Let's be realistic.

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Though I don't feel this movie is quite as good as the first it still is an underrated movie, so was the first as well. The whole vampire category is basically at a parody level thanks to the Twilight movies and while Zombies get to enjoy a huge wave of popularity vampires do not and I feel this movie helps add a new, scary, aspect to the vampire universe of movies and TV. Something it has been lacking badly. The movie isn't the best, some below par acting mainly makes this obvious but for the budget and market it should get more credit.

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.

"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."

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.