n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Blistering performances.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

I have to confess absolutely loving the first 'House' film. Yes, the (now iconic) marketing poster of a decomposing severed hand ringing a doorbell may have been a tad misleading. You may think you were in for one scary experience when, in fact, you received one hell of a tongue-in-cheek black horror-comedy. The (inevitable) sequel was so-so, but by this third instalment, it had well and truly lost its way.Where as the first two 'House' films were both heavily linked to - surprise, surprise - a house, this film seems to forget why it's called what it is. In fact I believe in some territories when the film was released the 'House' part of the title was completely dropped in favour of a more ambiguous 'The Horror Show' title. I guess this tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the project, i.e. it's not really a sequel but more of a horror script that was sort of crow-barred in under the familiar (and therefore profitable) 'House' brand in order to increase sales. But is it any good?Unfortunately, not really. Even by a stand-alone horror film it's a bit lame. However, that's not for the efforts of leading man Lance Henriksen, who does everything in his extensively-cool acting range to bring some drama to the proceedings. It's starts okay enough - Henriksen is a cop tortured by his previous experiences with a serial killer, only for said nasty to come back from the grave to haunt his family (in the house, in case you were wondering). Then it all kind of falls apart as the scares become fewer and further between and the plot descends into predictability. The serial killer is portrayed by (Bladerunner's) Brion James and he too does his best to add some terror with the limited script available to him. However, in the end, both main actors end up just chewing up the scenery in an attempt to try and elevate what is a particularly forgettable B-movie into something vaguely memorable.There's some nice practical effects here and there and it's always nice to be reminded of a time before CGI gore ruled the horror scene. But, at the end of the day, it's not enough to save this film. I'm a big fan of Lance Henriksen and watch most of his output, but even I would struggle to sit through this film again (I've watched it twice - the first time over twenty years ago and completely forgotten it. Therefore I've just seen it again and felt I better review it before everything about it escapes me again). The first 'House' film is a classic. Just stick to that.

Are you ready to be further confused by the House and La Casa numbering and naming structure? The Horror Show had been financed through pre-sales of foreign distribution rights using the title House III. By the time filming began, the film was definitely going to be part of the series, then United Artists thought that The Horror Show was a better title for the U.S.OK. Makes sense so far, right? But when House IV came out in 1992, many of us couldn't remember there being a House 3. And with the internet in its infancy, not many of us knew that The Horror Show was also La Casa 6 in Italy. Confused yet?It gets worse. The Horror Show is about a killer named Meat Cleaver Max, played by Brion James, who is sentenced to the electric chair and dies. But wait - he's made a deal with the devil and comes back to haunt the cop who put him away - as well as that policeman's family - with supernatural powers.There are also some character actor appearances - Lewis Arquette (father of the Arquette family of actors) and Lawrence Tierney (Reservoir Dogs). But this movie feels the weight of the late 80's push for movies to be sequelized, in the same way that Shocker felt like it was made to set up a franchise.But wait - isn't that the same plot as 1989's Shocker with Horace Pinker making a deal with the devil to come back and haunt the football player who helped capture him? Yes. You are 100% correct. The same year, The First Power had the same exact storyline, too! You could also point to 1987's Prison and 1988's Destroyer as having similar concepts, but The Horror Show/House 3/La Casa 6 and Shocker go beyond that and feel like the same exact movie (except for the pop culture elements that Craven injected into his take as he tried to create a new Freddy).And again - this has nothing to do with the two House movies that came before, which have nothing to do with each other either, other than the title. Whew!Let's just get to the movie, where Meat Cleaver Max escapes and frames Detective Lucas McCarthy (Lance Henriksen, Near Dark) for a new series of crimes and haunts the house where his family lives. Only a parapsychologist can help them now.Of course , everything ends up happy. Of course, the cat survives. Of course, they get a 5-year supply of chili at the end. What?!? Seriously - I regret the time I spent watching The Horror Show and that doesn't happen all that often. I'm not the only one embarrassed. Noticeably in the opening credits, Allyn Warner is credited as Alan Smithee. I love that they spelled Allan Smithee - the pseudonym when someone wants their name taken off a movie - incorrectly.

House II the second story had nothing to do with House (1985) And this has nothing to do with House (1985) or House II the second story. But this this better then House II the second story. This is very scary. I can think of one movie scarier then this House (1985). This scarier then House II the second story. And that is not easy to do. It is scary then The Exorcist and that is not easy to do. I am glad to see it got a good ratting. 4.9 is a good ratting. But still this such a great movie that 4.9 is underrating it. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. It is a great horror movie. See it. It a 10. Not a 4.9.

This was James Isaac's first attempt to make a horror flick, he went further with Jason X (2001), Skinwalkers (2006) and Pig Hunt (2008). And he shows immediately that he knows his stuff. I found the way he used the lighting and his POV shots well done.The Horror Show was produced by Sean S. Cunningham and the score was done by Harry Manfredini and that rings a bell. The House saga and that's why it was sold as House 3. Even as it had nothing to do with the House franchise. But it was for me so far the best 'house' entry. It didn't had those stupid monsters, in fact, the effects were done by Kurtzman, Nicotero and Berger better known as KNB. So on that part it was also worth watching. The stunts were done by Kane Hodder. And just watch the acting list, Lance Henrikson (Alien,...) , Rita Taggart (Mulholland Drive,...), Brion James (Bladerunner,...).There's one shower scene were Dedee Pfeiffer (Bonnie) goes naked but there's not that much to see. Overall the effects used are worth watching like the execution and the turkey that comes alive. Of course they had to add the face in the stomach scene seen before in Nightmare On Elm Street (1984). Worth watching, it's a bit of a mixture of the flicks that came out around that era, it had a killer, a ghost, things coming alive so it's a flick for all buffs out there, but not a classic.