Buried Alive II (1997)

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?

The story line for Buried Alive II and the first version of Buried Alive was about the same. In the first part, Tim Matheson was known as Clint Goodman who has a very beautiful wife Jennifer Jason Leigh as Joanna Goodman. Jennifer Jason Leigh was not satisfied with her husband therefore, she killed him. This version is the same case. Stephen Caffrey is Randy Riskin and he had an unattractive wife Ally Sheedy as Laura Riskin. The obvious better choice is to have an affair with Tracey Needham as Roxanne.But, script writers have not destroys beautiful woman like Jennifer Jason Leigh and Tracey Needham. They can't seem to understand that attractive woman want something more and all men love to be with attractive woman.Tracey Needham's acting was extremely good.

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.

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