Stake Land II

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".

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!

The 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"

In 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

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.