Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

CousinBagunca OK, so when Stake Land (2010) ended, we knew this were going to happen. Stake Land II: The Stakelander (2016), or just The Stakelander, I don't know, it's a not needed sequel to a not needed movie about zomb-I mean, vampires.Plot is mediocre. The overall cliché: revenge and blah blah blah. I don't like when horror movies just happen. Like: oh, wow, a vampires out of the blue! I mean, c'mon! I need an explanation.Everything happens fast and without explanation, much like the first movie. It just happens and ends, nothing new.Should we hope for a Stake Land III? Why not, Stake Land II happened, let's just keep going. Maybe we need a Stake Land Origins so we can complete the full circle. Watch it only if you've watched the first one or if you're after some good'ol B-flick horror fest.

Paul Magne Haakonsen 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.

Wuchak Released to TV in 2016 and directed by Dan Berk & Robert Olsen from Nick Damici's script, "Stake Land II" (aka "The Stakelander") takes place a decade after the events of 2010's "Stake Land" where Martin (Connor Paolo) is living in New Eden in former-Canada with his wife (Bonnie Dennison) and daughter. After a group of vamps led by a blond vamp (Kristina Hughes) attack their makeshift paradise, Martin is forced to flee into the Canadian prairie where he finds Mister (Damici). They recruit a feral girl (Laura Abramsen) and eventually find succor at a barricaded community led by old friends of Mister (A.C. Peterson & Steven Williams). Unfortunately, the Vamps and The Brotherhood are on their trail.The first film was theatrically released whereas this sequel is straight-to-TV. However, they're of about the same production quality because the first movie was low-budget (although you couldn't really tell from watching it). The main difference here is that the events take place on the Canadian prairie (shot around Regina, Saskatchewan) as opposed to the Northeast USA in the previous film.I didn't like the eye-rolling gay subtext thrown in at the end (to appease SJWs, I guess), but it happens in a fallen world; and the post-apocalyptic 'world' portrayed here is decidedly fallen. Like the first film, "Stake Land II" is forlorn and gritty realistic, but the inclusion of The Brotherhood and the vamps usher it into Mad Max territory, although not as goofy. If you like post-apocalyptic adventures, like "Planet of the Apes," "The Postman" and "Dawn of the Dead," "Stake Land II" is worth checking out. The feral girl is akin to Nova from "Planet of the Apes" and is an interesting touch.The movie runs 81 minutes.GRADE: B-

Claudio Carvalho 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