Buried Alive II

Though the situations and characters are fairly banal, they are mixed together in a sufficiently surprising way that I, at least, felt obliged to stay with it and see how it all turned out. That plus a performance of a certain class from Ally Sheedy, who gets about all there is to be got from a not especially interesting part.

7 years later, someone decided to make a sequel to Buried Alive, but it doesn't seem like they had any major ideas for the story since this is nothing more than a gender swapped retread of the original film with a few forced connections to the first film so that it can feel comfortable calling itself a sequel.

This time around, Laura (Ally Sheedy) discovers a strange man (Tim Matheson who returns as Clint and directs the film) at her uncle's funeral and, at the same time, she's going through the same issues he went through in the first film as her husband Randy (Stephen Caffrey) plots with his mistress, Roxanne (Tracey Needham) to kill her.

Just as in the original, this poison doesn't work, Laura gets buried alive, breaks out, and gets revenge on her husband and his mistress.

If you haven't seen the original, Buried Alive II might work better for you. It's not a poorly made movie and the acting is fine, but it pales in comparison to the original, especially when you realize it's not bringing anything new to the table.

Following on from the first film Sheriff Sam has died and his niece, Laura (Ally Sheedy) mourns his passing with her husband Randy (Stephen Caffrey). She also meets a shadowy figure at her uncle's grave who may be Clint (Tim Matheson)- a man who many thought died years ago. Meanwhile Randy hears the story of Clint and his murderous wife and plots with his girlfriend Roxanne (Tracey Needham) to carry out the same deviousness on Laura.

Was the first film so good that it justified a sequel? I've seen both so I can tell you no! This is not even a sequel but a lazy rehash of the first movie. The situation is reversed from the treacherous wife of the first to the husband here, but the poison is the same, the plot is the same, the problems are the same, the revenge is essentially the same. There is a slight change due to the involvement of Tim Matheson's character but he only floats around for a bit before vanishing, and anyway his character only confuses the issue rather than adding to the film. All the same problems with the first film are repeated here. Tim Matheson tries to copy Frank Darabont's direction, in many cases just copying the first shot for shot, but he's flogging a dead donkey and can't inject any tension into this.

The actors are C-rate versions of the first film's B-rate stars. Sheedy doesn't really convince as the vengeful wife while Caffrey doesn't seem like the sort to say boo! to a goose much less murder his wife. Matheson seems to exist in his own little film - halfway in you find out why he's in it at all but until then he just confuses the thing.

This is a pointless remake posing as a sequel. No one cares that all the old characters are tied back into the second film or that Matheson's back. It's all a bit pointless and the fact that it happens in the same town to people familiar with what happened last time round make it even less believable than the first film. the only upside is that the revenge is a bit more believable that the whole "building a massive wooden maze in a house" deal in the first film but it's still not great.

The film would have been better as a pure remake with the sexes switched and set in a new town with new people. The attempt to pass it off as a follow-on from the original with the same characters turns this poor film into a pointless, boring rubbish film.

At one point in this movie, there is a quote that Sheedy's character's uncle bought Wal-Mart stock in the late 60's...Wal-Mart did not go public until 1971...He could not have bought stock in the late 60's ...

The summary says it all really? I'm just looking this up as I watch it on ITV and a bit puzzled by the link. Does anyone else actually understand what the two films have in common - apart from being distinctly average? I haven't really got much more to say, but apparently I need to make this ten lines long in order to submit it, so bear with me while I babble a bit in between breaks to watch her eat the poisoned blowfish...well, that was fun - but still no sign of James Bond,high budget stunts, SMERSH, SPECTRE, or even Pussy Galore. I suppose that this is just one more of Life's great mysteries that I will have to live with. Anyway, that's my ten lines up. Any clues anyone?