Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaIn 1972, the patients and doctors at Stephens Sanitarium were brutally murdered. Over forty years later, the only known survivor returns only to find the ghosts of the past have not been res... Leggi tuttoIn 1972, the patients and doctors at Stephens Sanitarium were brutally murdered. Over forty years later, the only known survivor returns only to find the ghosts of the past have not been resting in peace.In 1972, the patients and doctors at Stephens Sanitarium were brutally murdered. Over forty years later, the only known survivor returns only to find the ghosts of the past have not been resting in peace.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Arianne Martin
- Dr. Lucy Mills
- (as Arianne Margot)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
I've read a lot of comments about the acting and i tend to agree, the acting was probably the best part of the film.
Ive never spent any time in a sanitarium but i imagine it doesnt look like an old creeky house with junk left out in the open and books and junk left everywhere. Its as if they were so intent on making the set look like the original, no one thought to actually make it look like a clinic. All things considered, its a C- in my book.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Belated 2015 sequel to 1973's Don't Look in the Basement. This one is directed by Tony Brownrigg (son of the late S. F. Brownrigg who directed the first). Nice to see that Brownrigg Jr managed to use the same building as the one featured in the first movie. The premise is that the one surviving patient from the first film, who has remained institutionalised elsewhere ever since, is returned to what was Stephen's Sanitarium (the reason for this is never made quite clear). However, his presence awakens the spirits of all those we saw killed at the climax of the first film, and who then start to possess the present-day staff and patients
This is obviously a labour of love for the director (it's touchingly dedicated 'for dad' at the end). The switch from the 'psycho biddy' horror of the first film to haunted house/possession is interesting. It's a shame that for the first half of the 1hr 28min runtime pretty much nothing happens. As with the first film the cast are all virtual unknowns, but they do okay (although there are two characters inserted as 'comic relief', whose presence and tone really jar with the rest of what's going on). When things finally get underway there are some nice ideas, and some cute callbacks to the original film, but it never really grabs you and the ending is a little flat. Only really worth checking out if you're a fan of the first. 5/10.
This is obviously a labour of love for the director (it's touchingly dedicated 'for dad' at the end). The switch from the 'psycho biddy' horror of the first film to haunted house/possession is interesting. It's a shame that for the first half of the 1hr 28min runtime pretty much nothing happens. As with the first film the cast are all virtual unknowns, but they do okay (although there are two characters inserted as 'comic relief', whose presence and tone really jar with the rest of what's going on). When things finally get underway there are some nice ideas, and some cute callbacks to the original film, but it never really grabs you and the ending is a little flat. Only really worth checking out if you're a fan of the first. 5/10.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizA direct sequel to director S.F. Brownrigg's Non guardare in cantina (1973), better known as "Don't Look in the Basement", directed by Brownrigg's son Tony Brownrigg.
- Curiosità sui creditiAfter the end credits, it reads "for dad".
- ConnessioniEdited from Non guardare in cantina (1973)
- Colonne sonoreMozart Piano Concerto 23 Adagio
Written by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (uncredited)
Performed by Samuel Smythe
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Не заглядывайте в подвал 2
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Tehuacana, Texas, Stati Uniti(Trinity Institute)
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
By what name was Don't Look in the Basement 2 (2015) officially released in Canada in English?
Rispondi