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!

daviddelamancha I get it, people want huge productions and fancy fx but this has none of that. It's just a dreary end of the world vampire movie. The vampires are grotesque, not pretty and sensual. It's the way I think they should be portrayed. They are monsters that use humans as food. Also love the fact they kept the cannibals. Really adds to the fear the movie wants to deliver. Acting is good enough for an apocalyptic flick. There's no stupid decisions by the seasoned characters, like in Walking Dead or other countless movies and shows like this. These characters are rugged, broken and survivalists that count on the same things that have kept them alive as long as it has. I love 30 Days Of Night and would compare Stakeland 1 & 2 to that film. If you prefer nasty vampires that are more animalistic beasts, then you will likely enjoy this.

ericrnolan "Stake Land II" (2016) can't match the magic of the original, but it's still good enough to recommend, I guess. I'd give it a 7 out of 10. (I'm told that an alternate title is "Stakelander," but I refuse to call it that, because it sounds too much like a spoof of either "Zoolander" or "Highlander.")This sequel has a direct-to-video feel to it. Set a decade following the events of the original, this movie reunites Connor Paolo and Nick Damici, as the now-adult Martin and the enigmatic, vampire-killing powerhouse, "Mister." Paolo feels flat this time out, the movie is occasionally slow, and the action sequences are a little underwhelming.Still, Damici shines. And I couldn't help but find myself engaged by the movie as a whole. Even if the film isn't a classic, the brutal, unflinching "Stake Land" fictional universe is still front and center. The post-apocalyptic setting and character backstories are so dark and unpredictable that the film is still fun for a seasoned horror fan. It's at least as interesting as an average episode of AMC's "The Walking Dead."

gavin6942 When his home of New Eden is destroyed by a revitalized Brotherhood and its new Vamp leader, Martin (Connor Paolo) finds himself alone in the badlands of America with only the distant memory of his mentor and legendary vampire hunter, Mister (Nick Damici), to guide him.This sequel was written by Nick Damici without the input of Jim Mickle, who co-wrote the first film. Mickle was tied up in other projects, but Damici wanted to return to Stake Land whether through film, TV or a web series, and producer Larry Fessenden agreed. Many directors were interviewed looking for a Mickle replacement. Ultimately, Fessenden (through Chadd Harbold) went with "extended family" members, Dan Berk and Bobby Olsen. Though they may not be big names, the successful execution of this film speaks for itself.The film begins with a minor flashback to catch us up to speed. Without using footage from the original, we get a quick sense of the characters and where we are now. It is quite effective, and simple enough that someone who skipped the first film could watch this one without much difficulty. (Why they would do that, I have no idea.) For the first half of the film, there are plenty of shots showing the desolate wasteland (of Canada!), really driven by the score due to the lack of dialogue. How much this was taken from the script, I do not know, but it plays very well and credit must be given to composer Redding Hunter.Damici's script is somewhat philosophical. We have the importance of hope to keep on moving forward in the bleakest of times (which could easily be seen as a metaphor). His own character, Mister, has a great role, very sage. He even paraphrases Confucius: "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." Our hero is the same as the first film, but a little bit older and wiser, and we also have new characters played by veteran actors Steven Williams and A.C. Peterson. Williams is especially enjoyable, and when you look up the mile-long credits these two guys have, you wonder why they're not bigger names.Damici's script brings a western sensibility to the post-apocalyptic genre. (Western in the sense of cowboys, that is.) I am not sure how much the original was intended to be seen as a western, but this sequel really captures the feel -- wastelands replacing deserts, and survivors replacing lone gunslingers wandering through treacherous new towns.The DVD / Blu-ray looks and sounds great. The special features are somewhat lacking. Perhaps I am spoiled, but I have come to expect audio commentary as standard, and no one has offered that here. However, there is a roughly 30-minute "making of" video that covers just about anything that the average person would want to know, so at least we have the next best thing. Fans f the original should not miss the sequel, as there is plenty to like here and certainly a world worth returning to a third time if those involved were so inclined.