TalkHorror - Horror Talk For All Horror Fans

Along with Fright Night, one of the films that started me into true horror fandom. When I first saw this one around freshman year of high school (despite wanting to see it for many years prior), I went in expecting a pure horror film, and thought I was going to get one for a number of scenes into the film (before the "witch hand" debacle) due to the atmosphere of the piece, cinematography and soundtrack (and people say Harry Manfredini can only create blaring Hermann ripoffs? The House OST begs to differ!). However, once I noticed that comedy played a big part on the film, even back then I thought it meshed unusually well with the often moody/somber horrific bits of the movie. Analyzing it now, I think it could have been a lot scarier AND a lot funnier overall, but it's still a nice horror film to watch at just about anytime.

It balances out to about 6.5-7/10 for me.

I still love this movie, though admittedly, a large part of that is sentimentality. I saw this long before I was ever exposed to "pure" horror—my Grandpa put it on one night when were all sleeping at his house. But honestly, I don't love it nearly as much as I do House II, which Pops also showed to us, and being (maybe) 8 or 9 at the time, I liked that one better.

When I was young I adored this movie because it had just the right amount of horror and the right amount of humor for me to handle. The purple witch, the freaky gremlins in the chimney and those weird hands in the bathroom mirror were all things that I loved. I too thought it was a hard-core horror film but a young age I was pleasantly surprised by it's humorous tone. I haven't seen it since I was 13 so I can't comment on it's atmosphere or cinematography. Later, when I was 12 I saw The Shining and realized that Big Ben's entrance was a knock off it.

Man, I still remember playing that 'You're no Good' song over and over on the VCR and dancing to it.

DragonBlues Wrote:I still love this movie, though admittedly, a large part of that is sentimentality. I saw this long before I was ever exposed to "pure" horror—my Grandpa put it on one night when were all sleeping at his house. But honestly, I don't love it nearly as much as I do House II, which Pops also showed to us, and being (maybe) 8 or 9 at the time, I liked that one better.

I got the limited 2-disk set back when it was fairly new, which wouldn't be a big deal for me if it weren't going for like 50 bucks used on Amazon.com now X).

Though I don't really see it as horror, I like House II myself, it's got the same sort of easy-on-the-eyes cinematrography, a cast of very likable characters, and even weirder situations than the first had.

Have you seen the other two House films? I thought the third (though it was only related by business and didn't have the same crew) was a superior precursor to Shocker in some ways. The fourth, however, kind of pissed me off; it was needlessly over the top (this time weird shit happens outside of and unrelated to the house), lowered the production values drastically, and brought back William Katt from the first movie as a different guy... with the same name.

FreddysFingers Wrote:When I was young I adored this movie because it had just the right amount of horror and the right amount of humor for me to handle. The purple witch, the freaky gremlins in the chimney and those weird hands in the bathroom mirror were all things that I loved. I too thought it was a hard-core horror film but a young age I was pleasantly surprised by it's humorous tone. I haven't seen it since I was 13 so I can't comment on it's atmosphere or cinematography. Later, when I was 12 I saw The Shining and realized that Big Ben's entrance was a knock off it.

Man, I still remember playing that 'You're no Good' song over and over on the VCR and dancing to it.

I loved the effects in the film. Honestly, I wish there were more monsters, or that we saw more of the ones that were there X). Loved the inclusion of the song(s) as well, I thought it fit the tone very well.

I've seen House II and I hated it. I didn't feel like jungles and ancient Aztecs fit the tone or the ground the original set. The first was witty and was a prefect blend of horror and comedy. The second felt like they were trying to spoof the original but playing it off as a sequel. What I'll always love about the first was the struggle between the father and his son and how it's affecting his writing. I haven't seen it in a long time but I feel as though the creatures he encounters are his own personal demons he has to overcome and they are preventing him from having a clear conscience.

Mr. Briggs Inc. Wrote:I got the limited 2-disk set back when it was fairly new, which wouldn't be a big deal for me if it weren't going for like 50 bucks used on Amazon.com now X).

Though I don't really see it as horror, I like House II myself, it's got the same sort of easy-on-the-eyes cinematrography, a cast of very likable characters, and even weirder situations than the first had.

Have you seen the other two House films? I thought the third (though it was only related by business and didn't have the same crew) was a superior precursor to Shocker in some ways. The fourth, however, kind of pissed me off; it was needlessly over the top (this time weird shit happens outside of and unrelated to the house), lowered the production values drastically, and brought back William Katt from the first movie as a different guy... with the same name.

I loved the effects in the film. Honestly, I wish there were more monsters, or that we saw more of the ones that were there X). Loved the inclusion of the song(s) as well, I thought it fit the tone very well.

Good call on the purchase! LOL

I haven't seen 3 and 4. 3 sounds like it could be cool to check out, but now I'm really glad I never bothered with 4.

FreddysFingers Wrote:I've seen House II and I hated it. I didn't feel like jungles and ancient Aztecs fit the tone or the ground the original set. The first was witty and was a prefect blend of horror and comedy. The second felt like they were trying to spoof the original but playing it off as a sequel. What I'll always love about the first was the struggle between the father and his son and how it's affecting his writing. I haven't seen it in a long time but I feel as though the creatures he encounters are his own personal demons he has to overcome and they are preventing him from having a clear conscience.

Freddy... this just tells me that you didn't see House II young enough. LOL

I was 11 when I saw it. Even then I hated it. I actually had the balls to walk up to the librarian and say, "this shouldn't be advertised as a sequel to House because it's too lame and unfunny." In return she said, "aren't you too young to see either of these?"

Regardless, I'm on the hunt for a nice VHS copy of House. Gotta love that artwork.

You must have been a very serious little boy, Freddy. :comfort:

The artwork is definitely awesome. I've always loved that movie poster.

To the contrary, I was quite the opposite. I think I was just really let down by it.

Then the hug still applies. LOL

I think it may have been the Halloween III effect, Freddy; as opposed to continuing the same storyline, it was just another supernatural film taking place in a big ol' house

I figured, but even still I didn't like the fact that they went the more humorous route. When I think of a haunted house I don't think of dinosaurs and native people. I think of ghosts, monsters or demons. I'll have to watch it again and who knows… I might like it but we'll have to see. However, I really enjoyed the main villain, which was that cowboy right? That was pretty cool but I think Big Ben trumps that. ;

for horror comedy this remains one of my all time favs

why? well william katt, richard moll, and george wendt are brillant throughout, the pacing is just right, its very funny,
damn good direction, there isn't much i don't like about it.....9/10