No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker Reviews

Page 2 of 8
½ May 28, 2013
kind of weird but if you watch till the end its actually alright
February 10, 2013
Confusing,boring,and just simply bad.
September 2, 2012
It gets no points for its completely unoriginal story but in the times of all these depressing, doom and gloom horror films it was refreshing to see one that was actually kinda fun.
Plus the Reeker was pretty cool looking and featured the best use of the jittery effect since the House On Haunted Hill remake.
April 29, 2012
Making a sequel to a film that wasnt all that good isnt really a good road to go and this film really proves that. Apart from bringing new material to the table, it really is just another straight-to-dvd horror
May 31, 2012
A few months ago I posted a positive review of a little horror movie called "Reeker". It told of an unknown entity which stalked a stranded group of friends in the middle of the desert. It was creative and surprising... tonight I watched it's sequel, or rather prequel. "No Man's Land" is a steaming pile of shit. The first 15 minutes take place in 1978 and we get a back-story of how the Reeker came to be. There's some cool and genuinely gruesome stuff in this brief intro, but then the movie jumps to "present day", which is actually set just before the first film. It's basically a half-arsed rehash of the first movie. There is nothing inspiring about it and it's acted atrociously. The movie was written and directed by the same guy but I have no idea what he was thinking? Even in script form there is no way he could have possibly thought this was improving on the original. I don't understand the logic behind this movie when there was potential to turn the story into a nice little franchise. Enough said, No Man's Land sucks.
½ May 3, 2012
A few months ago I posted a positive review of a little horror movie called "Reeker". It told of an unknown entity which stalked a stranded group of friends in the middle of the desert. It was creative and surprising... tonight I watched it's sequel, or rather prequel. "No Man's Land" is a steaming pile of shit. The first 15 minutes take place in 1978 and we get a back-story of how the Reeker came to be. There's some cool and genuinely gruesome stuff in this brief intro, but then the movie jumps to "present day", which is actually set just before the first film. It's basically a half-arsed rehash of the first movie. There is nothing inspiring about it and it's acted atrociously. The movie was written and directed by the same guy but I have no idea what he was thinking? Even in script form there is no way he could have possibly thought this was improving on the original. I don't understand the logic behind this movie when there was potential to turn the story into a nice little franchise. Enough said, No Man's Land sucks
½ March 18, 2012
you cant reinvent old slasher flicks or the terrible acting.
February 27, 2012
It wasn't scary or bloody and the story started out really boring and a bit stupid. But somehow the "twist" got a little bit better and it was kind of bearable to watch. But you aren't missing much if you don't watch this movie.
February 14, 2012
um lameeeeee but weird lol
February 1, 2012
A very cool concept and great special effects but not enough story to hold it all together well enough to stay fresh. Not much gore to it, but theres enough and the mixture of humor was good when it was shown.
December 27, 2011
No Man's Land: Rise of Reeker is, by and large, a bigger and slightly better retelling of the first film. I did like the inclusion of the origin of Reeker at the beginning of the film, but wish that there would have been a bit more to that. Once the main partion of the story takes off, everything will be familiar to those who have seen the first film, Reeker. Only this time around, things are bigger and better. The writing is sharper, the cast is larger, the acting is better, and the effects and deaths are bigger and better. All things that come along with a bigger budget. So, why am I rating this the same as the first film? Because it pretty much is and goes to show that more money doesn't solve story issues. Aside from a slightly faster pace this time around, there are no surprises or substantial changes to intrigue or throw off returning viewers. You already know how things will end, you're just waiting for it to come around and trying to figure out who will survive. Although, by the time the end comes around, you may not even care about the little tidbit that hints at the continuation of the reeker line. Worth checking out if you didn't mind the first film and don't mind seeing a rehashing of the same thing. Or would rather see a slightly bigger budget version of the first film. You've been warned.
November 6, 2009
Oh my god, this was terrible. While I enjoyed the first one, ths one was just ridiculous. Some parts were interesting, but wooden acting and a story line that didn't flow at all just made this a huge disappointment. Don't waste your time with this movie.
December 11, 2011
Oh my god, this was terrible. While I enjoyed the first one, this one was just ridiculous. Some parts were interesting, but wooden acting and a story line that didn't flow at all just made this a huge disappointment. Don't waste your time with this movie.
WrenchLT
Super Reviewer
½ November 10, 2011
More or less a rehash of the first film. Aside from a brief intro which provides a bit of backstory on the Reeker there's nothing new or fresh added to the mix. If you've seen the first film you'll know the inevitable plot twist, but this time you'll be trying to guess which of the characters ends up dying or surviving the incident that brought them to the Reeker's underworld. The film has a faster pace compared to the first one but has around the same level of gore content, which is nasty at times but not an all out gorefest. A decent and fun film, but I would have preferred a full-blown prequel about the guy that was chosen to become the Reeker.
Super Reviewer
½ October 13, 2011
Way better then the first film. With much more action, blood, scares, and alot more humor, this sequel is a horror hit in the After Dark series.
½ February 18, 2011
Oh geezus. WTF is the deal with this movie?
January 7, 2011
Quite cool actually.
½ December 23, 2010
Wow this has to be one of my contenders for the worst movie of the year. It is that bad. I haven't seen the first one. I didn't know there was a first one before watching it, but this movie will not make me rush to the store to find the first part.

It's one of the lamest scripts plus some pathetic acting and a bad director. The dialogue is the worst i have heard lately. Just when you think that it can not get worse, one of the characters starts explaining how he likes it when fish make love. I know the dialogue and the acting are not so important for the type of movie that NOLROTR is, but on there is nothing that i can say was even mediocre here. Don't think it's because i hate the genre, actually there are some cheaply made, not so well written horror movies i really like. No really, even the twist at the end couldn't save it for me.

So my recommendation is not to waste your time, unless you are a really big fan of the first movie, or the director, or any of the actors. Although i highly doubt it you will remain a fan after watching this.
Page 2 of 8