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!

1914 The first 2010 Stake Land was a classic .The Boy that finally finds sanctuary in the Far North, finds love, hope & kick-ass maturity after traveling the post-apocalyptic vampire road with "Mister" . Stakeland was a tale you could watch three or four times for Vampire aficionadosThe new director (story written by Nick Damici aka "Mister"...way above his pay grade or writing talent ) has gutted the classic vampire tale of good versus evil ...there is no redemption for this half baked movie trying to cash on the original movie moxie by basically stealing scenes from other Sci-fi classics. Here's what's dreadfully wrong. In Stakelander Martin/Boy has blissful happiness with his a new wife & child ...that is latter murdered by a vengeful Vamp Queen in in the first five minutes sending Martin into a gloomy funk (but oddly he seems rather disinterested or maybe just figures the script sucks) I knew the tale was going down that old cliché drain, killing off all the previous survivors ...it's not shocking just lazy story telling. So after killing off the girlfriend character from Stake 1 the "Boy" now looking like a sad lost Hipster seeks to find "Mister".Now Hipster seems like a trusting Millennial Doofus getting ambushed a few times along the road, now the first ambush was forgivable but getting ambushed not once but twice in the woods, warehouse & latter at Mister's suburban shack while playing house is so awful it was embarrassing just to watch...for example the forest ambush H & M have a smoldering fire, coffee & are getting ready to sing Kumbaya as the Brotherhood zealots walk up on them... not sneak but walk!The acting, writing & set design looked like first semester film class 101 or teen friends making a Youtube skit in the woods. Also the misplaced feral mute playing cave woman with goofy facial expressions was cringe worthy. Now for the meat of the movie. The Vamp Queen wasn't fleshed out, who was she and why should I care? The survivor fortress looked like shopping carts piled on each other. They went really really cheap in the special effects . The Mister gladiator scene was a crude copy of Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome & an exact copy of 2015 Turbo Kid . When Mister escapes with Hipster they exit the arena cage entrance to where?...more locked cages LoL!Also Mister looks like a bloated Steven Seagal (what the heck happened to the Kung Fu staking bad-ass,he wet all snowflake on me ) he even says he's tired of it all. So am I!The two Hell's Angel gay grandpa's committing suicide together while taking out the vamp army made me laugh...the PC smooching was the pièce de résistance, so pointless,forced & out of place (Damici snuggling up to Hollywood Libs for Brownie points) Why did he ruin the original vamp classic memory & make this travesty is one of the great mysteries of Mister & poor Hipster. I figure Netflix offered a bag of gold for a half finished script or more like dozen stolen moments from other horror movies ...running with the bag & staking what could've been a epic trilogy right in the heart. What a waste & Nick Damici should be spanked with a vampire toothed plank.

Flow I had fun with this one, mostly of course because it reminded me of the first, a vampire movie with a slightly different approach. It is quite obvious that the horror viewers are begging for anything unusual.As vamp movies go, there are a few with "cojones", like Daybreakers, presenting a complete society or Priest, with a new monster look, a better dystopian background.Now for Stake Land: a nice add-on to the genre, a small movie that was nicely welcomed by anyone. The second part succeeded throughout the movie but failed with the opposite side, where they should have worked just a little more. If that part would have been explored properly, I do believe Stakelander could have been easily just as enjoyable as the first. Nevertheless it is a good movie on its own and I do recommend it. All in all, I do hope for a third part, and with a little more effort, maybe we can have a nicely almost indie trilogy. One to remember!Cheers!

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