Alicia I love this movie so much

Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Paul Magne Haakonsen Why did director Dave Payne opt to revisit the "Reeker" movie and universe in this manner, is simply beyond my comprehension. This movie was nothing more than a re-write of the first movie, as everything shown in "No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker" was essentially shown in the 2005 movie "Reeker".If you have seen the 2005 "Reeker" movie, then you have essentially already seen the 2008 semi-prequel. Just change the backdrop for the storyline and the setting, but otherwise it is the same thing.The only noticeably deviation from the 2005 storyline is that we are given insight into the history of the Reeker being and how it came into being. Aside from that, then it is about a group of people trapped at a deserted diner, stalked by a horrible killer whom is followed by the stench of death.Similar to the 2005 movie then the acting in "No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker" was adequate, and people were doing good enough jobs with their individual roles. Just don't expect anything on a Shakespearian level.Again, like in the first movie, the creature design on the Reeker being was quite good and had a good amount of interesting details. However, having an impressive creature just wasn't enough to lift up the rest of the movie.As "No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker" was essentially just a re-write of the first movie, then it ended up as being somewhat of a less than mediocre movie. And as such, I am rating this 2008 movie a mere four out of ten stars.

Coventry I have fond memories of watching the original "Reeker" back in 2005. It was at the Belgian Festival of Fantastic Films and practically the entire theater went wild with enjoyment. Surely the premise was derivative and the wholesome was overall forgettable, but at least it was a totally unpretentious new horror film with neat gore effects, fresh acting performances and a really cool killer character (a smelly grim reaper like serial killer). Nothing more, nothing less. The release of sequel within a couple of years was inevitable, but let it be understood that it wasn't unwelcome at all. In a fair period of three years, writer/director Dave Payne came up with a follow-up that is at least equally entertaining, exciting and fast-paced as the first. Obviously the surprise element has vanished – although even the original wasn't *that* surprising – but Payne inventively compensates this through adding a background to the killer, even more black humor and barbaric gross-out effects. The main difference with "Reeker" is that the characters become conscious of the situation they're in relatively quick and actually attempt to make it out of there. Whether some of them succeed or not is what keeps the film reasonably suspenseful. "No Man's Land" opens bizarrely, in the year 1978, with the arrest and execution of a serial killer known as the Death Valley Drifter. He doesn't even bother to resist because the voices in his sick head keep telling him that his work on earth is done and a much bigger errand awaits him. Jumping forward to present time in the same desert, where a retiring Sheriff and his estranged deputy son literally bump into a couple of fugitive casino robbers. Subsequent to some gunfire and a car explosion, the posse find themselves isolated and abandoned in the desert, with a heavily stinking and vigorous "shape" chasing them. In this type of films, when you already know from beforehand what the major twist will be, it's still a lot of fun to pay close attention and fit all pieces of the puzzle together yourself. The script of "Rise of the Reeker" leaves plentiful of clues for alert viewers, but offers even more exhilaration and bloodshed for undemanding horror fanatics. Good performances, particularly from Michael Robert Brandon and the beautiful Valerie Cruz, surefooted direction and a marvelously depressing setting as well. Overall a much recommended film to fans of the genre.

vegeta3986 After going to my rental store many times and finding nothing but terrible lionsgate movies, i thought, "hey, i'll give one of those redbox DVD machines a try" so i looked at the choices, and there happened to be a cool looking horror movie made by Ghost house. i normally like ghost house, so i thought i'd give it a try. i pay a dollar, and to my horror, not only is it not the real ghost house (it was its underground brand) it was also made in affiliation with Lionsgate. oh dear lord kill me now. So after realizing i couldn't escape from the horror that is lionsgate, i popped the DVD in and we began to watch it.Once again, lionsgate doesn't fail to disappoint. This movie is not only bad, but it is stupid. it thought it had a twist ending, but it really didn't. well, i guess the best place to start is the beginning.It starts out with a hitchhiker walking through death valley (which when i went it was flooded btw) and a guy in a car stops looking like he's going to let him ride. then he runs him over and cuts off his tongue. lovely. considering Mr hitchhiker was like a deer in the headlights when the car's coming after him not even thinking to, oh i don't know, JUMP OUT OF THE WAY? good job. then Mr. psycho drives back to his shack where a police man finds him and cuffs him. how does he find him you ask? a blood covered hubcap falls right at his feet. convenient? i'd like to think so. the policeman leaves to vomit and when he goes back in, the guy is gone with his hand cut off. he picks up the gun and aims it at the cop, but then he says "nevermind i give up" if you were going to give up...WHY DID YOU CUT YOUR HAND OFF?! stupid movie. he's then executed. fast forward to the present.Bunch of people in a diner in the middle of nowhere. Californian girl who looks like she has NO business being there as if she never worked a day in her life with perfectly quaffed hair and no dirt is working at the diner. she finds a bloody t shirt. the manager of the diner shrugs it off saying "once i found a foot!" um.. good for you? then some bank robbers with one of their friends who got shot pull up and try to get a new car from the girl who happens to be his ex girlfriend. and i have to just say, this is the WORST hostage taker ever. he lets her walk 20 feet to drop her keys down the toilet, she forces HIM to go into the septic tank to get them back, and she threatens HIM. my god. do we have to go back to hostage taking 101? well apparently, it's because they used to be bf and gf. this isn't hard to believe considering there's only 10 people in the whole damn town. oh, and one Australian for some reason. two sheriffs, father and son, one on his last day and one on his first day show up. oh my god. could we have ANY MORE stereotypes? yes we can! an incredibly hot doctor who just happens to be there as well as a murderer picking people off one by one! yay for unoriginality! then the car explodes because of a gunfight with the crooks and the sheriffs and then the 2 crooks try to drive away but Mr Australian throws the smelly bf out of the car. The Australian crook then proceeds to drive into an invisible wall. yes. apparently there are invisible walls. awesome. this is when Mr murderer finally shows up and starts killing them with horrible stop motion walking that makes the girl from 'the ring' look fluid. he kills Mr Australian, the girl doctor, the old sheriff after he has a long "i was never there for you as a father" speech, and some dude in a hospital gown. the bf and gf then proceed to blow the evil dude up. and the bf dies. now i know what you're thinking, you just missed like half the movie. sadly, no, i didn't. that's really about all you need to know. so the only people we have left alive are the single most annoying female in California, and Mr. whiny sheriff who likes to watch fish have sex. that is seriously a quote in the movie i did not make that up. and we find out that everyone who died, died similarly in real life to how the crazy stop motion dude kills them. i guess that's supposed to be a twist, but i didn't see how.This movie is boring, it's stupid, and the supposed twist doesn't exist. lionsgate just keeps failing and failing and failing. I don't know why i keep giving them a chance. fool me once shame on you, fool me 17 times, i'm retarded. The characters are unlikable, the killer's unlikable, the setting's unlikable, and the plot's unlikable. Well if i hate it so much why is it a 2 instead of a 1 you ask? Because even though it's stupid, retarded, and boring, it still is professional film quality. it's not dark fields or Mr. jingles. they actually took the time to rent a decent camera. and for that, it gains one point. i know that's not much to give them credit for, but hey. they should take what they can get.Rise of Reeker gets 2 keys in the toilet out of 10.

Matttttttttttt Here's the film in a nutshell: If you saw the first one, skip it. If you haven't, then you might enjoy it a little bit.The movie is basically a carbon copy of the original Reeker, except with new characters thrown in and a little bit of background on the Reeker character so that they could create a new film. I normally have no problem enjoying films that aren't completely original, but No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker adds very little to what the first film brought to the table.You will find yourself EXTREMELY bored as there are no characters to root for and you'll just want them all to die anyway. Even though some people might believe otherwise, this film DOES rely heavily on its final twist. And if you've seen Reeker, surprise! It's the same thing all over again. That is what makes the film so dull. You know what is going to happen at the end of your 88 minutes that you're going to waste.The movie does try to shed some light on the Reeker's origin's, but that aspect of the film turns out to be a tiny portion of the film's running time. If tacking on the same old ending isn't insulting enough, the final scene of the film (after all is said and done) will make you cringe with just how awfully cliché it is.If you've seen Reeker, avoid this one by all costs. It's a lazy attempt for the studio to capitalize on a decent first film. And if you haven't seen the original you might enjoy this one, but I'd definitely recommend checking out the previous installment before seeing this cough*remake*cough.