For those hording toilet paper

I didn’t really mind House IV. I think it reeked of the stupids at times. It sometimes wanted to be taken seriously, particularly when Roger’s soul and his murder’s resolution is involved. Yet, I would be taken right out of it when there was a talking pizza or a dog lamp literally turning into a protective canine marching towards Burke’s two goons trying to scare the mom and daughter off the property of the Cobb house. The house kind of has a personality—it does look cool in its dusty, decaying wood and boarded up windows, its rotting structure and dying frame revealing its age and lack of care. It is a towering relic in need of serious repair. Not quite worthy of the wrecking ball but in dire need of compassion and support.

I bitch and gripe about Katt’s limited involvement, but, truthfully, this wasn’t the Roger Cobb of House (1986). He doesn’t seem to have a son or be a popular horror novelist. He’s working on an old home movie camera (“he fixes things”), and later in the film, his spirit turns the machine on as a way to tell Kelly, as she awakens in bed from a good night’s sleep (for a change), the time spent together as a family has not been forgotten. She is granted the means (by the house’s “gift of sight”) to see her husband’s stepbrother orchestrating his murder, with one of his goons shooting out her family’s car tire while they’re driving. This revelation certainly spotlights Burke as a really sleazy dirtbag. If she turns over the house to him, it will be bulldozed and the land serves Burke’s boss for toxic waste dumping ground (yep, toxic waste once again factors into a plot). Not just that, according to the film’s spiritual rules, Roger’s soul would “be crushed with the house”. Kelly embarks on a mission where she tells Ezra she isn’t about to let Burke kill his brother in life and punish him in death.

The plot. It is what it is. I could scrutinize it and dissect it, but what you see is what you get, and according to the IMDb, the jury seems to convict this film of being a stinker. I’m on the fence about it. I like the lead actress, and I find Treas quite easy to focus my attention towards. The special effects and comic antics of the plot left a lot to be desired to me. I kind of think this was a decision in part to connect to the up and down tonal shifts that brings a level of continued interest to the first film. You followed Roger on quite a journey in the first film. He combats his own demons and usurps them by conquering them, through the rescue of his son (a dream many parents who lose their children aren’t allowed to live) and elimination of a tormenting guilt in regards to leaving behind his Nam buddy. Kelly, in House IV, is placed in the horrible position to turn off the life support as a burn-decimated Roger dies (in the flesh). She believes the car crash was her fault and he’s dead due to some failure while driving. Instead, she is put in a situation where the evil stepbrother, responsible for her loss, can be undermined of securing the house he so desperately covets. Different journeys, some silly developments along the way, but the outcome is resilient defiance of odds against them. Houses are involved, their influence on the congruence of events revolved around them.