Stake Land II

Stake Land II

Directed by Dan Berk, Robert Olsen

When his home in New Eden is destroyed by a revitalized Brotherhood and its new Vamp leader, Martin finds himself alone in the badlands of America with only the distant memory of his mentor, the legendary vampire hunter Mister, to guide him. Roaming the wilderness of a steadily decaying country, Martin searches for the one man who can help him exact revenge.

When his home is destroyed, Martin finds himself alone in the badlands of America.

Cast: Nick Damici, Connor Paolo, Laura Abramsen

Member Reviews

Good follow up but still doesn't measure up to the first.

DreM
svg-skull
svg-skull
svg-skull
svg-skull
svg-skull
7 days ago

While I wouldn't go so far as to call the film bad, it does not quite live up to the first for me. They did an excellent job of maintaining the atmosphere, tone and immersion of the first film; and much like the first film it started quite strong (that one started to lose me at the climax, but came back around for the end), however, for a film that seems to have such a clear goal, it really felt more like a string of random events leading up to an anti-climatic final showdown (I actually said "is that it?") and an ending that leaves you asking what the point was (and not in a good way). The first film was an odyssey and a coming of age story, very much so about the journey and not the destination, evident as we never ended up seeing said destination. It seemed they were trying to go for the same style here but it just doesn't translate as well when there is such a clear goal in mind. Because of this, rather than feeling like a journey with many stops, stories and development along the way; it felt more like they were checking boxes just to further the plot. In particular, the scenes with the old couple and the dick shootout, the dialogue felt stilted and forced, a problem reciprocated by the protagonists (namely in the latter scene. It felt as if they were puppets doing the dance to further the story because they have to). On that note, I am not one to criticize a story for being predictable or cliché, so I won't, but I can certainly see the grounds for such criticisms here. This film seems to only accentuate the main shortcoming of the first and that is when they talk for too long it gets cheesy and pulls you out of the story. While the first film had a less-is-more approach to dialogue (short deadpan responses), this one seems to take the opposite route. The first film was at it's best when it let the atmosphere and the dark, happy, sad or whatever other form of events do the talking (accompanied by the fantastic narration and music). All that being said, without being *too* long winded, if you want more of what made the first one so great it is definitely here. The real meat of the movie and why I loved the first so much is the world and that is still intact (even if you don't see as much of it). It's as dreary and melancholy as ever, certainly with more heart (for better or worse) and solid acting overall despite the general cheese that the first was able to distract you from with excellent world building, pacing and scarce dialogue. It is by no means a bad sequel (nor do I think the direction they went is inherently bad), and is still worth a watch if you don't mind trading that bittersweet feeling from the end of the first film, with a feeling of emptiness. "You feel better?" "No, but I don't feel worse." -Perfect synopsis of this film.

TooMuchEstus
svg-skull
svg-skull
svg-skull
svg-skull
svg-skull
19 days ago

Great sequel that kept the same atmosphere and style to it as the first. Definitely worth a watch. :)

Oxman285
svg-skull
svg-skull
svg-skull
svg-skull
svg-skull
a month ago

This movie was on par with the first.

Samzilla878
svg-skull
svg-skull
svg-skull
svg-skull
svg-skull
a month ago

Great sequel but DAMN did they double down on the depressing world they're in

Mr.Broadcloak
svg-skull
svg-skull
svg-skull
svg-skull
svg-skull
a month ago