Sunday, 26 February 2012

House IV: The Repossession (1992)

If you take this as following on from the second movie in the series, the film it is actually supposed to follow on from, then it doesn't make any sense. If you take this as following on from the unrelated third movie in the series then it doesn't make any sense either. I don't care what others may try and say, the only thing really linking all of the movies in this quartet is the fact that they are all set in a house. That's it. It's never the same house, which is clear from the surroundings and the interior layout of the place. It's just a house.

Having said that, House IV: The Repossession makes a bit more effort than the others to create a continuation of events in an established movie universe. For example, William Katt is back, albeit briefly, in the role of Roger Cobb. And then there's . . . . . . . . . . . well . . . . . . . nope, there's nothing else. Apart from events being set in a house.

A woman and her wheelchair-bound daughter happen to be living in a house that someone wants to buy and destroy. As the woman continues to refuse any offers made to her, the wannabe buyer resorts to more menacing ways of persuading the tenant to sell. The house itself is also making things more than a little tense for the stressed woman, but is it perhaps trying to actually help in some strange way?

Even compared to the sequels that came beforehand (official or not), this is a poor, poor movie. When it's not being completely crazy (a singing pizza, a "vertically-challenged" villain draining excess mucus into a jug, etc) it's just pretty dull. Those crazy moments make it at least watchable, but only just.

Director Lewis Abernathy, working from the script by Geoff Miller and Deirdre Higgins, doesn't seem to know where he's going with the movie. Is it being played for laughs? Is it a supernatural drama that wants to have a cheery, loving centre? Or is it a surreal, dark thriller? Nobody knows and, as such, it ends up being a bit of all of these things and yet off-centre with them all.

Terri Treas is watchable enough in the lead role, Melissa Clayton is also pretty good, Denny Dillon is a fun presence and Scott Burkholder is suitably ruthless as he is pushed further into a corner. And William Katt is okay in his small role.

Completists may want to watch this one but I'm telling you now . . . . . . . . it's easy enough to go through your entire life without it.



  1. jervaise brooke hamster12 August 2013 at 04:15

    Would you agree that when Pauline Hickey was 17 in 1985 she was THE most gorgeous bird of all-time ! ?.

  2. Pauline Hickey? Am I missing something?