreet.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
