I didn't mean to suggest that everyone who liked it liked it because of the original. The trouble is, I don't think it has "its own merits." Everything good about it was something pulled from the original film. And that, to me, is what makes it unnecessary. If you aren't going to do something new, what is the point? I guess, also, this is all colored by the fact that I generally don't like sequels. I still see them, which is a stupid choice on my part, but I usually think we should leave well enough alone. Dig?

Well, I haven't yet posted my full review of D2, but I can say that the ending sent flaming rage up my cheeks. What bullshit. I mean, in general, this is a film that's just . . . not necessary (nor was it desired by me), but I saw it because I have that horrible compulsion to see movies that are even vaguely interesting. And there I sat (having locked myself out of my apartment and employed a stranger to break back in--so maybe not the best mindset to begin the film) watching it with such great hope. And it . . . was not too good. Really, the problem with the second one is that it was completely unbelievable. I'm reading a lot of horror bloggers who are giving it positive reviews, and I have a feeling this is stained with the love of the earlier film because really, this one just doesn't work.

Having said that, if it were a stand alone film, I think I would like it. It's that they sandwich it in with the original that pisses me off. Get rid of the original cavers, and just have a crew looking in the caves for some other party, you dig?

Oh, yeah, and the ending is ludicrous.