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.

4/10.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/House-Collection-the-DVD/dp/B0002IAQUO/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1330285187&sr=1-1

Deathstalker III: Deathstalker And The Warriors From Hell (1988)

Well, a third Deathstalker movie and a third actor in the titular role (this time it's John Allen Nelson) means that it's more of the same antics for anyone who enjoyed the first movie. While not on a par with the fantastic second outing, this movie does just enough to put itself on a level pegging with the original. Nearly.

Deathstalker this time gets himself mixed up with yet another princess (Carla Herd) and there's yet another nasty magic man (Troxartas, played by Thom Christopher) who wants a lot of power for himself. There's a magic stone to be found and pieced together, a bunch of warriors brought back from the dead, an attractive woman who dabbles in a bit of torture (the beautiful Terri Treas) and another attractive woman (Claudia Inchaurregui) who actually kinda stalks Deathstalker and keeps popping up at just the right time.

Howard R. Cohen returns to the writing duties (and would return to write AND direct the next instalment) and isn't afraid of repeating himself. Sadly, the film forgets to aim low and so doesn't really cram in enough big fight sequences or gratuitous nudity considering what audiences were given in the first two movies.

Director Alfonso Corona does reasonably well with the material and tries to keep you distracted from the details, like castle walls only being an inch thick, but he can't do too much with material that's pretty weak in the first place.

John Allen Nelson is okay in the main role, but not half as much fun as John Terlesky (who, let's face it, completely owned the role in the last movie), while nobody else makes much of an impression. Even the ladies doing their best onscreen fail to match anyone in the previous film. Carla Herd is especially bland, outshone by both Terri Treas and Claudia Inchaurregui for the entire movie. Thom Christopher is given a pretty weak villain to portray and the action in the last half hour or so feels like it's being played out by people with no interest in making it look realistic. Which is a shame.

It's still watchable though, which may say more about my tolerance levels than the film itself.

4/10.

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share