No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker

In 1978, Sheriff Reed (David Stanbra) captures the deranged serial killer known as The Death Valley Drifter (Michael Robert Brandon) in the desert and the criminal is sentenced to death. On the present days, Sheriff Reed (Robert Pine) is near the retirement and will be replaced by his son; while they are having a meal in a diner in a rest stop in the middle of the desert, a runaway car with three thieves of a casino stops in the spot for refueling. One of the robbers is the former boyfriend of the waitress Maya (Mircea Monroe) and another criminal is wounded in the backseat. There is a shootout among the thieves and the sheriffs and their car explodes. However, the body of the wounded criminal vanishes and the survivors discover that they are stranded in the place; further they are stalked and chased by a fiend with stench known as The Reeker.

"Reeker" is a good low budget horror movie that in some moments recall "Identity" and "Jacob's Ladder" and with a great surprising conclusion. Unfortunately this supposed sequel in nothing more than a messy and unoriginal remake, using the same storyline in a different situation associated to a confused and boring screenplay; better off watching the original good movie again. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Pânico no Deserto 2" ("Panic in the Desert 2")

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.

In case anyone doesn't know, this movie is in fact a sequel (the first simply called 'Reeker'), and this time it follows the plot, well...almost identical to the first one.

This is a major problem.

In the original film there is a rather large twist at the end, and if you don't already guess it, it is a great twist. This film follows the exact same twist, so if you've seen the first, then there's not much to see here. It's basically a remake, with slightly different circumstances.

On a plus point, the baddie does have a little bit of background, unlike in the first movie, but that really is the only plus point.

In my opinion, this is a sequel to a film that didn't need a sequel, so again, if you have seen the first film this might be a little boring to watch.

On the other hand, if you haven't seen the first film you might just enjoy it. Even though it is a sequel, it stands alone (as I said, it's more of a remake) and there is no need to have seen the first one.

so, if you saw the first it's 3/10

if you didn't see the first it's 6/10

So overall (and being generous) it's 5/10

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.