The editor of a fashion magazine Ariel Wolfe receives many calls from her sister Sara, but she does not return. When Sara is found dead, apparently after committing suicide, Ariel goes to her apartment with her friend and photographer Paul. She meets Professor Richard, who is seeking Sara’s journal to find a lead to the statue of the evil god Baphomet for a museum.
Later, Ariel and Paul are kidnapped by the gang of the treasure hunter Desmond, who intends to find and sell the statue to a private collector for five million dollars. They go to the house, where they meet Richard, his assistant Kyle and the student Michelle, but the criminals dominate the group. However, the house suddenly closes all the exits and they find trapped inside with vision of ghosts that are reliving their final moments in the place they died.
I thought this movie was a great sequel, to the 1999 version of “House on Haunted Hill”. The storyline takes place around 8 years later, from where the original movie left off. After the credits finish, you start to wonder if they are planning on making a third part, to this movie or not.
I thought the special effects were about the same, as the first part, but a little bit better. This part shows you more of the patients and explains more about the asylum, than the first one. Also, I thought this part was probably more creepier, as well. Though, without seeing the first part, you won’t be able to enjoy this part, because the storyline explains a lot about the first girl, who lived.
The only issue I had about this sequel was that they only explained Ariel’s sister, Sara, who went insane and killed herself, or so they say. They never explained anything about Eddie, who also survived, and what happened to him. Also, towards the end of the movie, when the two people got into the vehicle to drive off, they didn’t show how they got access to the keys. If you remember, both of those people were taken hostage. When Ariel tried to leave, the first time, she couldn’t drive off, because she didn’t have the keys, which is the main reason why she went back into the house. Other than those two things, I thought the storyline was decent and a lot better, than most of these newer “so-called” horror movies.
As for the acting, I thought all of the actors played their character roles very well. I enjoyed the twists and how they switched around the story, with the characters. I would give a hint, but that would just ruin the movie, for those who haven’t seen this movie. For those that have watched it, you know what I mean, more than likely. I wanted to put it in better words, with the characters, but each time I tried to type something about it, it sounded like a spoiler.
I thought Erik Palladino, which played Desmond, played the villain very well, in my opinion. As for Ariel, which was played by Amanda Righetti, I thought she looked almost like her sister (Sara), from the previous part, which was good. Dr. Vannacutt, which was played by Jeffrey Combs, did a great kill scene, when he used the scalpel to cut off the face, from one of his victims. As for everyone else, I didn’t notice any errors and wouldn’t change anything about any of their performances.
If you haven’t seen this part, but have seen the 1999 remake, then you will enjoy this movie, if you liked the previous one. If you haven’t seen this one or the remake of “House on Haunted Hill” and are looking for a good horror movie, then you will probably enjoy this movie, as well. If you’re not into horror movies about asylums, then you won’t like this one.
Movie Critic Blog Rating: