Stevencornsjr 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.

Michael Ledo "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.

nuklearweasel I 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!

brendan-821-654855 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!