Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Myron Clemons A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Madilyn Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

utgard14 Lame sequel to House on Haunted Hill with an extremely contrived plot about an evil idol hidden in the same house from the first movie. Amanda Righetti stars as the sister of Ali Larter's character from House on Haunted Hill. She and her boyfriend are kidnapped and forced to go into the house by some guy looking for the Baphomet Idol. Whatever. I will say that Amanda Righetti is the best part of the movie and the only actor that you're likely to even remember from this. Everybody else is bland and forgettable. That goes double for Erik Palladino, who fails miserably at being a hammy villain. It goes without saying there is nothing scary about this movie. It's one of those horror movies that just tries to be entertaining in an 'action movie with gore' sort of way. The first movie wasn't scary either but it was fun, just like the classic William Castle movie it was a remake of. This isn't fun at all. It's just ugly and stupid. Avoid at all costs unless you're willing to stomach 80 minutes of crap just to look at Amanda Righetti's prettiness.

culmo80 The remake of House on Haunted Hill was enjoyable. It had all the elements of a good horror movie, not to mention pretty good acting, especially by Rush.This sequel to that film was unnecessary and rather absurd.Spoilers below:If you saw the remake (and if you haven't, why would you be reviewing its sequel?), then you know the back-story about the asylum, which was perfect. This film just stretches for a reason to put people back in the house and then proceeds to kill them all off, except for 2...just like the original. They add a few things, like interactive ghosts (a couple of lesbians, a shirtless inmate, etc). The idea behind this was to tell more of the story about the abuses that Dr. Vannicut was guilty of. Not a bad plot element but completely different from what occurred in the first film.We do get to see a little more of the house, but it would have been cool to revisit some of the scenes from the first film (other than the entry room). It might have been creepy to see the blood-soaked medical room where Blackburn met his end, but still, the tour of the rest of the house was interesting.The first film's haunting wasn't concerned with sending a message to the living, the ghosts/entity was only concerned with consuming more souls. Additionally, the house in the first movie was alive and it was evil. In this movie, it wants to be saved from the mysterious source of that evil, which is an ancient demon relic. I felt like this completely ruined it. You want to leave some amount of mystery. I felt that Vannicut's crimes were enough to manifest the evil spirit of the house and there didn't need to be any "evil relic" that once removed would free the spirits. That's a tired trope of the horror genre and it failed in this film. The previous film got it just right.Over all, I wouldn't include this movie in a list of horror films I will never watch again, but it certainly isn't one of my favorites. If you haven't seen this yet, it is worth watching, if only for the cheap thrills; to be sure there is plenty of gore and ghosts, but don't expect anything that will blow you away.

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.

Paul Andrews Return to House on Haunted Hill is set in Los Angeles where glossy magazine editor Ariel Wolfe (Amanda Righetti) is informed her sister Sara has committed suicide, looking around Sara's apartment Ariel discovers Professor Richard Hammer (Steven Pacey) there who is searching for the journal of a Dr. Vannacutt (Jeffrey Combs) that Sara had & reveals the location of the lost Idol of Baphomet. Back at her house Ariel finds that her sister Sara sent her the journal in the post, thief Desmond Niles (Erik Palladino) also wants the valuable Idol in order to sell it for four million dollars & kidnaps Ariel, her boyfriend Paul (Tom Riley) & takes the journal. The journal reveals that the Idol is hidden in an old mental asylum on a hill that is supposedly haunted, Desmond takes Ariel & his team to the haunted house where the ghosts of abused & murdered patients & Dr. Vannacutt himself kill them off...This direct to video sequel to the modest yet pretty good House on Haunted Hill (1999) was directed by Victor Garcia & is short on plot & depth but as far as gory haunted house horror flicks Return to House on Haunted Hill isn't a bad effort at all. The whole set-up is rather silly with an armed team looking for a valuable Idol, they kill without a second thought so why they just just rob a bank or something, it would be far less complicated than trying to find a lost Idol which may or may not exist & the kidnapping of Ariel, the splitting up of the team & the exposition is clunky. Cut lots of wandering around dark corridors, quick flashes of ghosts & silly jump scares which to be fir are done quite well here & add the cool gore scenes & a touch of nudity the whole thing is reasonably entertaining on a basic level. With a short 80 odd minute duration Return to House on Haunted Hill at least moves at a cracking pace but at the obvious loss of plot & character depth & development as virtually every character has some connection to another but it all comes to nothing, but then if you adjust your expectations accordingly this is a fairly good haunted house flick that is nowhere near a masterpiece but is a good enough film in it's own right. Keep watching as the end credits roll as after they finish there's an extra little scene on a beach that features even more nudity. I actually brought a second hand Blu-Ray of this & it has this option of changing the events of the film by choosing certain things that happen & the box claims there are 96 possible story lines but although a novel idea I am not sure if I would have the patience to find them all out.The connections to the original House on Haunted Hill don't really go beyond the setting, the ghosts of mental patients doing nasty things to people & of course Dr. Vannacutt reappears. The real highlight of Return to House on Haunted Hill are the gore scenes, available in 'R' rated & 'Unrated' versions make sure you get the Unrated cut as it contains more gore including a man pulled into a very small hole & gets bent in two, a face is sliced off in a cool bit, someone is ripped apart, there's blood & guts, heads are bashed in, people with half their heads missing & the real highlight is when a guy has the top of his head sliced off exposing his brain before Dr. Vannacutt rips it clean out of his skull. There's some nudity too with what starts out as a threesome with some good looking girls turning nasty as two of the turn into rotting naked zombies. I did like the exploitation & gore elements of Return to House on Haunted Hill & it's a shame that more time & effort wasn't put into the treasure hunt for the Idol & the little back-stories, divided loyalties, rivalries & back stabbing that went with it. The CGI computer effects are decent & there's a good atmosphere as a lot of it takes place in a period asylum with dark dank corridors, rooms full of menacing & dangerous looking medical instrument's & the nice period exterior design of the building is cool as well.Probably shot on a decent if not exactly big budget Return to House on Haunted Hill is set in Los Angeles but was filmed in Sofia in Bulgaria. The acting is alright, I mean there's nothing great here but it's alright.Return to House on Haunted Hill is a decent little haunted house horror flick with pleasing amounts of blood, gore & nudity. This was a watchable enough film if you don't expect too much depth. The Blu-Ray has these alternate storyline feature which sounds alright if a little limited.