No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker

I saw RISE OF REEKER at the weekend, and this is a really boring film, the first one was OK, but this is kind of a prequel and a remake all in one.

It starts off well, some nice gore to start off with, but then for about an hour nothing really happens. A lot of talking, some half-arsed CGI Reeker smoke effects, and not much else.

Then the end comes and and there are some really loud explosions, more crappy CGI effects and a lame ending. Im not gonna explain the story to much (you can get that from the Main Page), but people who liked the first will no doubt watch this.

The main problem I had was, it was more or less a remake of the first one...but not as good!

But Im telling ya, it's not very good...YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!

This film first appeared to be a straightforward cops and robbers movie. Three guys rob a casino and manage to land at the same gas station/cafe as a father (Robert Pine) and son (Michael Muhney), one a retiring sheriff, and the other the new man in town, were eating.

Then things got weird, as one man gets his head practically torn of, but was still able to walk and talk, another man, who was burning a car, is also walking around, and, I kid you not, some legs without a body were running. Are we in the Twilight Zone or something?

But, just when things couldn't get any stranger, we come to the ending where there appears to be a logical explanation to everything we saw. So what were we watching for the last hour? A soul-catcher reborn or someones imagination run amok. It was an interesting film with just the right amount of gore, a lot of laughs, and enough to keep you interested. Well, not totally. Mircea Monroe and Valerie Cruz were nice eye candy, but they could have made it more interesting.

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.

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.

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.