No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker (2008) User Reviews

basically a remake

[C-Ant · 5/10 · 26 August 2008]

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

The voices told me what to do.

[lastliberal · 5/10 · 23 April 2009]

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.

Didn't I See This Already?

[Matttttttttttt · 4/10 · 20 October 2008]

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.

Reeker Returns for a Bloody Good Time

[madeba · 26 August 2008]

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.

A Messy and Unoriginal Remake

[claudio_carvalho · 4/10 · 29 October 2008]

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")

Wake Me Up When It's Finished!

[Nightmare-Maker · 4/10 · 27 August 2008]

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!!!

At least the name is right. it does in fact "Reek"

[vegeta3986 · 2/10 · 29 November 2008]

After going to my rental store many times and finding nothing but terrible lionsgate movies, i thought, "hey, i'll give one of those redbox DVD machines a try" so i looked at the choices, and there happened to be a cool looking horror movie made by Ghost house. i normally like ghost house, so i thought i'd give it a try. i pay a dollar, and to my horror, not only is it not the real ghost house (it was its underground brand) it was also made in affiliation with Lionsgate. oh dear lord kill me now. So after realizing i couldn't escape from the horror that is lionsgate, i popped the DVD in and we began to watch it.

Once again, lionsgate doesn't fail to disappoint. This movie is not only bad, but it is stupid. it thought it had a twist ending, but it really didn't. well, i guess the best place to start is the beginning.

It starts out with a hitchhiker walking through death valley (which when i went it was flooded btw) and a guy in a car stops looking like he's going to let him ride. then he runs him over and cuts off his tongue. lovely. considering Mr hitchhiker was like a deer in the headlights when the car's coming after him not even thinking to, oh i don't know, JUMP OUT OF THE WAY? good job. then Mr. psycho drives back to his shack where a police man finds him and cuffs him. how does he find him you ask? a blood covered hubcap falls right at his feet. convenient? i'd like to think so. the policeman leaves to vomit and when he goes back in, the guy is gone with his hand cut off. he picks up the gun and aims it at the cop, but then he says "nevermind i give up" if you were going to give up...WHY DID YOU CUT YOUR HAND OFF?! stupid movie. he's then executed. fast forward to the present.

Bunch of people in a diner in the middle of nowhere. Californian girl who looks like she has NO business being there as if she never worked a day in her life with perfectly quaffed hair and no dirt is working at the diner. she finds a bloody t shirt. the manager of the diner shrugs it off saying "once i found a foot!" um.. good for you? then some bank robbers with one of their friends who got shot pull up and try to get a new car from the girl who happens to be his ex girlfriend. and i have to just say, this is the WORST hostage taker ever. he lets her walk 20 feet to drop her keys down the toilet, she forces HIM to go into the septic tank to get them back, and she threatens HIM. my god. do we have to go back to hostage taking 101? well apparently, it's because they used to be bf and gf. this isn't hard to believe considering there's only 10 people in the whole damn town. oh, and one Australian for some reason. two sheriffs, father and son, one on his last day and one on his first day show up. oh my god. could we have ANY MORE stereotypes? yes we can! an incredibly hot doctor who just happens to be there as well as a murderer picking people off one by one! yay for unoriginality! then the car explodes because of a gunfight with the crooks and the sheriffs and then the 2 crooks try to drive away but Mr Australian throws the smelly bf out of the car. The Australian crook then proceeds to drive into an invisible wall. yes. apparently there are invisible walls. awesome. this is when Mr murderer finally shows up and starts killing them with horrible stop motion walking that makes the girl from 'the ring' look fluid. he kills Mr Australian, the girl doctor, the old sheriff after he has a long "i was never there for you as a father" speech, and some dude in a hospital gown. the bf and gf then proceed to blow the evil dude up. and the bf dies. now i know what you're thinking, you just missed like half the movie. sadly, no, i didn't. that's really about all you need to know. so the only people we have left alive are the single most annoying female in California, and Mr. whiny sheriff who likes to watch fish have sex. that is seriously a quote in the movie i did not make that up. and we find out that everyone who died, died similarly in real life to how the crazy stop motion dude kills them. i guess that's supposed to be a twist, but i didn't see how.

This movie is boring, it's stupid, and the supposed twist doesn't exist. lionsgate just keeps failing and failing and failing. I don't know why i keep giving them a chance. fool me once shame on you, fool me 17 times, i'm retarded. The characters are unlikable, the killer's unlikable, the setting's unlikable, and the plot's unlikable. Well if i hate it so much why is it a 2 instead of a 1 you ask? Because even though it's stupid, retarded, and boring, it still is professional film quality. it's not dark fields or Mr. jingles. they actually took the time to rent a decent camera. and for that, it gains one point. i know that's not much to give them credit for, but hey. they should take what they can get.

Rise of Reeker gets 2 keys in the toilet out of 10.

Smells like a pretty decent sequel!

[Coventry · 7/10 · 5 November 2009]

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.

Reeker 2: No Damn Good

[BA_Harrison · 2/10 · 14 October 2012]

According to writer/director Dave Payne's Reeker films, 'Death' employs the spirit of executed serial killer The Death Valley Drifter to act as a 'soul taker', a being with a pungent stench who exists in the instant between life and death and who torments those trapped there, killing them in a fashion that mirrors their real life demise.

If that makes any sense to you at all, then a) you'll probably enjoy this film, and b) perhaps you ought to seek some kind of professional help, this clearly being utterly derivative clap-trap, yet another logic-free scary movie with a supposedly 'clever' twist (so clever that it was done in the first film, and in many, many other films before that).

As with the original Reeker, the only good bit occurs within the first few minutes, with the bulk of the film consisting of a series of puzzling supernatural occurrences which are resolved in a manner that only the most unseasoned of horror film viewers could possibly perceive as innovative.

well... ...it happens to be entertaining while being home alone

[mercurydownload · 6/10 · 24 August 2008]

generally, "rise of reeker" is not bad as long as it's not compared with some "smart" horror movies such as SAW, Final Destination, wrong turn2, etc. i saw this movie when i was alone at home on a weekend with nothing' to do,surprisingly it just happened to be entertaining. as a matter of fact, the have-been-known old story's got me again. then i have to admit i like this kind of stuff that the story line begins "decades ago, there's this human-monster ... ... present days... ... killing, dying... ... oh, the end is ... a little bit out of your expectation, isn't it?... ..." -- not really, i guess that right already, well...pretty smart though...

maybe it's trying to tell a creepy psychological story , but the movie itself makes it not creepy enough but... disturbingly weird... frankly, some parts of it don't make any sense, but that's OK, gore scenes make up to all, so does the whole cast. anyway, if i have to say something that sucks about the movie, then here it is -- the visual effects especially the explosions and appearance of the human-monster image suck a bit(well, bloody gore and violence parts are fine, and that's what i'm looking for), after all, it's a B movie, what else can we get from that if only it entertains.

Dave Payne did do a decent job on this, at least "Rise Of Reeker" will not turn up to be a boring low budget one that getting nowhere, cause there is still something worth watching in it. if u like Hills Have Eyes, Dead End, etc kind of stuff, this could probably happen to entertain u too.

PS: the ending is smart anyway, makes the whole movie shine a little bit... ...

Rise of the Reeker Returns

[Sylviastel · 3/10 · 22 March 2015]

I only bought this film because the actor Michael Muhney was in it. I became a fan of his when he was on Young and the Restless. He is a very talented actor. This film is an independent and low budget picture. The script could use work though. There are plenty of unanswered questions about how this Reeker works. He is supposed to have killed people for their souls or bodies or heads. I don't know. This film is more gory and violent than needed be. I was not scared at all about it. The film doesn't work on making this Reeker believable. The cast is fine and so is the production crew in meeting them in the DVD special feature. The film just has a lot more questions to be answered and explained to the audience. I try to not to think too much about what the Reeker is all about and why Death Valley. The goriness and violence is grotesque.

Whoa! There's another reeker movie?!

[Teddy-Bear-Picnic · 9/10 · 8 November 2019]

I loved the first reeker and somehow had no idea that they made another one! This was more of the same and not really as good as the first but it still delivered some very cool horror action. There's not really enough here to continue with more reeker movies as it feels like they have done everything the can with the character but this was a very pleasant surprise!

Entertaining with some light humorous moments

[Rabh17 · 7/10 · 23 November 2008]

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.

Reeker 2: No Man's Land - The Rise of Reeker

[jboothmillard · 5/10 · 29 July 2010]

The first film was your good usual twist and turn psycho killer horror thriller, and this straight to DVD sequel is just as good, if not a tiny bit better. The film opens with the origins of how the Reeker came to be, there used to be a man, or the Salesman (Michael Robert Brandon) in the 1970s known as the Death Valley Drifter, and there is a part when he gets caught and chops his own hand off. He was caught by Sheriff McAllister (David Stanbra) in his shack filled with heads, limbs and body parts (kind of like Leatherface or the real life Ed Gein), and he was put to death in the gas chamber, but his spirit managed to get out. Then it moves to present day, where Sheriff McAllister (Robert Pine) will be retiring and having his son Deputy Harris McAllister (Michael Muhney) replace him. Then three thieves show up, one is dying but Binky (Desmond Askew) is looking forward to getting his hands on the money they stole from a casino, and Alex (Stephen Martines) wants to see his ex-girlfriend, waitress Maya (Mircea Monroe). Soon they realise that they are in danger from a mysterious ripply serial killer with a hook for a hand wearing a gas mask, the Reeker, a ghost working for Death. Each victim is warned almost by a horrible smell coming from the killer, hence the name Reeker, and when each die you see their pasts flashing before you. It is apparent though that all that did die were meant to, seeing how also they are trapped by an invisible wall, you see the logical way they are killed off in the end, and there is no Reeker at all. Also starring Lyne Odums as Psychiatrist, Valerie Cruz as Allison, Lew Temple as Hitchhiker and Ben Gunther as Reeker. I can't remember there being much humour in the predecessor, but this one has some good moments of humour in amongst the good gore and rough death scenes, and a creepy killer to go with it, not bad at all. Worth watching!

stick to the first one ...

[schabri · 4/10 · 21 August 2008]

Hi everybody. I have just seen this movie and was a bit disappointed : Reeker was a good movie, with originality, some good moment and not too many long time without horror action.

The second one is not that bad but has too many long time where nothing happens and some scenes are supposed to make their scary suspense effect but something's wrong, i don't know how to explain it ...

Anyone else could like this film no doubt but, as far as i'm concerned, i don't think many people will be entertained and will probably be deceived a bit. I hope my comment will not spoil too much your viewing because its very subjective but trust me, this one is not very good. 4/10

Bad Does'nt begin to sum it up.

[mortal_kombat8_kabal · 1/10 · 14 October 2008]

The acting and direction of the film in the beginning was horrible. I watched the world premiere of Reeker when it came out when the director was there and to be honest i loved it. I thought it had a very unique and original ending. *spoilers ahead* Until i found out that it was a completed rip off of the movie Dead End. In the movie dead end a family goes on a road trip has a "near miss collision" and then they are stalked by a killer all to find out that they didn't have a near miss but had a head on collision and it was all a dream. Sound familiar reeker fans? This premise just like the whole They are the same person "twist ending" i.e. Fight club, hide and seek etc. where everyone has to steal it. Dead end, Reeker, The I Inside, Stay, and the Reeker 2 Even reekier all have the same exact ending and reeker does it the worst. Dead end was filled with gruesome kills and funny awkward moments making it enjoyable, The I Inside probably my favorite of the bunch cause it adds a little something extra to the ending, Stay because its a beautiful trippy direction that the film has. So save yourself the time and watch any of those titles over this one.

Average Horror movie!

[atinder · 5/10 · 23 April 2012]

I have not seen the first one yet, I had no idea what the plot was about this movie, I did not even see a Trailer for this before giving a watch.

Somehow I ending up having this is movies collection.

This movies as some kind of Supernal force that is killing people.

This movie did have a great nasty Gory start , Which I really liked, there were some descent gory scenes in the rest of the movie.

This dose get really odd and really Confusing, which makes scratch your head, Saying what the hell is going on and some of the scene can seem really funny at times.

I also enjoyed the twist at the end of the movie, which I think really well done.

I going to give this movie 5 out of 10

My Review

[joemamaohio · 6/10 · 12 October 2008]

In the late 70s, the desert was tormented by a serial killer known as Reeker (Ben Gunther), a man who killed unmercifully because he believed he was an instrument of the gods to do their work.

He is caught by Sheriff Reed and is sentenced to death. Now its present day, and Reed (Robert Pine) is an old man, and passes the Sheriff job down to his son, Harris (Michael Muhney). They're at a restaurant with waitress Maya (Mircea Monroe) when her boyfriend Alex (Stephen Martines) comes in, fresh from robbing a casino.

Things go from bad to worse as their car explodes after a confrontation with the father/son duo, and soon they realize something more has happened. They can't leave where they're at, and their heartbeats are so slow that they should be in a coma - or dead. And now they're being stalked by a supernatural Reeker who is killing them one-by-one.

For an independent film, I was surprised about how well the effects were, especially on the supernatural Reeker because his movements are so eerie and frightening. And the twist ending at the end was an interesting one. Definitely one of the better Ghost House Underground movies.

Rubbishy sequel, stick with the original

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 26 September 2015]

I remember liking the original REEKER - a derivative B-movie but one with bite - so I thought I'd give this undistinguished sequel a chance. I wish I hadn't. The talent behind the first film has disappeared so what we get in its place is a dull and predictable B-picture with little to recommend it. Things kick off with a mini-prequel explaining the Reeker's origins - a particularly pointless bit of screen time, I have to say - before moving into the usual forgettable territory. It's cop versus robbers, except the two sides have to work together when the Reeker himself shows up, looking for blood.

This is the kind of film that lazily throws in stock CGI explosions and some mild gore here and there in a bid to retain the audience's attention. Efforts are in vain, because the writing is so below par and the acting noticeably bad; no actors stand out from the crowd here, all are equally poor. The CGI effects seem worse than the ones in the original and never for the moment is there any real suspense or excitement. It's just below par all the way.

More of a remake than a sequel, each taken on their own merits this is the better film.

[poolandrews · 6/10 · 11 May 2009]

No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker is set on a lonely strip of desert road in the middle of nowhere at a dusty diner & motel, on the day of his retirement Sheriff McAllister (Robert Pine) is about to hand the reins over to his son Deputy Harris McAllister (Michael Muhney) & are discussing things in the diner when a situation breaks out. There casino robbers on the run from the law arrive, one looking for his (very hot) ex-friend Maya (Mircea Monroe) who is a waitress at the diner. All hell breaks loose, a shoot-out between cops & robbers ensues & they all end up stranded there, cut off from the outside world by an invisible barrier & terrorised by a smelly ghostly killer but that's just the start of their nightmare...

Like the original Reeker (2005) this was written, produced & directed by Dave Payne who also composed the musical score on both films & is basically more or less a straight remake as opposed to a sequel & I think it's telling that the number 2 doesn't actually appear in the title anywhere. I think that those who have not seen the original Reeker will enjoy No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker more than those who have since all the twist's & turns are exactly the same in both films especially the ending. Those who have seen the original Reeker will know exactly how this will end which obviously takes a lot away from the film, the original wasn't even anything that different anyway since the twist had already been done before & in a much better capacity in the excellent Dead End (2003) a couple of years previously so there's definitely a strong sense of déjà vu here with No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker (God I hate that title). Forgetting about the original & the not very original twist ending on which the whole film hangs No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker taken on it's own merits is fairly enjoyable with a nice pace, some good action, a plot that entertains, some humorous moments & dialogue, some spunky character's that are quite likable & one blonde bird who is drop dead gorgeous (call me weird but even when she is heard talking about someone taking a stinky sh*t in a grease pan she still came across as hot to me), some nice gore effects & one or two nice sequences that add up a better than average horror film & as I have said those not familiar with the original & therefore not expecting or know about the twist ending will find an enjoyable little twist filled horror film that delivers on several counts. Unfortunately those who have seen or know about the original can't help but know exactly where the film is going within the first fifteen minutes which is not good. So there you have it really, whether you like No Man's Land: Rise Reeker & how effective it's twist's & turns are will depend if you can guess or already know about it's ending & that's basically what it boils down to in a nutshell. Also one has to say that writer & director Payne has tried to expand on some of the ideas & themes of his original almost as if he was trying to explain away some of the ambiguities & mystery of the original, for instance he gives the Reeker more of a specific purpose, he gives it & his potential victims more boundaries & rules in which they function & operate & he even gives the Reeker an origin, birth & back-story which I am not sure was needed but Reeker is beginning to smell (pun intended) of a cheap endless sequel driven franchise based around some sort of monster or gimmick & I think Payne sets the roots for a possible series up here.

It's quite interesting to note that although film is a very visual & audio based medium how many times the makers base scenes around bad smells which is something by it's very nature the media of film just cannot accurately convey in any way whatsoever. There's some decent gore on show here like decapitated heads & severed body limbs including a sawn off hand in a sneeky nod to the infamous sawn off foot sequence in Saw (2005), a drill through someones head, a pole stuck through someones body, someones chest is sliced open & some cool CGI computer effects to render half a guy's head & face missing while he is still moving around. The demonic Reeker itself is alright but it's scenes are always filmed with an annoying blurriness & wobbly straight line effect which lessened the impact & distorted the image too much for me.

With a supposed budget of about $2,000,000 this was shot in California, Los Angeles for the interiors & Lancaster for the exteriors. It has a pretty slick look to it & feels more polished than the original, the special effects are good & it certainly looks better than most recent low budget horror fare. The cast are alright but no-one I have heard of or seen before although I will just say again that Mircea Monroe is hot in this.

No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker is a better than average horror flick with good gore, good CGI effects, some humour & horror & at only just over 80 odd minutes it's fast paced with some good twist's & turns. The only problem is anyone familiar with the original will have already seen & therefore know about those twist's or turns which on the one hand is one of the films biggest plus points but by a bizarre sort of logic at the same time are one of it's biggest minus points as well.

"Reeker 2" reeks less than its predecessor.

[fedor8 · 31 January 2012]

The writer/director/thief of NMLTROR "borrowed" heavily from I-had-no-clue-I-wuz-snuffed movies like "Stay", "Identity" "Dead End", "Point Blank", "The Sixth Sense", "The Others", "Carnival of Souls" but also the "Final Destination" series when he made the first movie, so it's no wonder that this prequel runs into the same kind of trouble as all the "Final Destination" sequels did: we already know the outcome. The main characters all dead i.e. dying. The whole it-was-all-a-dream shtick dates back all the way back to "The Wizard of Oz", so indirectly even that movie is one of the dozens of films that served as "inspiration" (i.e. source of thievery). Basically what I'm saying is, if you're looking for originality here, just forget it. But if you're a horror film fan, you must have already given up on that anyway. (You need to watch between 50 to 100 horror films before you find one that contains some new idea.)

Admittedly, effort was made if not exactly to circumvent this problem than at least to make the movie as unpredictable as possible – within its predictable and limiting parameters. Hence the ending with two actual survivors this time around, plus the fact that Reeker actually gets killed. It's interesting though that the director lets the new sheriff survive, of all people. Isn't this the same guy who told us that he gets horny when he watches dolphins mate? Was the director trying to tell us something about himself, perhaps? Hm.

But then comes the next unoriginal plot-twist i.e. premise-theft: new blood has been sought out by Evil to be trained as a serial-killer and then later as Reeker's replacement. Something tells me we've already had that idea in the supremely idiotic "Saw" series. Having a kid become a new killer is pretty daft. When is Reeker 3 going to be recruited, when he is 3 months old?

In a strange way, the writer/director/thief HAS managed to create a first in cinema, although perhaps unintentionally. Namely, "Reeker" features Reeker 2 (i.e. this movie's kid), while "Reeker 2" aka NMLTROR features Reeker 1, the original Reeker. I don't think we've had that before. But because this is a prequel, it could be argued that this is "Reeker 0". Does this make sense to you? NMLTROR is a rather silly horror film, with several inane reactions by the characters, and even dumber dialog, and yet it is an improvement over the first part, which was even less original and kind of dull.

Everything here was already showed in the first movie...

[paul_haakonsen · 4/10 · 29 January 2016]

Why did director Dave Payne opt to revisit the "Reeker" movie and universe in this manner, is simply beyond my comprehension. This movie was nothing more than a re-write of the first movie, as everything shown in "No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker" was essentially shown in the 2005 movie "Reeker".

If you have seen the 2005 "Reeker" movie, then you have essentially already seen the 2008 semi-prequel. Just change the backdrop for the storyline and the setting, but otherwise it is the same thing.

The only noticeably deviation from the 2005 storyline is that we are given insight into the history of the Reeker being and how it came into being. Aside from that, then it is about a group of people trapped at a deserted diner, stalked by a horrible killer whom is followed by the stench of death.

Similar to the 2005 movie then the acting in "No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker" was adequate, and people were doing good enough jobs with their individual roles. Just don't expect anything on a Shakespearian level.

Again, like in the first movie, the creature design on the Reeker being was quite good and had a good amount of interesting details. However, having an impressive creature just wasn't enough to lift up the rest of the movie.

As "No Man's Land: The Rise of Reeker" was essentially just a re-write of the first movie, then it ended up as being somewhat of a less than mediocre movie. And as such, I am rating this 2008 movie a mere four out of ten stars.

Highly enjoyable and entertaining sequel

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 8/10 · 12 February 2017]

Stopping at a remote desert-side motel, a group of thieves and their local hostages find that all of their potential escape attempts are blocked by a supernatural creature that is merciless in killing them all, forcing them to find a way of stopping it so they can get away.

On the whole, this one wasn't that much better than the first one, but that was a very rare event and it wasn't all that often. Among the few good ideas present here is the fact that there's some really enjoyable and entertaining action to be had here with this one, as once again the film's central plot-point where the main killer runs around in an altered dimension picking off the group one-by-one following a devastating accident gives this the foundation needed for a sterling series of suspense encounters. These come about here as the opening attack on the killers' hideout and capture in the bloodied body- filled shack is highly enjoyable, the first scenes out in the desert where they come across the killer among the sand-dunes where he comes out of nowhere to attack several people in quite grisly fashion, the traps at the end where he goes out to the different sections of the facility where it chases them around and really brings out some slasher standouts quite nicely as these elements really provide this with not only some rather strong and brutal kills but also quite a few graphic mutilations that come about due to the victim's not entirely dying off after an encounter which leaves their body mangled. All of these here are based very heavily on that premise of the different deaths being conducted in this universe to account for the person's death in the real world which is the same twist found in the original. That in a sense is the film's biggest flaw, in that it feels so much like the original mainly because it occasionally did something interesting with the group that plays off like a retread of what happened previously of a group getting stranded in the middle of nowhere and then getting picked off by this particular breed of killer resulting in the same twist ending, and it was only because it's a sequel and there's the creature's name in the title did you really know what it was. The other issue here is the relaxed pacing in the first half as this just comes off with a slew of rather bland storyline to drag the pacing out, from the troubled officer family and the troubled thieves to way too much time with their different relationships and nothing at all about what the creature was which all holds the killing down into the second half that comes off as a really off- balance section to the film overall. It does have some problems, but there's way too much about it to really mean anything anyway.

Rated R: Graphic Violence and Graphic Language.

No Man's Sequel

[pistolaro_amigo · 6/10 · 25 August 2009]

Attention to all independent film makers... there should be a new genre known as the Desert Horror film and the Reeker series has gone back to the well 2 times. The background story of the Rise of the Reeker was a nice touch but should have expanded more on the subplot instead of speeding through in order to get to the 'meat' of the film involving bank robbers, disgraced cops, and lost angels from big cities (but then again this should be the character check list of this new genre). What this film does is balance between the reality/ fantasy borderline of the film and pulls it off with a nice touch and wraps it up with a possible 3-peat where we could see what is slowly becoming a new horror icon in the making, grass root style (or could it be tumbleweed?)

This is a sequel???

[WiseMan26 · 5/10 · 23 November 2019]

I though the "reeker" 2005 is sequel. And thos standalone sequel, doesnt seem like sequel. Its almost identical as the first movie. I mean the storyline are worse than the first movie. And many plotholes which make me confuse. But i think the first one is better, this not even in my mind to see it again. Not recommended much.