No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker

Here's the film in a nutshell: If you saw the first one, skip it. If you haven't, then you might enjoy it a little bit.

The movie is basically a carbon copy of the original Reeker, except with new characters thrown in and a little bit of background on the Reeker character so that they could create a new film. I normally have no problem enjoying films that aren't completely original, but No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker adds very little to what the first film brought to the table.

You will find yourself EXTREMELY bored as there are no characters to root for and you'll just want them all to die anyway. Even though some people might believe otherwise, this film DOES rely heavily on its final twist. And if you've seen Reeker, surprise! It's the same thing all over again. That is what makes the film so dull. You know what is going to happen at the end of your 88 minutes that you're going to waste.

The movie does try to shed some light on the Reeker's origin's, but that aspect of the film turns out to be a tiny portion of the film's running time. If tacking on the same old ending isn't insulting enough, the final scene of the film (after all is said and done) will make you cringe with just how awfully cliché it is.

If you've seen Reeker, avoid this one by all costs. It's a lazy attempt for the studio to capitalize on a decent first film. And if you haven't seen the original you might enjoy this one, but I'd definitely recommend checking out the previous installment before seeing this cough*remake*cough.

The other reviewers have pointed to this being a 'kind of/sort of' prequel to "Reeker", which I did not see. The other reviewers also said that if you saw "Reeker" then "No Man's Land" will be kind of a letdown.

Without having seen the 'Main Event', I think I agree. But if this is your First view, then by all means, it will be entertaining.

Without giving away any plot-- a assemblage of characters, including the obligatory 'Fleeing criminals' are holed up at an isolated desert gas station/motel to find they are trapped and being stalked by something Hideous.

Starts as a simple, time-worn horror/slasher premise, which can prove to be limp and boring except for either creative laughs or extra buckets of splatter. You know-- a "Jason" in the Desert sort of thing.

Except-- this movie takes a vague left turn. It isn't about the Splatter-- though there is a bit of that. It's about some strange, unexplained supernatural rules: Rules that must be adhered to. . .or enforced.

Think about it that way as you watch and begin to scratch your head-- then when the end comes, it will all try to snap together. Yeah-- with gaps and loose pieces, but still. That's why I gave it a 7. That plus the notion of a 'Reeker' as a supernatural creature seemed more corny than scary at first glance-- so you think it will be cornball fun and yucks might be disappointed when it doesn't deliver.

Instead, I came away from this movie thinking of an episode out of Neil Gaiman's Sandman universe. So to me, this movie was more Supernatural Thriller than Horror. Not the BEST-- but nicely entertaining. Give it a try.

I have fond memories of watching the original "Reeker" back in 2005. It was at the Belgian Festival of Fantastic Films and practically the entire theater went wild with enjoyment. Surely the premise was derivative and the wholesome was overall forgettable, but at least it was a totally unpretentious new horror film with neat gore effects, fresh acting performances and a really cool killer character (a smelly grim reaper like serial killer). Nothing more, nothing less. The release of sequel within a couple of years was inevitable, but let it be understood that it wasn't unwelcome at all. In a fair period of three years, writer/director Dave Payne came up with a follow-up that is at least equally entertaining, exciting and fast-paced as the first. Obviously the surprise element has vanished – although even the original wasn't *that* surprising – but Payne inventively compensates this through adding a background to the killer, even more black humor and barbaric gross-out effects. The main difference with "Reeker" is that the characters become conscious of the situation they're in relatively quick and actually attempt to make it out of there. Whether some of them succeed or not is what keeps the film reasonably suspenseful. "No Man's Land" opens bizarrely, in the year 1978, with the arrest and execution of a serial killer known as the Death Valley Drifter. He doesn't even bother to resist because the voices in his sick head keep telling him that his work on earth is done and a much bigger errand awaits him. Jumping forward to present time in the same desert, where a retiring Sheriff and his estranged deputy son literally bump into a couple of fugitive casino robbers. Subsequent to some gunfire and a car explosion, the posse find themselves isolated and abandoned in the desert, with a heavily stinking and vigorous "shape" chasing them. In this type of films, when you already know from beforehand what the major twist will be, it's still a lot of fun to pay close attention and fit all pieces of the puzzle together yourself. The script of "Rise of the Reeker" leaves plentiful of clues for alert viewers, but offers even more exhilaration and bloodshed for undemanding horror fanatics. Good performances, particularly from Michael Robert Brandon and the beautiful Valerie Cruz, surefooted direction and a marvelously depressing setting as well. Overall a much recommended film to fans of the genre.

It looked fine visually. Not much to say really. There was nothing wrong with the picture. In fact it was unnoticeable so it must have been good. The picture didn't get in the way of the story. It wasn't too fast or too complex. It was just right. The surround sound element was a little dull but overall it was very serviceable. The effects and music were both unnoticeable which again means that it must have been good. It all suited the mood. I don't especially remember the first film but this sequel felt like the exact same movie all over again. About half-way through I worked out the ending (or remembered it from the first movie) and that did depreciate my enjoyment a little. There were a few funny bits, like the invisible wall; walking legs with no body; man with half a head, which took away from the tone of horror. The scares made me jump but there was no suspense so it was not lasting. It wasn't boring but it wasn't amazing either. Technically very good let down by a conflict of horror and comedy that was not deliberate.

Having caught this at a screening, I can say that No Man's Land is kind of a prequel to Reeker. It gives some insight into the birth of the Reeker. As you might imagine, it's pretty twisted. Once again, Dave Payne serves up a killer opening sequence (pun intended) and the effects are pretty cool and creative, especially considering this is an indie.

If you enjoyed the first Reeker, you should like this one, too. Yeah, we have a group of people who will get picked off one by one, but that's to be expected in the genre. And hey - by now we know one thing the Reeker definitely does not do - and that's babysit. The trick in horror is to keep us guessing, which No Man's Land does and also manages some original kills in the process.

Reeker is back with his tool kit and the prequel retains the same tongue-in-cheek humor as the first, with some choice dialog and gory silliness. (Watch out for further cranial exploitation and the best bird fly-by on screen to date!) Desmond Askew (Turistas) stands out as the inept Binky and it's good to see veteran Robert Pine as the local Sheriff. All in all a fun, schlocky addition to the franchise.