PeterBradford Technically, the film is very strong. Excellent cinematography, great use of the location, which is the same location as the original film. I swear some of the furniture looks the same! There is one actor from the first film, the great Camilla Carr, who I wish worked more. The director did an outstanding job evoking dread and fear. Two thumbs up.

thesar-2 Man. Was I harsh on the first one. Now, after seeing the follow-up, the original was an all-but masterpiece.When I was a kid, like nine or so years old, I saw the original horror low-budget shockfest and I was scared to death. The low-budget of it all plus the "I'm not supposed to see this, but my parents are asleep and as long as I keep the volume low" aspect was what put me over the edge.So, when I just now (about two years, too late) realized there was a sequel, I decided to spend my Friday night with a double feature of the two Don't Look in the Basements. Because it had such an impact on me, the original still sent shivers down my spine as I recalled how I felt when I was under 10 and seeing such carnage.And then, I started the follow-up, close to 40 years after the original. And boy, this was bad.It appears the new creators had no clue what the original was about. Either they only saw clips of the 1973 film, or they only read a synopsis, they made a completely different movie using some of the main characters from back then and morphed it into a literal comedy.To give the synopsis, originally there was an isolated and experimental mental hospital that saw the attempted murder of the only doctor and a new nurse tricked by a patient into believing she was the new head doctor. Mayhem ensures and patient Sam murders everyone in order to save said new-nurse who escapes.That was part one. Part two takes place in real time (approx. 40 years later) and Sam returns to a "new" mental hospital run by an enormously incompetent staff and the tone/genre completely shifts. Oh, and some murders happen with generic results.While the actors involved give their all and the film was well shot, the movie couldn't have been more different than the original. It's like them making (another) sequel to Psycho 40 years later and making it a comedic spoof of Norman Bates tripping over the stairs leading from his mother's house to the motel.Normally, I would recommend even in the slightest for fans to see a follow-up to a movie they may have loved or deemed a "guilty pleasure," but in this case, stay away, stay far away. This "movie" was a waste. And especially for those who LOVED the original, which I'm starting to. You will see conclusions to the characters you initially rooted for end up being completely destroyed here.Don't look in the basement and certainly, don't look this one up.***Final thoughts: Okay, here's where I give my own guilty pleasure. Fine, there was one aspect I loved. One of the orderlies, the bigger one, "Bishop" - played by Scott Tepperman, was a pleasure to look at. Sure, him and the other psycho orderly were obviously inserted as comic relief, I still couldn't keep my eyes off such a hunk. At least, in such a terrible misfire, I could find pleasure in such the bear.

Michael Ledo Contains a revealing character PLOT SPOILER.This is a sequel that comes 44 years later. The film includes some flashbacks and you get the basic idea should you not want to watch the first film over again. Dr. William Mathews (Andrew Sensenig) joins the staff of a sanitarium he did not realize was the one in the first film. Emily (Camilla Carr) the director, brings back Sam (Willie Minor) a survivor from the massacre. When he shows up weird things begin to happen.PLOT SPOILER: Camilla Carr was in the first film as Harriet. In this film she was the character Charlotte from the first film. Sam was played by the late William Bill McGhee in the initial feature. The basement is mentioned at 45 minutes into the feature and they do actually go into it and they leave enough characters alive for another sequel in 2060.This is not a great sequel, although it does seem to keep with the facts in the first film. For those who want to add two shiny discs to their collection of horror have this selection.Guide: F-word. Implied sex. Groping. No nudity.

stsinger If you're a fan of the horror genre, you have to slog through a lot of crap and once in a while, you come across a truly pleasant surprise. "Don't Look in the Basement 2" is one of those happy surprises. For those who are unaware, "Don't Look in the Basement" was a 1973 horror film by S.F. Brownrigg that involved a young nurse going to an asylum where murder and mayhem ensues. It garnered some serious notoriety because it was acquired by Hallmark Pictures and was given the same marketing campaign as the original "Last House on the Left" ("It's only a movie... only a movie..."). And now, over 40 years later, comes a direct sequel directed by Anthony Brownrigg, son of the original director. In this one, a doctor goes to work at a small, country asylum after a tragedy involving his wife. The director of the asylum informs the staff that a very special patient is coming. And it is a man named Sam, who was one of the lone survivors of the events in the original film.Once Sam gets there, strange things start to happen. Patients and staff start acting strange, and seem to be taking on the persona of the characters of the original movie. And as you might expect, murder and mayhem seem to be on the menu again...The movie is way, way better than you'd expect. The acting is professional, there is creepiness, scares, intentional comic relief, and some truly disturbing scenes. It's well photographed and solidly directed. And it's got an actual, honest-to-goodness ENDING.It helps to have seen the original (otherwise the characters seem to be just acting weird instead of channeling other characters) but it's not a necessity. I was really surprised by how good this was. Definitely recommend it.