IMDb RATING
4.8/10
3.7K
YOUR RATING
A sheriff and his son chase casino robbers, only to find the all of them are being chased by something else.A sheriff and his son chase casino robbers, only to find the all of them are being chased by something else.A sheriff and his son chase casino robbers, only to find the all of them are being chased by something else.
- Awards
- 1 nomination total
Baadja-Lyne Odums
- Psychiatrist
- (as Baadja-Lyne)
Lawrence E Thomas
- Priest
- (as Lawrence Thomas)
Ron Rogge'
- Nick
- (as Ron Roggé)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Having caught this at a screening, I can say that No Man's Land is kind of a prequel to Reeker. It gives some insight into the birth of the Reeker. As you might imagine, it's pretty twisted. Once again, Dave Payne serves up a killer opening sequence (pun intended) and the effects are pretty cool and creative, especially considering this is an indie.
If you enjoyed the first Reeker, you should like this one, too. Yeah, we have a group of people who will get picked off one by one, but that's to be expected in the genre. And hey - by now we know one thing the Reeker definitely does not do - and that's babysit. The trick in horror is to keep us guessing, which No Man's Land does and also manages some original kills in the process.
Reeker is back with his tool kit and the prequel retains the same tongue-in-cheek humor as the first, with some choice dialog and gory silliness. (Watch out for further cranial exploitation and the best bird fly-by on screen to date!) Desmond Askew (Turistas) stands out as the inept Binky and it's good to see veteran Robert Pine as the local Sheriff. All in all a fun, schlocky addition to the franchise.
If you enjoyed the first Reeker, you should like this one, too. Yeah, we have a group of people who will get picked off one by one, but that's to be expected in the genre. And hey - by now we know one thing the Reeker definitely does not do - and that's babysit. The trick in horror is to keep us guessing, which No Man's Land does and also manages some original kills in the process.
Reeker is back with his tool kit and the prequel retains the same tongue-in-cheek humor as the first, with some choice dialog and gory silliness. (Watch out for further cranial exploitation and the best bird fly-by on screen to date!) Desmond Askew (Turistas) stands out as the inept Binky and it's good to see veteran Robert Pine as the local Sheriff. All in all a fun, schlocky addition to the franchise.
In case anyone doesn't know, this movie is in fact a sequel (the first simply called 'Reeker'), and this time it follows the plot, well...almost identical to the first one.
This is a major problem.
In the original film there is a rather large twist at the end, and if you don't already guess it, it is a great twist. This film follows the exact same twist, so if you've seen the first, then there's not much to see here. It's basically a remake, with slightly different circumstances.
On a plus point, the baddie does have a little bit of background, unlike in the first movie, but that really is the only plus point.
In my opinion, this is a sequel to a film that didn't need a sequel, so again, if you have seen the first film this might be a little boring to watch.
On the other hand, if you haven't seen the first film you might just enjoy it. Even though it is a sequel, it stands alone (as I said, it's more of a remake) and there is no need to have seen the first one.
so, if you saw the first it's 3/10
if you didn't see the first it's 6/10
So overall (and being generous) it's 5/10
This is a major problem.
In the original film there is a rather large twist at the end, and if you don't already guess it, it is a great twist. This film follows the exact same twist, so if you've seen the first, then there's not much to see here. It's basically a remake, with slightly different circumstances.
On a plus point, the baddie does have a little bit of background, unlike in the first movie, but that really is the only plus point.
In my opinion, this is a sequel to a film that didn't need a sequel, so again, if you have seen the first film this might be a little boring to watch.
On the other hand, if you haven't seen the first film you might just enjoy it. Even though it is a sequel, it stands alone (as I said, it's more of a remake) and there is no need to have seen the first one.
so, if you saw the first it's 3/10
if you didn't see the first it's 6/10
So overall (and being generous) it's 5/10
The other reviewers have pointed to this being a 'kind of/sort of' prequel to "Reeker", which I did not see. The other reviewers also said that if you saw "Reeker" then "No Man's Land" will be kind of a letdown.
Without having seen the 'Main Event', I think I agree. But if this is your First view, then by all means, it will be entertaining.
Without giving away any plot-- a assemblage of characters, including the obligatory 'Fleeing criminals' are holed up at an isolated desert gas station/motel to find they are trapped and being stalked by something Hideous.
Starts as a simple, time-worn horror/slasher premise, which can prove to be limp and boring except for either creative laughs or extra buckets of splatter. You know-- a "Jason" in the Desert sort of thing.
Except-- this movie takes a vague left turn. It isn't about the Splatter-- though there is a bit of that. It's about some strange, unexplained supernatural rules: Rules that must be adhered to. . .or enforced.
Think about it that way as you watch and begin to scratch your head-- then when the end comes, it will all try to snap together. Yeah-- with gaps and loose pieces, but still. That's why I gave it a 7. That plus the notion of a 'Reeker' as a supernatural creature seemed more corny than scary at first glance-- so you think it will be cornball fun and yucks might be disappointed when it doesn't deliver.
Instead, I came away from this movie thinking of an episode out of Neil Gaiman's Sandman universe. So to me, this movie was more Supernatural Thriller than Horror. Not the BEST-- but nicely entertaining. Give it a try.
Without having seen the 'Main Event', I think I agree. But if this is your First view, then by all means, it will be entertaining.
Without giving away any plot-- a assemblage of characters, including the obligatory 'Fleeing criminals' are holed up at an isolated desert gas station/motel to find they are trapped and being stalked by something Hideous.
Starts as a simple, time-worn horror/slasher premise, which can prove to be limp and boring except for either creative laughs or extra buckets of splatter. You know-- a "Jason" in the Desert sort of thing.
Except-- this movie takes a vague left turn. It isn't about the Splatter-- though there is a bit of that. It's about some strange, unexplained supernatural rules: Rules that must be adhered to. . .or enforced.
Think about it that way as you watch and begin to scratch your head-- then when the end comes, it will all try to snap together. Yeah-- with gaps and loose pieces, but still. That's why I gave it a 7. That plus the notion of a 'Reeker' as a supernatural creature seemed more corny than scary at first glance-- so you think it will be cornball fun and yucks might be disappointed when it doesn't deliver.
Instead, I came away from this movie thinking of an episode out of Neil Gaiman's Sandman universe. So to me, this movie was more Supernatural Thriller than Horror. Not the BEST-- but nicely entertaining. Give it a try.
This film first appeared to be a straightforward cops and robbers movie. Three guys rob a casino and manage to land at the same gas station/cafe as a father (Robert Pine) and son (Michael Muhney), one a retiring sheriff, and the other the new man in town, were eating.
Then things got weird, as one man gets his head practically torn of, but was still able to walk and talk, another man, who was burning a car, is also walking around, and, I kid you not, some legs without a body were running. Are we in the Twilight Zone or something?
But, just when things couldn't get any stranger, we come to the ending where there appears to be a logical explanation to everything we saw. So what were we watching for the last hour? A soul-catcher reborn or someones imagination run amok. It was an interesting film with just the right amount of gore, a lot of laughs, and enough to keep you interested. Well, not totally. Mircea Monroe and Valerie Cruz were nice eye candy, but they could have made it more interesting.
Then things got weird, as one man gets his head practically torn of, but was still able to walk and talk, another man, who was burning a car, is also walking around, and, I kid you not, some legs without a body were running. Are we in the Twilight Zone or something?
But, just when things couldn't get any stranger, we come to the ending where there appears to be a logical explanation to everything we saw. So what were we watching for the last hour? A soul-catcher reborn or someones imagination run amok. It was an interesting film with just the right amount of gore, a lot of laughs, and enough to keep you interested. Well, not totally. Mircea Monroe and Valerie Cruz were nice eye candy, but they could have made it more interesting.
I saw RISE OF REEKER at the weekend, and this is a really boring film, the first one was OK, but this is kind of a prequel and a remake all in one.
It starts off well, some nice gore to start off with, but then for about an hour nothing really happens. A lot of talking, some half-arsed CGI Reeker smoke effects, and not much else.
Then the end comes and and there are some really loud explosions, more crappy CGI effects and a lame ending. Im not gonna explain the story to much (you can get that from the Main Page), but people who liked the first will no doubt watch this.
The main problem I had was, it was more or less a remake of the first one...but not as good!
But Im telling ya, it's not very good...YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!
It starts off well, some nice gore to start off with, but then for about an hour nothing really happens. A lot of talking, some half-arsed CGI Reeker smoke effects, and not much else.
Then the end comes and and there are some really loud explosions, more crappy CGI effects and a lame ending. Im not gonna explain the story to much (you can get that from the Main Page), but people who liked the first will no doubt watch this.
The main problem I had was, it was more or less a remake of the first one...but not as good!
But Im telling ya, it's not very good...YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!
Did you know
- TriviaSheriff Reed is shown wearing corporal chevrons on the sleeves of his uniform. A sheriff would not wear corporal stripes.
- Crazy creditsFunded in part by the Council for the Ethical Use of Cell Phones at Gas Pumps
- ConnectionsFollows Reeker (2005)
- SoundtracksWine by Wine
Written by Roger Wallace
Performed by Roger Wallace
Natchez Street Music, BMI
Courtesy of Texas Round-Up Records
- How long is No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker
- Filming locations
- Lancaster, California, USA(Exterior)
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $2,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross worldwide
- $99,499
- Runtime
- 1h 28m(88 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content