Dreadfully Boring

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

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.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Saddled with one of the most boringly unimaginative movie titles that I can think of, BURIED ALIVE 2 is a bitter (as a blowfish) disappointment. The original 1990 movie was surprisingly good for a TV film, with quality performances, an interesting plot and plenty of creepy moments. This sequel is a poor rehash of the first film, with the sole difference that the wife is the one being poisoned and the husband is the adulterer instead of the other way round. Everything else is exactly the same, including the poisoning by blowfish, even the drilling and trap at the end, but it's just not as effective this time around. The only fun parts are those which directly follow on from the first film, like the unexpected exhumation of the two bodies in a coffin and the character of Clint Goodman, but these are played down to a mere sideline in the movie.Ally Sheedy (MAN'S BEST FRIEND) is frankly one of the most unattractive actresses I've seen, and her unconvincing performance doesn't help much. The rest of the cast is even worse, with the unknown Stephen Caffrey and Tracey Needham to blame for most of the bad acting in the movie. The only good performers are Tim Matheson, who has an excellently creepy role as a man with an unholy connection to death having been buried alive himself in the first, it's just a shame his direction isn't so inspired this time around. Brian Libby also has fun as an enbalmer with a black sense of humour.The plot is often contrived (the enbalming machine going haywire is just plain dumb) and over-emphasises plot developments so that they become laughable. The final image, of two people trapped in a boat at the bottom of the ocean, is mishandled, turning a potentially horrific image into a laughable one thanks to the over-acting of the aforementioned Caffrey and Needham. Give this worthless flick a miss and rewatch the first movie instead, as it's about ten times better than this unoriginal garbage.

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?

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.

...seeing the same movie twice? The first was good..the second a poor model of the first.