IMDb reviews From IMDb
★ 6 / 10
**_William Katt returns for the final “House” film_**
Wuchak
**_William Katt returns for the final “House” film_** After the grim previous flick in the franchise, “The Horror Show,” this one returns to the creative…
**_William Katt returns for the final “House” film_**
After the grim previous flick in the franchise, “The Horror Show,” this one returns to the creative horror-comedy of the first two movies, minus the spirit of high adventure of the second. Since, “House III” wasn’t successful at the box office, this was the first installment to be released direct-to-video. Yet several of the same people were involved behind the camera, including main-man Sean S. Cunningham.
Katt is also back as Roger Cobb from the first film, although his role isn’t as prominent. Despite the happy ending of “House,” Roger and ex-wife Sandy didn’t get back together, and she evidently got custody of Jimmy. So, Roger married Kelly (Terri Treas) and they have a daughter, Laurel (Melissa Clayton), which might be Roger’s stepdaughter (if we are to go by the mere seven years between films). Details of such things are never explained; they’re just assumed.
In any case, Roger inherits the family manor out in the middle of nowhere in SoCal and that’s the focus of the movie. His stepbrother (Scott Burkholder) wants him to break his oath to not sell the house for reasons revealed. Meanwhile noble neighbor Ezra (Ned Romero) offers interesting revelations.
The story is mundane compared to the first two films and therefore less ambitious. In this sense it’s similar to “House III,” along with its focus on the family, which creates welcome human interest. However, like I said, it’s not as grim. The quirky amusement returns as the story progresses. As with the prior movie, there’s some influence from the “A Nightmare on Elm Street” flicks.
Kelly is the focus, and I appreciate Terri Treas’ unique winsomeness. The camera doesn’t fail to capture her beauty. As for Melissa Clayton as the 12-13 years-old daughter, she was actually 19 years-old during shooting.
This is the final film in the franchise, but a movie was announced in 2023 to relaunch the series, which has yet to manifest (and maybe never will). If you’re interested in a similar film (to this one) that’s not part of the official series, try Frank Peretti’s “House” from 2008.
It runs 1h 35m and was filmed in 1991. The house exterior scenes were shot in Veluzat Motion Picture Ranch in Saugus, California, which is located 36 miles north of Hollywood (just north of Santa Clarita), as well as Thomas W. Phillips Residence in Los Angeles for the house interior scenes, which is located 7-8 miles south of the Hollywood Sign.
GRADE: B-
Read full review
★ 3 / 10
The house should be put up for sale by now...
paul_m_haakonsen
I have watched the 1992 horror movie "House IV" once before, but I must admit that I have entirely forgotten about it. And thus, when I had the chance to…
I have watched the 1992 horror movie "House IV" once before, but I must admit that I have entirely forgotten about it. And thus, when I had the chance to revisit it here in 2023, of course I did so.Writers Geof Miller, Deirdre Higgins, Jim Wynorski and R. J. Robertson didn't really manage to conjure up a storyline that was particularly impressive. Sure, "House IV" was watchable, but it was a rather mundane horror experience. I certainly wasn't impressed with the storyline and script for this 1992 movie.The acting performances in "House IV" were fair enough, taking into consideration that the script wasn't all that great. There wasn't anyone famous or reckognizable on the cast list, aside from William Katt and Denny Dillon. It was fun, however, to see that Kane Hodder was actually the guy portraying the human pizza; I found that out while looking through the cast list here on IMDb.Visually then "House IV" was okay. Again, you're not in for anything impressive or grand here. But the movie wasn't overly reliant on special effects, though."House IV" is a movie that comes off as being somewhat bland and forgetable.My rating of director Lewis Abernathy's 1992 movie "House IV" lands on a three out of ten stars.
Read full review
★ 4 / 10
A cold ending to a franchise that never really heated up.
filipemanuelneto
I really expected something more from this movie. Despite the "House" franchise being very weak, the previous films proved to be more interesting. Without…
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.
Read full review
More reviews on IMDb ↗
♡ Thanks for supporting YTS Supporter badges recognize people who help keep YTS running.
19%
AUDIENCE
· 50 ratings
4.0/10
3.4K
•••
need seeders 1080p plz