Raiders of the Damned (2007) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
The User Rating Warns How Bad It Is
claudio_carvalho3 July 2015
After a nuclear explosion associated to a biochemical weapon, Earth becomes a dangerous wasteland and mankind is divided into humans and zombies that are flesh eaters to slow their decay process. When Dr. Wells (Elijah Murphy) and his assistant Stephanie (Amanda Scheutzow) go with a military team in a helicopter to spray the zombies with a chemical to destroy them, the zombies use a weapon to hit the helicopter that crashes on the floor. Dr. Wells and Stephanie are captured by the zombies of Colonel Crow (Thomas Martwick).

In the human facility, Dr. Lewis (Richard Grieco) invites the outcast military Lieutenant Gena "Razor" Kane (Laura Zoe Quist); Dewey "Chopper" Crenshaw (Gary Sirchia); Flex (J.C. Austin): and Roxanne "Trigger"Trejo (Laurie Clemens) to team-up and rescue Dr. Wells. But Colonel Crow has plans for the scientist and his assistant.

I like trash movie and I saw the IMDb User Rating of "Raiders of the Damned" before watching it. But I did not imagine that it could be so bad. Everything is poor in this movie: story, screenplay, dialogs, direction, performances, lighting, special effects, camera, fighting choreography, location and sets, nothing works. Richard Grieco resembles Michael Jackson and his ham performance with gestures and grimaces are annoying and never funny. The zombie having intercourse with a human is the best moment of this awful film. My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): "A Morte Pede Vingança" ("The Death Asks for Revenge")
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Damned awful!!!!
lazarus_wont_die3 July 2006
Anything really that makes you presume this film is anything better than the reviews its given is false. I've never witnessed a crappier film in my life and I've seen Windfall. I know its working on a limited budget and it shows but if this is true don't make a film using so many poor special effects and rubbish acting , better yet Don't MAKE THE FILM !!!.

My assumption of zombies and any assumption of zombies made in any other film is shot down by the intelligent ones in this film, who don't even seem like zombies , just humans with really bad rashes. I don't claim to be the expert on zombies but I'm adamant that they were never meant to be intelligent or in the case of Land of the Dead only primitive levels of intelligence.

In my eyes this film is a disgrace and should never have been made , especially when you compare it to other films.Its not even good for people who like small studio films, it fails on nearly every attempt , the acting is either hollow or over acted , no one strikes a balance. I couldn't believe how i watched it , in fact i didn't even bother to see the end as I refused to surrender more minutes of my life towards a nonsensical storyline that just seemed to drag on and on.

Only my passion for hating this film made me write this and i feel it is my duty to steer you away from it. Don't try and watch this film thinking that maybe it will be funny crap and you can have a laugh at it , the action is slow moving and just poor. Only a ridiculous amount of drugs and alcohol could possibly make this film entertaining.

Avoid this film like the plague , or be DAMNED FOR ALL ETERNITY ! (or at least for however it runs for)
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
"Look at the world we live in, look at it, it's horrible." Crap, plain & simple.
poolandrews20 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Raiders of the Damned is set in a post apocalyptic world in which a military virus named Agent-9X has created a horde of flesh eating zombies & starts above a 'Restricted Area, Government Quarantined Zone' where a military helicopter flies high above the flesh eating, rotting zombies below. Dr. Wells (Elijah Murphy) & his glamorous assistant Stephanie (Amanda Scheutzow) are conducting research when the zombies fire some rocks from a catapult which downs the helicopter. They are captured at the request of the head zombie dude Colonel Crow (Thomas Martwick) who needs Dr. Wells scientific knowledge as he & his zombie army are rotting away inside the restricted walled off area. A few military survivors also need Dr. Wells to try & put a stop to the airborne virus & the zombies it created, the boss-man Lewis (Richard Grieco) sets a small platoon up consisting of Gena Kane (Laura Zoe Quist), Trejo (Laurie Clemens), Flex (J.C. Austin) & the squad leader Crenshaw (Gary Sirchia) who leads them into the restricted area to do battle with Colonel Crow & his zombies in a bid to retrieve mankind's only hope Dr. Wells...

Produced & directed by Milko Davis I have to say that Raiders of the Damned is a terrible film, of that there is no doubt but I saw signs here that at least the filmmakers tried. The script by Mike Ezell is certainly ambitious as it moves along at a pretty good pace & involves helicopters, futuristic weaponry, fights, shoot-outs, talking & thinking zombies, a post apocalyptic world, underground military bases & more but I'm afraid that the filmmakers just didn't have the resource's available to do the decent sounding premise justice. The character's are of the worst clichés you can imagine & the script is simply not fleshed out or expanded upon enough to tell a satisfying & coherent story, I mean how did us humans manage to get all the zombies in one place behind a giant wall? Why don't the military just drop a bomb on them? If all the zombies are trapped inside the restricted area why does everyone live three mile below the surface, why doesn't everyone just move to another continent or something & let the zombies literally rot there? Because of the airborne disease? Well why can't they use protective suits with breathing equipment? Is this film set in the future? No mention of it is made but they seem to have laser guns & futuristic gadgets but still need to use horses to get around? There are so many plot holes & unclear ideas in Raiders of the Damned that it becomes frustrating to watch as it seems to change things all the time. The fact that when you consider all these loose threads it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Oh & the underground military survivors divided into two groups, the army & the scientists, reminded me of the infinitely superior Day of the Dead (1985) as it will you...

Director Davis was obviously working on a tiny budget & just tries to do too much, from having helicopters shot down which end up looking like graphics in a bad Playstation game to zombie make-up which isn't even glued onto the actors faces properly as you can see their mouths move but their fake chins stay perfectly still. The locations used seem like derelict warehouses & a local wood. There is no atmosphere, tension & there's definitely no scares either & the action scenes are so bland even they become boring. The gore is none existent, a couple of decapitations & a quick slit throat.

The budget for this must have been virtually zero, technically Raiders of the Damned is very poor from start to finish in just about every department. The acting wasn't too bad actually & I quite liked Martwick as the main zombie. On another note is this the depths that Richard Grieco has now stooped to to find work? This has to be an all time low even for him!

Raiders of the Damned is crap to be sure, it's as simple & straight forward as that but I got the sense that everyone involved tried which ultimately wasn't good enough for me, or you, to waste 90 plus minutes of my life on this but I'll give them some credit for that at least. When all said & done though Raiders of the Damned is one to avoid I'm afraid.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Terrible waste of time
ninja-andy-p18 April 2007
Have to agree that this was really, really not worth watching. And the write up had such promise.

The acting was terrible and they spent ages trying to build up characters into an Aliens-type military crew without the acting ability to back them up. Not one of them was convincing in their role. Very, very boring first half hour to the film. Have to say that the skeleton-in-a-cloak character had far more charisma and depth than the main cast! Rest of the film was wondering what on earth was going on and why. (and what was with those goggles?!). This film is also notable for containing the worst round house kick in history.

On the plus side, the lead bad guy was actually a million miles better than the rest of the cast and gave a pretty good performance.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bad is good!
castboy29 May 2006
Please, people! You can't judge this "film" simply on the merits of its acting and screen writing! It's really all a matter of taste.

Think about it. If you happen to *like* bad movies then this would be a *good* movie, now wouldn't it? Ever seen "Showgirls"? "Godfather III"? Classics! And this one is worse - which makes it better!! Get it? Hey, even "War of the Worlds", starring Tom Cruise and directed by Steven Spielberg blew chunks! And that one cost at least 400 times more than this film. And the producers of "Raiders" didn't try to shove some nutty religion down your throat in some tent on the set of the movie. Well...frankly...they could't really afford a tent. But if they could, they would never try to fill your little brain with such nonsense.

And this movie has a sword. And Richard Grieco. "21 Jump Street" rules! Hey, what ever happened to that DeLuise guy and the cool Asian butt-kicker guy? That was such a cool show. But even they didn't have swords.

I say...see it and judge for yourself. Then, go out and rent it (or buy it if you're smart) and invite your friends over and have a rad double feature with "Showgirls". If you're even smarter, you'll show "Killer Bees" with Michael Caine as a bonus. Or "Trog"! "Trog" is awesome! Hey, if Academy Award nominee Joan Crawford can do a movie with a savage, prehistoric caveman, you can cut this movie some slack and grab some popcorn and have a little Saturday night fun.

This movie kicks Zombie booty!
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This really is a very bad film!!!!
DaveBrook20 March 2006
Aired in the UK on 19th March 2006 on the Horror channel, i was expecting a enjoyable zombie flick. I'm a big fan of these types of film so a small amount of bad acting and a bad script wouldn't have bothered me. But this film was TERRIBLE!!! It was almost a remake of George A.s Day of the dead. Within about three minutes of watching this film i could tell it was going to be bad. But i thought i would give it the benefit of the doubt hoping it would get better. It got worse! A lot worse. I've got to be honest i think I'm going to give these low budget, horror flicks, only ever gonna be shown on Horror channel films a miss from now on because there not even remotely enjoyable. I cant understand how there even shown on T.V. But don't take my word for it. You may even enjoy it. I doubt it though.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Never trust the white coats
atticgirl20 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Although IMDb insists this is still in post production, it's not. Which is a shame because it really needed more work. I watched this a few nights ago on the Horror Channel (uk) and have to say that even for the Horror Channel this is a new low.

There are Zombies, and scientists and the military but this is by no means anywhere near as good as anything Romero has done.

Richard Grieco gives the worst acting performance of his life, and thats saying something as I've seen him in a film about giant spiders.

My favourite part of the film has to be one actor getting upstaged by a coughing horse. It's all very high school drama, the special effects are far from special.

If the idea of zombie sex does it for you then this could well be the film you have been waiting for.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
ONE WORD: VERY BAD
nogodnomasters28 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The special effects were comical. The acting was bad.

Richard Greico as a scientist reminded me of me of spastic Brad Dourif. The zombies "live" inside a walled area where the military drops a napalm type substance to kill them. When the zombies shoot down a helicopter with a makeshift catapult, a crack team is assembled to rescue them. The zombies prefer to eat eyes and they do try to breed with one female.

The movie moves along slow. You can miss 10-20 minutes at a time and still keep up with the plot.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Raiders of the Damned
Christine_42429 March 2006
The film was no worse then some I've seen. Richard Grieco was terrible. But the one guy that was a total standout was an actor by the name of JC Austin. I can't believe he hasn't been cast for more films. The guy is so handsome and that body!!!!! In the right film I know he could be great! I think people have to see past the film and take a good look at the actors. Do you think all the big time actors started in A films. I don't think so. The actors are only as good as the directors and the script. I think given the right opportunity for JC Austin he could go far. And possibly be a big time actor. I have been fallowing him for quite sometime. He's been around since the Perry Mason shows, Ford truck commercials, Asteroids, Nintendo commercials etc. An adoring fan
2 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
So Putrid its funny!
mindcat13 December 2008
This clearly was met to be a funny parody? Oh, please tell me it was, because its so BAD from every aspect that after the stink of bad becomes affirmed and firmly ingested into your brain, this film is dead, not even funny. So camp that it wreaks.

Oh, well, and they say, we all can't make films, wrong. This film shows even the childish and deeply retarded can succeed in film torture.

OK, say, I'm 12 years old, a bit bored and nothing else to do. This film becomes a center piece for wasting my perfect 12 year old's day off from school.

Sad.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
depends what you like ... may contain a tiny spoiler
what-is-it-with-me-and-c8 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
i myself love horrors films, i also love "horror" films there *is* a difference "horror" films are the ones you can laugh about, now raiders of the dammed is a "horror" film. ---------------effects----------------------- the effects in this film are really bad, the thing is, they don't try to be good, they just do the best they can. --------------acting------------------------- the acting in raiders of the dammed is really quite bad, the actors and actresses are clearly untrained or not trained well in any form of fighting there is one scene where she kicks someone over and its a pretty pathetic kick giving the zombie ample time to react.

but all in all raiders of the dammed is a film that most people would hate and i recommend it to anyone who will laugh along with it. (my friends are the people i would) there aren't many people who'd like this sort of film and my mates are the only people i know that would.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed