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.

mattressman_pdl When I first saw this title while perusing the video store (yes, an actual video store), I was a little reticent. My reservations came from the fact that the original is over forty years old, talk about a delayed sequel! I also expected a micro budget and highly amateurish filmmaking.Summary: The film takes place in an apparently different institution than the previous film in which a staff of doctors and their patients begin undergoing strange events after the new patient arrives. An elderly, child like man named Sam.Pros: The director is the son of the original film's director so you know right off the bat that there was some heart in this and it wasn't just a cash grab. At least one actor from the original appears although oddly enough not playing the same character. Some of the acting was passable and the clearly small budget was utilized well. Characters were likable.Cons: Some of the acting is sub-par. The addition of a supernatural element and quirky humor makes this film exhibit quite a different atmosphere from it's predecessor. Less unusual and eccentric scenes and more of a gore element.So, I'd give it a try. I can't say I'm the hugest fan of the original but I quite like it and wasn't underwhelmed by the sequel.

BA_Harrison The arrival of a new patient at a home for the mentally ill stirs up ghosts from the past, causing the staff and residents to exhibit severe personality changes.S.F. Brownrigg's cult 1972 horror Don't Look In The Basement gets a belated sequel courtesy of Brownrigg's son, Tony. Unlike his father's film, which was a cheap, grainy, lo-fi effort (none of which prevented it from being an effective shocker), Tony's film is surprisingly polished, boasting crisp cinematography and solid performances. What it is lacking, however, is a decent pace and a strong story.The first forty minutes of Don't Look In The Basement 2 are extremely uneventful and unfold at a snail's pace, introducing the viewer to the characters, none of whom are as memorable as those in the original film. At around the halfway mark, the plot gets a little more interesting as people begin to act strangely, but the leaden pace persists. There's a smattering of gore to help liven up proceedings (including some graphic gut munching), but on the whole I found the whole thing frustratingly lacklustre, and not really worth the 40+ year wait.