I hope my review will help you guys, if you are the fan of the prequel Stake Land and then think twice before watching this! It was the couple of days before "Tet"- a traditional holiday in my country, i came to the DVD store looking for some good stuffs and then i found it. Wow they made the sequel! Amazing, i was really excited cause Stake Land was one of my favorites vampire movies (along with the Blade series and Daybreakers) I watched it on the morning of "Mung 5", the fifth day of Tet.First of all, the beginning was acceptable and then after 20 minutes everything gone wrong. The slots broke down, the conversation between the characters is boring and unnecessary. The runaway from the Brotherhood take too much time, the film turn into slow process with the flashback from our 2 main characters. The ending is the most disappointed in 80 minutes of this film, Martin seeking for revenge but when The Mother and vampire attack he has to wait for Mister to lure The Mother in to fight. The fight end-up quickly but seriously the fighting scene look so fake and the equipment, the backstage, also the CGI graphic throughout the film keep me questioning about the budget of this film. I actually has a very good impression and enjoyable time watching the first film by Nick Damici but this one is not. Last but not least, the Stakelander ruined my feeling about one of the best vampire horror in the recent years, i hope they could make a stop after this or else they could make the next mistake just like 20th Century Fox with Wrong Turn sequel.
Add a Review
-
RonHuynh231 February 2017
-
Platypuschow16 February 2019The Stakelander or simply Stake Land 2 is a follow up to the 2010 feature which had a fair bit going for it.
Set in a post apocalyptic world that's been ravaged by vampires and small pockets of humanity are doing their best to survive. All grown up we see Martin (Connor Paolo) return and on a quest to find his mentor known only as Mister (Nick Damici) to assist him in getting avenging his families murder by the new big bad vampire queen. To make matters worse Christian fanatics have teamed with the vampires, deeming their leader a "Holy mother".
Now though the first Stake Land was hardly groundbreaking it was an enjoyable enough fluff piece that kept my attention throughout. After six years I certainly didn't expect a sequel and honestly don't think we needed one, the movie itself just confirms my belief.
Don't get me wrong this sequel isn't bad, it just accomplishes nothing and just plods along with mediocrity. Sure it's nice to see the two leads of the previous movie return, but they don't bring anything to the table worth paying attention to.
The side cast are great including veteran Steven Williams, but the writing is all over the place and left an already unnecessary movie even flatter than it should have been.
If you really liked the first then this might be worth a watch, for anyone else not so much.
*Insert pun here about this vampire movie sucking here*
The Good:
Same cast
Steven Williams
The Bad:
Shoddy writing
The whole thing is just so "Meh" -
I didn't even know that they had made a sequel to the 2010 "Stake Land" movie. I just happened to come across the movie by sheer random luck. And I did enjoy the first movie, so I picked up "The Stakelander" - or "Stake Land II" as it was marketed as here - and gave it a go.
And true enough to sequels as sequels usually go, then "The Stakelander" is just one of those movies that didn't turn out to be anywhere near the original first movie. And one such movie that you wonder why they actually took the time to make it, especially with 6 years in between the two movies.
That being said, then I will move right on to stating that "The Stakelander" was a massively boring movie, and it was a test of wills to actually see it through to the very end. I managed to do so, because I wanted to see if it picked up pace and became better. I didn't!
The characters in the movie were one-dimensional and could have easily been replaced with cardboard cut-outs. There were just no depth or motivation to the characters that trodded in and about in this movie. And it seemed more like a ragtag ensemble of odd characters coming together for making something resembling a movie.
The effects in "The Stakelander" were adequate, albeit not outstanding or memorable, mind you. So not even here does the movie have a chance to elevate itself.
Compared to the first movie, then "The Stakelander" was surprisingly devoid of action. Which was a shame, because that could at least have been something to keep the audience in their seats.
You are perhaps even better off just watching the 2010 "Stake Land" movie and letting it be with just that one movie. Because the 2016 "The Stakelander" sequel offers nothing important or outstanding to the storyline of the first movie.
This movie came and went without leaving a lasting impression. And it is hardly the type of movie that you watch a second time around, providing that you actually manage to get through it the first time. -
I loved Stakeland, I hated The Stakelander.
This film is not totally awful, but it's pretty darn close, and it doesn't hold a candle to the first film.
Stakeland was a movie that was lovingly crafted and made well on a limited budget - this is B grade schlock that was clearly rushed and nowhere near the same love and attention was put into it.
The acting is not as good, they've stolen concepts straight out of multiple other movies (The Book of Eli, Mad Max: Fury Road, The Road, just to name a few,) and the story is a rushed and incoherent mess.
The villain makes little sense, the interesting concepts of the film are woefully underdeveloped and presented in a totally contradictory fashion - we are told that the world has entered a new 'dark ages', but then everyone is still using modern technology likes cars, electricity, modern medicine, military weapons and armaments, etc. And we are introduced to 'the Brotherhood' who are supposed to be a Christian sect who are in league with a vampire and her vampire hoard despite the blatantly obvious fact that she (and her vampire brood) would clearly be considered as demonic minions from the pit of Hell by any such religious group - but hey, there's no need to tell you why this should be or even explain how this partnership came to be because... reasons.
But on the bright side, they managed to ham-fistedly shoehorn in a gay couple (did they get some sort of extra funding for the diversity points?) and then they keep labouring the fact that they're a gay couple - just in case you missed it the first time around.
When I think about it, this film kind of feels like a cheaply made attempt to make conservatives and Christians look evil and bad while the progressives are the good guys fighting on the side of the angels.
In a nutshell: this movie feels like a montage of set pieces and concepts that have been poorly put together, all the while someone forgot to actually write a plot to string all the various pieces (and concepts blatantly stolen from other movies) together as one coherent whole.
Zero character development, wholesale abandonment of the lore established by the first movie, zero character arcs, blatant copying of other apocalyptic movies (including it's predecessor), poor acting, poorly executed and contradictory story points, action set pieces were poor imitations of the original, nowhere near the same level of attention paid to costume and world development (don't get me started on that awful and cheap looking fortified compound!), nowhere near as many vampires, the musical score was nowhere near as good as Stakeland (and was it just me, or did it feel like the first 10 minutes of the movie was scored by someone totally different than the rest of the film?)
If this movie was a vampire, you wouldn't need to stake it through the heart because it was already dead on arrival.
It's a real shame, because the first movie was an absolute unexpected cult classic worthy of all the praise it gets - in fact, if you haven't seen it already, forget this one and go and watch Stakeland instead! -
This sequel picks of the story of Martin, at least a few years after the first film, where 'following yet another great tragedy in his short life, he seeks to find "Mister" again, the man who had taken him in as a teenager and taught him how to fight vampires and take care of himself. Martin begins this new journey through mostly desolate regions where it's as dangerous to trust an "unturned" human, as it is to fight the ravenous undead.
This time around, the character Martin had a little more grit, depth and emotion, but I was still rather underwhelmed. Not terribly so, in that you can understand the "shellshock" due to his great personal losses, and hence a kind of detachment regarding anything except fighting and killing. "Mister", the unnamed aging vampire fighter played by Nick Damici, the writer of the story, is as intense and believable as ever, and the best part about the film in my opinion. Some old friends of "Mister" provide more backstory of his history, which content is not unexpected but welcome, and eventually influences the ending of the tale at this time.
There's a fair amount of blood and gore, a couple of surprises, and a revenge element that connects both of the main characters, as the necessity and burden of fighting for survival nearly becomes too much for each. I rated it a 7 mostly on Damici's performance, as the storyline is typical for post-apocalyptic vampire/undead movies, and the cinematography was pretty good. It's definitely worth a watch if you liked the first film, and you wanted to see what happened to Martin and "Mister". -
The first 2010 Stake Land was a classic .The Boy that finally finds sanctuary in the Far North, finds love, hope & kick-ass maturity after traveling the post-apocalyptic vampire road with "Mister" . Stakeland was a tale you could watch three or four times for Vampire aficionados
The new director (story written by Nick Damici aka "Mister"...way above his pay grade or writing talent ) has gutted the classic vampire tale of good versus evil ...there is no redemption for this half baked movie trying to cash on the original movie moxie by basically stealing scenes from other Sci-fi classics.
Here's what's dreadfully wrong. In Stakelander Martin/Boy has blissful happiness with his a new wife & child ...that is latter murdered by a vengeful Vamp Queen in in the first five minutes sending Martin into a gloomy funk (but oddly he seems rather disinterested or maybe just figures the script sucks) I knew the tale was going down that old cliché drain, killing off all the previous survivors ...it's not shocking just lazy story telling. So after killing off the girlfriend character from Stake 1 the "Boy" now looking like a sad lost Hipster seeks to find "Mister".
Now Hipster seems like a trusting Millennial Doofus getting ambushed a few times along the road, now the first ambush was forgivable but getting ambushed not once but twice in the woods, warehouse & latter at Mister's suburban shack while playing house is so awful it was embarrassing just to watch...for example the forest ambush H & M have a smoldering fire, coffee & are getting ready to sing Kumbaya as the Brotherhood zealots walk up on them... not sneak but walk!
The acting, writing & set design looked like first semester film class 101 or teen friends making a Youtube skit in the woods. Also the misplaced feral mute playing cave woman with goofy facial expressions was cringe worthy.
Now for the meat of the movie. The Vamp Queen wasn't fleshed out, who was she and why should I care? The survivor fortress looked like shopping carts piled on each other. They went really really cheap in the special effects . The Mister gladiator scene was a crude copy of Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome & an exact copy of 2015 Turbo Kid . When Mister escapes with Hipster they exit the arena cage entrance to where?...more locked cages LoL!
Also Mister looks like a bloated Steven Seagal (what the heck happened to the Kung Fu staking bad-ass,he wet all snowflake on me ) he even says he's tired of it all. So am I!
The two Hell's Angel gay grandpa's committing suicide together while taking out the vamp army made me laugh...the PC smooching was the pièce de résistance, so pointless,forced & out of place (Damici snuggling up to Hollywood Libs for Brownie points) Why did he ruin the original vamp classic memory & make this travesty is one of the great mysteries of Mister & poor Hipster. I figure Netflix offered a bag of gold for a half finished script or more like dozen stolen moments from other horror movies ...running with the bag & staking what could've been a epic trilogy right in the heart. What a waste & Nick Damici should be spanked with a vampire toothed plank. -
claudio_carvalho26 December 2016In New Eden, Martin (Connor Paolo) unsuccessfully tries to protect his wife and daughter from an attack of vampires led by a blonde vampire. He returns to North America to seek out the vampire hunter Mister (Nick Damici) to help him to destroy the vampire leader. Along his journey, he stumbles upon dangerous survivors and the notorious brotherhood; but he also finds a new community with good people that welcome him. But Martin is seeking out revenge.
"The Stakelander" is a decent sequel of the gem "Stake Land". The plot returns to the characters Martin and Mister with an ellipsis of many years after the first movie that is presented in flashbacks, with Martin raising a family that is destroyed by an insidious vampire leader and the brotherhood. The result is inferior to the original film but also entertains. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): Not Available -
rhysseddon-8897327 June 2017watchable, too dark the scenes, was a let down, the first one had so much more too it much more effort put into the first one, also they never focused much on the brotherhood in this one, like you saw them in the film, but you didn't see as much how they were organized in comparison to the first one you had that bald fella, very strong actor. And at the end you couldn't see the fight scenes or what was happening, i was confused for the majority of the film
-
gavin69422 February 2017When his home of New Eden is destroyed by a revitalized Brotherhood and its new Vamp leader, Martin (Connor Paolo) finds himself alone in the badlands of America with only the distant memory of his mentor and legendary vampire hunter, Mister (Nick Damici), to guide him.
This sequel was written by Nick Damici without the input of Jim Mickle, who co-wrote the first film. Mickle was tied up in other projects, but Damici wanted to return to Stake Land whether through film, TV or a web series, and producer Larry Fessenden agreed. Many directors were interviewed looking for a Mickle replacement. Ultimately, Fessenden (through Chadd Harbold) went with "extended family" members, Dan Berk and Bobby Olsen. Though they may not be big names, the successful execution of this film speaks for itself.
The film begins with a minor flashback to catch us up to speed. Without using footage from the original, we get a quick sense of the characters and where we are now. It is quite effective, and simple enough that someone who skipped the first film could watch this one without much difficulty. (Why they would do that, I have no idea.) For the first half of the film, there are plenty of shots showing the desolate wasteland (of Canada!), really driven by the score due to the lack of dialogue. How much this was taken from the script, I do not know, but it plays very well and credit must be given to composer Redding Hunter.
Damici's script is somewhat philosophical. We have the importance of hope to keep on moving forward in the bleakest of times (which could easily be seen as a metaphor). His own character, Mister, has a great role, very sage. He even paraphrases Confucius: "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." Our hero is the same as the first film, but a little bit older and wiser, and we also have new characters played by veteran actors Steven Williams and A.C. Peterson. Williams is especially enjoyable, and when you look up the mile-long credits these two guys have, you wonder why they're not bigger names.
Damici's script brings a western sensibility to the post-apocalyptic genre. (Western in the sense of cowboys, that is.) I am not sure how much the original was intended to be seen as a western, but this sequel really captures the feel -- wastelands replacing deserts, and survivors replacing lone gunslingers wandering through treacherous new towns.
The DVD / Blu-ray looks and sounds great. The special features are somewhat lacking. Perhaps I am spoiled, but I have come to expect audio commentary as standard, and no one has offered that here. However, there is a roughly 30-minute "making of" video that covers just about anything that the average person would want to know, so at least we have the next best thing. Fans f the original should not miss the sequel, as there is plenty to like here and certainly a world worth returning to a third time if those involved were so inclined. -
surfisfun5 March 2020Some say it was rushed. less crafted. I sure was really disappointed with the script this time. also didn't like the way it went. if I remember the ending was very disappointing too. even acting .... watch 1st movie and forget about this cash grab disapointement
-
Woodyanders22 June 2021Martin (a fine and engaging portrayal by Connor Paolo) finds himself lost and adrift in the badlands after a revitalized Brotherhood destroys New Eden. Fortunately, Martin manages to be reunited with his mentor Mister (superbly played with rugged conviction by Nick Damici, who also wrote the spare script), thus enabling Martin to get revenge on the Brotherhood.
Directors Dan Berk and Robert Olsen relate the tight and absorbing story at a constant pace, maintain a tough'n'gritty tone with a strong underlying sense of melancholy, make good use of various desolate locations, deliver some nice moments of grisly gore, and stage an exciting climatic attack on a compound with ferocious aplomb. Moreover, the strained father/son relationship between Martin and Mister gives this picture some wrenching poignancy. The sturdy acting by the able cast helps a lot: Laura Abramsen as a fiercely loyal feral woman, A. C. Peterson as the scruffy Bat, Steven Williams as the amiable Doc Earl, Kristina Hughes as ruthless vampire ringleader Mother, Zane Clifford as the frightened Juda, and Nicole Garies as the sweet Billie. A solid and satisfying follow-up. -
Released to TV in 2016 and directed by Dan Berk & Robert Olsen from Nick Damici's script, "Stake Land II" (aka "The Stakelander") takes place a decade after the events of 2010's "Stake Land" where Martin (Connor Paolo) is living in New Eden in former-Canada with his wife (Bonnie Dennison) and daughter. After a group of vamps led by a blond vamp (Kristina Hughes) attack their makeshift paradise, Martin is forced to flee into the Canadian prairie where he finds Mister (Damici). They recruit a feral girl (Laura Abramsen) and eventually find succor at a barricaded community led by old friends of Mister (A.C. Peterson & Steven Williams). Unfortunately, the Vamps and The Brotherhood are on their trail.
The first film was theatrically released whereas this sequel is straight-to-TV. However, they're of about the same production quality because the first movie was low-budget (although you couldn't really tell from watching it). The main difference here is that the events take place on the Canadian prairie (shot around Regina, Saskatchewan) as opposed to the Northeast USA in the previous film.
I didn't like the eye-rolling gay subtext thrown in at the end (to appease SJWs, I guess), but it happens in a fallen world; and the post-apocalyptic 'world' portrayed here is decidedly fallen. Like the first film, "Stake Land II" is forlorn and gritty realistic, but the inclusion of The Brotherhood and the vamps usher it into Mad Max territory, although not as goofy. If you like post-apocalyptic adventures, like "Planet of the Apes," "The Postman" and "Dawn of the Dead," "Stake Land II" is worth checking out. The feral girl is akin to Nova from "Planet of the Apes" and is an interesting touch.
The movie runs 81 minutes.
GRADE: B- -
Patient44410 February 2017I had fun with this one, mostly of course because it reminded me of the first, a vampire movie with a slightly different approach. It is quite obvious that the horror viewers are begging for anything unusual.
As vamp movies go, there are a few with "cojones", like Daybreakers, presenting a complete society or Priest, with a new monster look, a better dystopian background.
Now for Stake Land: a nice add-on to the genre, a small movie that was nicely welcomed by anyone. The second part succeeded throughout the movie but failed with the opposite side, where they should have worked just a little more. If that part would have been explored properly, I do believe Stakelander could have been easily just as enjoyable as the first. Nevertheless it is a good movie on its own and I do recommend it.
All in all, I do hope for a third part, and with a little more effort, maybe we can have a nicely almost indie trilogy. One to remember!
Cheers! -
bowmanblue2 January 2019It was widely regarded that, for a 'B-movie' at least, the original 'Stake Land' was actually pretty good. Yes, it didn't offer much that was new when it came to post apocalyptic tales with one monster or another having wiped out of 90% of humanity (in this case vampires), but the characters were enjoyable to watch and it certainly seemed like a step above the rest. I guess even this small cult following meant that it was destined to spawn a sequel. You may think that, by my tone, that I absolutely hated 'Stake Land II.' I didn't. In fact, I can hardly think of a bad thing to say about it. However, I also can't think of anything good to say about it either.
Basically, the world has been overrun by vampires and what's left of humanity is huddled together in make-shift communities, trying to survive the best they can. In short, think 'The Walking Dead,' but with vamps (who don't 'sparkle' in sunlight, fortunately!). In the first outing we met Martin (Connor Paolo) - a young man who's trained to hunt the vampires by the mysterious old man only known as 'Mister' (Nick Damici). It's rare in horror movie sequels to get the main cast back, but fortunately here both actors return, only Martin's new family gets murdered and Mister is nowhere to be found, hence Martin goes on a journey to track his former mentor down.
The first thing I noticed in the sequel was that now the vampires also come out during the day (yes, I know this was also a 'thing' during Bram Stoker's 'Dracula,' but it's still quite rare in vampire lore). There's a line about how they're now getting more desperate for food with the ever-diminishing supply of humans. But the fact that the creatures came out during the day only went yet further to make this whole film feel like merely just a feature-length episode of The Walking Dead.
Then there was what was basically the whole first half of the movie where our characters go from one group of humans to the next, only to discover that people are far more dangerous than the bloodthirsty monsters that actually destroyed human society to begin with. I hate to bang on about 'The Walking Dead,' but - again - I felt like I was watching an episode of the show I'd somehow missed during its run-time. This all gets a little stale pretty soon. Granted the film does pick up in the second half and there's more action, but it's just so run-of-the-mill and generic that anyone who has watching anything even similar will have already seen better. Did I mention a popular zombie-related TV show does it better?
I watched the original 'Stake Land' many years ago and I can remember a lot about it. I watched 'Part II' a couple of days ago and I'm seriously struggling to recall much more about it. Oh, yes, there was a moment near the end involving a kiss which made me smile, but you'll have to actually watch the film to see what I mean. Apart from that, 'Stake Land II' was very forgettable. Definitely stick to the original. If there is a 'Part III' I probably won't bother. -
nogodnomasters29 July 2017"Stake Land 2" was the SyFy TV-14 title. The film is also being marketed under the title "Stakelander." Martin (Connor Paolo) gives us a quick recap of the first film by telling his daughter a story. However, don't get attache as in the next scene, a horde lead by a female vamp destroys New Eden (Canada). Martin seeks revenge and wants to enlist the help of his mentor, Mister (Nick Damici). He seeks to find him, a path that takes him to a place named "Donnersville." Okay, I give them points for that.
Like most sequels, they are never as good as the first and always leave themselves open for another sequel...even when you destroy the entire planet like that second ape picture. They live in "the new Dark Ages" as we find some history being told, and another battle between us and them. And "the runner" reminded me of a battle scene from "The Two Towers." Nothing like a flashback.
Guide: TV-14. No swearing sex, or nudity. Attempted rape. Minor salty slang. -
parry_na4 March 2020A sequel to the successful 'Stake Land' (2010), this features more of what you might expect - an apocalyptic world infested with vampires and young Martin's (Connor Paol) attempts to survive it. Also, he's searching for the elusive vampire hunter Mister (Nick Damici, who also writes).
The action comprises of several enjoyable set-pieces scattered about this threadbare world. Although a low-budget offering (which helps sell the austerity of the surroundings) directors Dan Berk and Robert Olsen are never over-ambitious in a way that would make things look cheap - but more concerned with telling Damici's grounded, more intimate stories.
A downside to all this is that the episodic formula denies the film a huge sense of progression, and the project comes across as a television show. That said, this provides a solid sequel to the low-key 'Stake Land' story. -
ericrnolan19 February 2017"Stake Land II" (2016) can't match the magic of the original, but it's still good enough to recommend, I guess. I'd give it a 7 out of 10. (I'm told that an alternate title is "Stakelander," but I refuse to call it that, because it sounds too much like a spoof of either "Zoolander" or "Highlander.")
This sequel has a direct-to-video feel to it. Set a decade following the events of the original, this movie reunites Connor Paolo and Nick Damici, as the now-adult Martin and the enigmatic, vampire-killing powerhouse, "Mister." Paolo feels flat this time out, the movie is occasionally slow, and the action sequences are a little underwhelming.
Still, Damici shines. And I couldn't help but find myself engaged by the movie as a whole. Even if the film isn't a classic, the brutal, unflinching "Stake Land" fictional universe is still front and center. The post-apocalyptic setting and character backstories are so dark and unpredictable that the film is still fun for a seasoned horror fan. It's at least as interesting as an average episode of AMC's "The Walking Dead." -
gabriel_sanchez6 January 2018OK, so when Stake Land (2010) ended, we knew this were going to happen. Stake Land II: The Stakelander (2016), or just The Stakelander, I don't know, it's a not needed sequel to a not needed movie about zomb-I mean, vampires.
Plot is mediocre. The overall cliché: revenge and blah blah blah. I don't like when horror movies just happen. Like: oh, wow, a vampires out of the blue! I mean, c'mon! I need an explanation.
Everything happens fast and without explanation, much like the first movie. It just happens and ends, nothing new.
Should we hope for a Stake Land III? Why not, Stake Land II happened, let's just keep going. Maybe we need a Stake Land Origins so we can complete the full circle.
Watch it only if you've watched the first one or if you're after some good'ol B-flick horror fest. -
kannibalcorpsegrinder16 October 2016Traveling away from the fortified city, a man wanders into the previous saviour of their society who's now living in a vast, vampire-filled wilderness and tries to help him sort through his troubled past to help restore the peaceful society they remembered.
This here was quite the disappointing and really underwhelming effort. Most of the film's problems are due to the fact that this one just doesn't have much of anything happening here, unlike the original which had a lot of enjoyable action scenes throughout. Instead, here the film is far more pressed for lame melodrama about the fight for survival in the wilderness and his search for his mentor that it takes plenty of time to actually get any kind of action featured within this one as we get scenes of him wandering around the wilderness meeting the loner family, finding him in the underground fighting club and the really endless scenes of the two of them hiking around with the captive woman that it really does feel like seemingly endless scenes that aren't in the slightest bit interesting and just really drag this one out. Likewise, once they get into the new compound the scenes of them meeting up with the locals living there and interacting with them as they get integrated into their lifestyle also makes this one quite overly bland and rather dull during here. That also produces the unwanted effect of keeping the vampires off-screen except for a few brief encounters throughout here which is the film's only good scenes but it really draws out how few scenes they're involved in when it's entirely possible to see how little scenes they're shown and comes off as furthering how flawed this is. It does come close to featuring some rather enjoyable moments here which is mostly centered on the vampires attacking as there's some rather fun, bloody sequences here that are part of the big encounters on display which includes the first encounter at the farmhouse which is really thrilling and gets in some decent brawling while the other encounters out in the wilderness comes across as rather bloody and exciting. There's still the finale of this one which is where there's plenty of rather fun and enjoyable action here which really works so well in generating the required action that carries this one off quite nicely with plenty of gunfire, explosions and brawling that takes place throughout the compound it really makes for quite the effective and rousing series of scenes that really manages to get the proper excitement and bloodshed required to end on a high-note. Still, it's flaws here really hold this one back.
Rated R: Graphic Violence and Language. -
Leofwine_draca18 October 2023I have mixed feelings about the original STAKE LAND movie: it wowed me when I first saw it, but on a rewatch I was left less than impressed. Perhaps I'm just left feeling increasingly jaded by the over predominance of the post-apocalypse genre, in particular the endless saga of THE WALKING DEAD which ran out of steam a long time ago. This one's set in the same world as the first but tells a new story about a survivor roaming the wilds, encountering both psychotic humans and vampire foes as he explores the terrain. It's all too dark and all too low budget, and even the action sequences fail to impress. Nice to see genre veteran Steven Williams in a small role, though.
-
daviddelamancha25 May 2017I get it, people want huge productions and fancy fx but this has none of that. It's just a dreary end of the world vampire movie. The vampires are grotesque, not pretty and sensual. It's the way I think they should be portrayed. They are monsters that use humans as food. Also love the fact they kept the cannibals. Really adds to the fear the movie wants to deliver. Acting is good enough for an apocalyptic flick. There's no stupid decisions by the seasoned characters, like in Walking Dead or other countless movies and shows like this. These characters are rugged, broken and survivalists that count on the same things that have kept them alive as long as it has. I love 30 Days Of Night and would compare Stakeland 1 & 2 to that film. If you prefer nasty vampires that are more animalistic beasts, then you will likely enjoy this.
-
Pairic15 May 2018Stakelands 2: The Stakelander. In this sequel The Brotherhood who see the Vampire Plague as the Lord's Work overrun New Eden. Martin is the only survivor and goes in search of the legendary Vampire Hunter, Mister.
Martin makes his way through a savage devastated landscape. He encounters a crazed homicidal old couple, cannibals and slavers on his quest to locate Mister. A rag-taggle team is assembled to battle The Brotherhood and their new She-Vamp leader.
Good Vampire/Post-Apocalypse Thriller. The Vampires are more Zombie like apart from their Alphas who retain a more Human appearance. Disturbing and not for the squeamish or faint-hearted. 7/10. -
Lucid_Images20 June 2017I have to admit, I got all warm and fuzzy finally getting to see a more fleshed out conclusion to the original Stake Land film which kind of cut short the epilogue. For me, it was nice to see where and what our heroes were getting up to after the conclusion of the first film which felt so bitter sweet.
That's sort of the way this movie make me feel too. It looked much more sleek, and polished. They must have had some better grade equipment, because even though the film was light on action, it looked and and sounded great.
Story wise, I was a little sad to see the fate of the love interest so early on. It felt a little incoherent the way it was edited with flashing forward and backward, but for dramatic effect it worked. I would have wanted to see more depth to the villain character, but the connection to the first film's villain was completely missed and I'm uncertain why the writers decided to overlook this.
All in all, the film was solid though, production quality was good and Nick Damici was extremely entertaining. I would highly suggest this film if you were a fan of the first, despite some of the tonal differences, it still proved to be a thankful addition to the Stake Land universe. The ending is bitter sweet and leaves you wanting to see more of these characters, so here's hoping for a follow-up! -
Stevieboy66612 February 2022Stakelander is the follow up to Stake Land (2010) and sees Martin go looking for legendary vampire hunter Mister after his wife and child are killed by vamps. I liked the scenery and use of abandoned vehicles and buildings, plus there is plenty of action, especially as desperate vampires have now started to come out in daylight. The 81 minutes running time passes by quickly but it is quite thin on plot and is not as good as Stake Land.
-
Stevencornsjr27 September 2017Though I don't feel this movie is quite as good as the first it still is an underrated movie, so was the first as well. The whole vampire category is basically at a parody level thanks to the Twilight movies and while Zombies get to enjoy a huge wave of popularity vampires do not and I feel this movie helps add a new, scary, aspect to the vampire universe of movies and TV. Something it has been lacking badly. The movie isn't the best, some below par acting mainly makes this obvious but for the budget and market it should get more credit.