Expected more

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

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.

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.

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.

DON't LOOK IN THE BASEMENT 2 is, unsurprisingly enough, a sequel to the original indie horror movie of the 1970s. It's directed by Tony Brownrigg, the son of the original's director S.F. Brownrigg, and it's obviously a labour of love for the guy, with him fulfilling most of the main duties behind the camera. Unfortunately this cheap production is more dull than anything else, concentrating too much on story and atmosphere at the expense of incident and intent.The setting is the same hospital some forty years later, with an all-new cast of characters discovering some bizarre goings-on. Unfortunately this film is all set-up and barely any kind of pay-off, with brief gore the only real horror you're going to get here. Instead we get endless dialogue scenes and too many peripheral characters who add nothing to the story. As a shot on video production this has a slick look but it lacks the original's grainy realism even though the execution isn't half bad. It's more a demonstration of modern indie filming techniques than anything else.