Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Blistering performances.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

watchable, too dark the scenes, was a let down, the first one had so much more too it much more effort put into the first one, also they never focused much on the brotherhood in this one, like you saw them in the film, but you didn't see as much how they were organized in comparison to the first one you had that bald fella, very strong actor. And at the end you couldn't see the fight scenes or what was happening, i was confused for the majority of the film

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.

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-

"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."