WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

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.

Leofwine_draca 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.

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.