Stake Land II

The Stakelander_360P

this movie is great

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!

I 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.

watchable, 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

I 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.

Stakelands 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.

I 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!

Though 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.

"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."