The ZombieTastic Review of:
Raiders of the Living Dead
Raiders of the Living Dead
Director: Samuel M. Sherman
Year of Release: 1986
Country of Origin: USA
Type of Zombie Film: Non-Medicinal Sleep-Aid.
Also Known as: Livsfarlig last, Vendetta dei morti viventi; also one
Imdb user referred to it as "Scooby Doo And The Living Dead". I
prefer to call it THE MOST BORING ZOMBIE MOVIE EVER MADE.
Part of a series?: No.
The Scoring
Plot: Does Raiders of the Living Dead have a plot? Yes, but I ask this question because it
doesn't seem to me to be so much a movie designed to entertain you with a narrative as it
does to be a scientific experiment designed to answer that oldest of questions: how much
boredom can human beings take before they smash their television sets? I believe David
Hume initially posed that question. The point is: I might be reading to much into Raiders of
the Living Dead; it just seems to me that there has to be some reason, scientific or
otherwise, for this boring piece of shit to exist.
I guess the aforementioned considerations are something that you'll have to make up your
own mind about. I don't want to influence you unduly, so I'll just say that the "plot" involves a
dude hijacking a truck and going to a power plant, then demanding the release of some
random people, then participating in the least exciting chase scene in the history of movies,
then being electrocuted. Then, he's injected with something and returns to life. Then, a kid
turns a laser disc player into a plain old laser, and a hamster is killed in the process. Then,
a crusty policeman finds zombies in a barn or something. Then, we slowly figure out where
these zombies come from. Then, the movie ends. Whew. That was even more boring to
type out then it was to watch, if that's possible. I think that the most infuriating part of the
plot of Raiders of the Living Dead is that while the title leads you to believe that you're about
to experience Night of the Living Dead mixed with Indiana Jones, you instead experience
what it's like to spend the night in Indiana with a guy named Jones who is dull to the point
that you can't tell if he's living or dead. Or something. Is any of this making sense? I hope
so--either way, it will have to do.
Ultimately, what I really want to know is how the people at Netflix came up with this
description of the film for its DVD sleeve: "A zombie picture which benefits from original
twists like burning the undead, creatures' heads blowing apart, and laser rays blasting the
living dead." What movie were they watching? Let's be honest: burning the undead and/or
blowing their heads up isn't exactly unique. And if those are the only things that your film
has going for it, you're in trouble. The bottom line is that even if I accept Netflix's description
of this movie (I don't), I HAVE to edit it to read like this: A zombie picture which benefits from
original twists like burning the undead, creatures' heads blowing apart, and laser rays
blasting the living dead, and suffers from that fact that it SUCKS ASS.
Score: 1
Year of Release: 1986
Country of Origin: USA
Type of Zombie Film: Non-Medicinal Sleep-Aid.
Also Known as: Livsfarlig last, Vendetta dei morti viventi; also one
Imdb user referred to it as "Scooby Doo And The Living Dead". I
prefer to call it THE MOST BORING ZOMBIE MOVIE EVER MADE.
Part of a series?: No.
The Scoring
Plot: Does Raiders of the Living Dead have a plot? Yes, but I ask this question because it
doesn't seem to me to be so much a movie designed to entertain you with a narrative as it
does to be a scientific experiment designed to answer that oldest of questions: how much
boredom can human beings take before they smash their television sets? I believe David
Hume initially posed that question. The point is: I might be reading to much into Raiders of
the Living Dead; it just seems to me that there has to be some reason, scientific or
otherwise, for this boring piece of shit to exist.
I guess the aforementioned considerations are something that you'll have to make up your
own mind about. I don't want to influence you unduly, so I'll just say that the "plot" involves a
dude hijacking a truck and going to a power plant, then demanding the release of some
random people, then participating in the least exciting chase scene in the history of movies,
then being electrocuted. Then, he's injected with something and returns to life. Then, a kid
turns a laser disc player into a plain old laser, and a hamster is killed in the process. Then,
a crusty policeman finds zombies in a barn or something. Then, we slowly figure out where
these zombies come from. Then, the movie ends. Whew. That was even more boring to
type out then it was to watch, if that's possible. I think that the most infuriating part of the
plot of Raiders of the Living Dead is that while the title leads you to believe that you're about
to experience Night of the Living Dead mixed with Indiana Jones, you instead experience
what it's like to spend the night in Indiana with a guy named Jones who is dull to the point
that you can't tell if he's living or dead. Or something. Is any of this making sense? I hope
so--either way, it will have to do.
Ultimately, what I really want to know is how the people at Netflix came up with this
description of the film for its DVD sleeve: "A zombie picture which benefits from original
twists like burning the undead, creatures' heads blowing apart, and laser rays blasting the
living dead." What movie were they watching? Let's be honest: burning the undead and/or
blowing their heads up isn't exactly unique. And if those are the only things that your film
has going for it, you're in trouble. The bottom line is that even if I accept Netflix's description
of this movie (I don't), I HAVE to edit it to read like this: A zombie picture which benefits from
original twists like burning the undead, creatures' heads blowing apart, and laser rays
blasting the living dead, and suffers from that fact that it SUCKS ASS.
Score: 1
| I wish this warning had been on the film’s DVD case. |
Exposition: To put it bluntly, Raiders of the Living Dead features more exposition than an
episode of CSI (any version thereof--if you think I'm using this space to single-out David
Caruso, think again). There's the scene with the cop on phone getting everyone up to
speed on the back-story, there's the kid describing exactly how he built his laser ray, there's
the lady giving the detailed history of the nearby prison...there's all that and more. In other
words, this movie is practically ALL exposition--I would wager that there are approximately
54010392 words of dialogue for every scene involving a zombie. Such a ratio is okay for a
Dostoyevsky novel--it's not okay for a zombie movie, even if said zombie movie was actually
based on a Dostoyevsky novel, which hasn't happened yet as far as I know. I mean, House
of the Dead was based on the video game House of the Dead, and neither of these had
anything to do with Dostoyevsky's book The House of the Dead. I think you see what I'm
saying here. Wait, what am I saying? I think I need some exposition to figure out how the
fuck I got here in the first place. How ironic.
Score: 1
Plausibility: I think that there were a host of implausible things that happened in this movie,
but I can't say for certain, because I dozed off a number of times. Even if there weren't as
many implausible things as I think there were, there was still what I consider to be the
mother of all implausible events in a zombie movie (which, given the scope of the
ridiculousness of the genre, is saying quite a lot). Said implausible event needs no
embellishment, it is simply when some random kid takes his grandfather's laser disc
player and, in a matter of minutes, using generic household tools, turns it into a
super-awesome laser ray capable of destroying anything that comes into its path. Yeah.
Great. I think this kid should hang out with the younger brother from Better Off Dead--you
know, the one who built the spaceship in his garage. They could travel the cosmos, fighting
aliens and going through puberty. The laser-ray in this movie makes me wonder: why is it
that kids are so great at converting household appliances into super-destructive weapons,
but not into things that are constructive? You want to impress me? Do something useful:
rig my refrigerator to spew out twenty-dollar bills from the ice dispenser. Otherwise, stop
wasting my time, and point your laser ray somewhere else. I sound like a bitter old man,
don't I? It was bound to happen eventually. Let's just move on.
Score: 1
Production Value: The positive: Raiders of the Living Dead boasts a credit for something
called "Inceptive Effects and Direction", which is really quite cool and futuristic-sounding.
The negatives: there is shaky, nausea-inducing camera-work all over the movie, the "night
vision" sequences were clearly not only shot during the day, but possibly next to a flood
lamp manufacturer, and the lack of attention to detail displayed in the scene in which a
"desperate man" tries to hail a car supposedly in the middle of nowhere while there are
multiple houses clearly visible all around him, is INFURIATING. There are more negatives
that I could list, but I'm tired and my head hurts. All you need to know is that the negatives
win, hands-down.
Score: 1
Special Effects: I've been pretty hard on Raiders of the Living Dead so far, but not
everything in the movie is poorly done. To wit, the film features some absolutely
cutting-edge special effects. For example, the movie utilizes the revolutionary "Drive-Cam",
which in essence simulates the experience of riding in a slow-moving car. I'm pretty sure
that this amazing movie trick was pulled this off by setting a camera inside a car and then
driving around, slowly, but I'm not entirely sure. Regardless, it is, in a word, AWESOME!
Additionally, there are the mind-blowing electrocution and laser effects. I can't be certain,
but it seems like the makers of the film, somehow, added squiggly animated "lines" to the
film, and it totally makes it look like the lasers and stuff are actually interacting with the
actors! In two words, HELL YEAH! But wait, there's more: there's this one part where a
zombie gets burned up. Now, of course you can't burn humans up in your movie just for an
effect (thanks to the controversy surrounding Orson Welles' classic sequel, CitizEn Fuego),
but the makers of Raiders of the Living Dead figured out quite a clever way around this little
inconvenience. First, they filmed a zombie standing kind of near some fire. Then, they
filmed a dummy on fire from up close. Even though in the close-up you can totally tell that
you're looking at a mannequin, as long as you close your eyes and suspend your disbelief,
you definitely feel like the zombie itself is burning up! In three words: RIDICULOUSLY
AMAZINGLY YES. The awesome dummy-effects don't stop there: there's also this part
where a guy falls into a big hole, but instead of a dude they throw a floppy dummy down
there. In four words: HOW'D THEY DO THAT?!
As you can clearly tell, Raiders of the Living Dead might suck overall, but it at least delivers
the special effects goods. In five words: FUCKING HOLLYWOOD MOVIE MAGIC LIVES!
Score: 1
episode of CSI (any version thereof--if you think I'm using this space to single-out David
Caruso, think again). There's the scene with the cop on phone getting everyone up to
speed on the back-story, there's the kid describing exactly how he built his laser ray, there's
the lady giving the detailed history of the nearby prison...there's all that and more. In other
words, this movie is practically ALL exposition--I would wager that there are approximately
54010392 words of dialogue for every scene involving a zombie. Such a ratio is okay for a
Dostoyevsky novel--it's not okay for a zombie movie, even if said zombie movie was actually
based on a Dostoyevsky novel, which hasn't happened yet as far as I know. I mean, House
of the Dead was based on the video game House of the Dead, and neither of these had
anything to do with Dostoyevsky's book The House of the Dead. I think you see what I'm
saying here. Wait, what am I saying? I think I need some exposition to figure out how the
fuck I got here in the first place. How ironic.
Score: 1
Plausibility: I think that there were a host of implausible things that happened in this movie,
but I can't say for certain, because I dozed off a number of times. Even if there weren't as
many implausible things as I think there were, there was still what I consider to be the
mother of all implausible events in a zombie movie (which, given the scope of the
ridiculousness of the genre, is saying quite a lot). Said implausible event needs no
embellishment, it is simply when some random kid takes his grandfather's laser disc
player and, in a matter of minutes, using generic household tools, turns it into a
super-awesome laser ray capable of destroying anything that comes into its path. Yeah.
Great. I think this kid should hang out with the younger brother from Better Off Dead--you
know, the one who built the spaceship in his garage. They could travel the cosmos, fighting
aliens and going through puberty. The laser-ray in this movie makes me wonder: why is it
that kids are so great at converting household appliances into super-destructive weapons,
but not into things that are constructive? You want to impress me? Do something useful:
rig my refrigerator to spew out twenty-dollar bills from the ice dispenser. Otherwise, stop
wasting my time, and point your laser ray somewhere else. I sound like a bitter old man,
don't I? It was bound to happen eventually. Let's just move on.
Score: 1
Production Value: The positive: Raiders of the Living Dead boasts a credit for something
called "Inceptive Effects and Direction", which is really quite cool and futuristic-sounding.
The negatives: there is shaky, nausea-inducing camera-work all over the movie, the "night
vision" sequences were clearly not only shot during the day, but possibly next to a flood
lamp manufacturer, and the lack of attention to detail displayed in the scene in which a
"desperate man" tries to hail a car supposedly in the middle of nowhere while there are
multiple houses clearly visible all around him, is INFURIATING. There are more negatives
that I could list, but I'm tired and my head hurts. All you need to know is that the negatives
win, hands-down.
Score: 1
Special Effects: I've been pretty hard on Raiders of the Living Dead so far, but not
everything in the movie is poorly done. To wit, the film features some absolutely
cutting-edge special effects. For example, the movie utilizes the revolutionary "Drive-Cam",
which in essence simulates the experience of riding in a slow-moving car. I'm pretty sure
that this amazing movie trick was pulled this off by setting a camera inside a car and then
driving around, slowly, but I'm not entirely sure. Regardless, it is, in a word, AWESOME!
Additionally, there are the mind-blowing electrocution and laser effects. I can't be certain,
but it seems like the makers of the film, somehow, added squiggly animated "lines" to the
film, and it totally makes it look like the lasers and stuff are actually interacting with the
actors! In two words, HELL YEAH! But wait, there's more: there's this one part where a
zombie gets burned up. Now, of course you can't burn humans up in your movie just for an
effect (thanks to the controversy surrounding Orson Welles' classic sequel, CitizEn Fuego),
but the makers of Raiders of the Living Dead figured out quite a clever way around this little
inconvenience. First, they filmed a zombie standing kind of near some fire. Then, they
filmed a dummy on fire from up close. Even though in the close-up you can totally tell that
you're looking at a mannequin, as long as you close your eyes and suspend your disbelief,
you definitely feel like the zombie itself is burning up! In three words: RIDICULOUSLY
AMAZINGLY YES. The awesome dummy-effects don't stop there: there's also this part
where a guy falls into a big hole, but instead of a dude they throw a floppy dummy down
there. In four words: HOW'D THEY DO THAT?!
As you can clearly tell, Raiders of the Living Dead might suck overall, but it at least delivers
the special effects goods. In five words: FUCKING HOLLYWOOD MOVIE MAGIC LIVES!
Score: 1
| Dig that amazing electrocution effect. How’d they pull it off? |
Makeup: Raiders of the Living Dead is steeped in 80s-ness, which means that the ladies
in the film are sporting, aside from hideous poodle hair, WAY too much makeup. I guess,
though, that that's not technically what this category is about--I'm supposed to discuss the
makeup work on the zombies themselves. Accordingly, let me just say that the titular living
dead in this film don't so much look like zombies as they do members of The Misfits and/or
extras from Planet of the Apes. In case you're unsure: that's a bad thing.
Score: 2
Scariness: I've been quite long-winded thus far in this review, so let me say this as
succinctly as possible: if you consider the dictionary to be scary, then this movie is terrifying.
Score: 1
Goriness: Describing the gore in Raiders of the Living Dead is kind of like eating
toothpaste: it's an effort doomed to failure that leaves you feeling empty inside. But, on the
plus side, it freshens your breath. What I'm really trying to say is that there's virtually no gore
in Raiders of the Living Dead, which should be clear from the fact that the film was rated
PG-13. The film features a fried hamster, a gunshot through an arm, and an exploding
head, and that's it for the gore. Honestly I've seen episodes of The Care Bears that were
gorier than this movie. Although, I guess that's not saying much, because as we all know,
when the cannibalistic bears from beyond the Forest of Feelings would attack the Kingdom
of Caring, things would get quite messy.
Score: 1
in the film are sporting, aside from hideous poodle hair, WAY too much makeup. I guess,
though, that that's not technically what this category is about--I'm supposed to discuss the
makeup work on the zombies themselves. Accordingly, let me just say that the titular living
dead in this film don't so much look like zombies as they do members of The Misfits and/or
extras from Planet of the Apes. In case you're unsure: that's a bad thing.
Score: 2
Scariness: I've been quite long-winded thus far in this review, so let me say this as
succinctly as possible: if you consider the dictionary to be scary, then this movie is terrifying.
Score: 1
Goriness: Describing the gore in Raiders of the Living Dead is kind of like eating
toothpaste: it's an effort doomed to failure that leaves you feeling empty inside. But, on the
plus side, it freshens your breath. What I'm really trying to say is that there's virtually no gore
in Raiders of the Living Dead, which should be clear from the fact that the film was rated
PG-13. The film features a fried hamster, a gunshot through an arm, and an exploding
head, and that's it for the gore. Honestly I've seen episodes of The Care Bears that were
gorier than this movie. Although, I guess that's not saying much, because as we all know,
when the cannibalistic bears from beyond the Forest of Feelings would attack the Kingdom
of Caring, things would get quite messy.
Score: 1
| A hamster, displaying the only appropriate reaction to this film. |
Final Scene: Raiders of the Living Dead's final scene features the "good doctor" defeating
the "bad doctor" (the guy who's creating all the zombies), and then everyone's happy, and
then the viewer is treated to some shots of "dead" zombies that one can barely make out
due to the murkiness of the film. To be honest with you, I haven't been this disappointed at
the end of a film since I attended a screening of Tron in the second grade that ended early
due to a broken projector. That's a true story, by the way.
Score: 1
Comedy: Let me say this as plainly as I can: there is nothing funny about this movie.
Nothing at all.
Score: 1
Originality: Early on, Raiders of the Living Dead seems more interested in hamsters than it
does in zombies. I'm not saying that's a bad thing--far from it, because, for a zombie movie,
that is highly original. The uniqueness doesn't stop there, as Raiders of the Living Dead
features several things never before (or since) glimpsed in zombie cinema. There's the
laser disc player repair scene, the phone-book research scene, the non-dramatic
one-sided phone conversation, the extended Three Stooges clips, the guy explaining how
he likes his coffee, the lengthy walking alongside the prison scene, the bell-ringing
scene...the list goes on and on. Not only are such things original generically, they're also
specifically original in the sense that instead of being interesting or related to advancing the
plot, they're just a bunch of stuff that happens. Neat!
Score: 2
Rewatchability: Hmmm, a film that's paced slower than a Proust novel that features
numerous, extended shots of NOTHING...what's not to want to watch again?
Score: 1
the "bad doctor" (the guy who's creating all the zombies), and then everyone's happy, and
then the viewer is treated to some shots of "dead" zombies that one can barely make out
due to the murkiness of the film. To be honest with you, I haven't been this disappointed at
the end of a film since I attended a screening of Tron in the second grade that ended early
due to a broken projector. That's a true story, by the way.
Score: 1
Comedy: Let me say this as plainly as I can: there is nothing funny about this movie.
Nothing at all.
Score: 1
Originality: Early on, Raiders of the Living Dead seems more interested in hamsters than it
does in zombies. I'm not saying that's a bad thing--far from it, because, for a zombie movie,
that is highly original. The uniqueness doesn't stop there, as Raiders of the Living Dead
features several things never before (or since) glimpsed in zombie cinema. There's the
laser disc player repair scene, the phone-book research scene, the non-dramatic
one-sided phone conversation, the extended Three Stooges clips, the guy explaining how
he likes his coffee, the lengthy walking alongside the prison scene, the bell-ringing
scene...the list goes on and on. Not only are such things original generically, they're also
specifically original in the sense that instead of being interesting or related to advancing the
plot, they're just a bunch of stuff that happens. Neat!
Score: 2
Rewatchability: Hmmm, a film that's paced slower than a Proust novel that features
numerous, extended shots of NOTHING...what's not to want to watch again?
Score: 1
| Just one of many shots of NOTHING in this film. |
Datedness: Normally when a film seems dated, it's due to a handful of elements. In the
case of Raiders of the Living Dead it's due to EVERYTHING in the film. Seriously, the
phones, the ties, the hairstyles, the music, the VCR, the cars, the clothing--everything in this
movie screams "1980s" in a way that would make Dee Snider and/or Max Headroom proud.
Score: 1
Soundtrack: Raiders of the Living Dead features a title song that is quite possibly, and I
say this without hyperbole, quite possibly the worst song ever written by a human being,
ever. It's even worse than the latest K. Fed single, if you can believe it. Essentially it
sounds like the noise made by two pieces of shit having a fistfight in a sound booth. Never
has a movie's song so adequately captured in its own shittiness the shittiness of the film
that it represents. I'm not sure what the song's actual name is--I think that it's "The Dead
Are After Me"--regardless, it was written by someone named George Edward Ott, who, as
you can tell by looking at this page, has had an illustrious career as a movie composer.
Ultimately, as we all know, words cannot do music justice, so I've made the song available
for anyone who wants to hear it. But, be warned: you listen to it at your own peril.
Aside from "The Dead Are After Me", what else can be said about Raiders of the Living
Dead's soundtrack? This: most of the incidental music used in the film sounds like tunage
that was leftover from TJ Hooker. I don't know what that means, but I think it's bad.
Score: 2
case of Raiders of the Living Dead it's due to EVERYTHING in the film. Seriously, the
phones, the ties, the hairstyles, the music, the VCR, the cars, the clothing--everything in this
movie screams "1980s" in a way that would make Dee Snider and/or Max Headroom proud.
Score: 1
Soundtrack: Raiders of the Living Dead features a title song that is quite possibly, and I
say this without hyperbole, quite possibly the worst song ever written by a human being,
ever. It's even worse than the latest K. Fed single, if you can believe it. Essentially it
sounds like the noise made by two pieces of shit having a fistfight in a sound booth. Never
has a movie's song so adequately captured in its own shittiness the shittiness of the film
that it represents. I'm not sure what the song's actual name is--I think that it's "The Dead
Are After Me"--regardless, it was written by someone named George Edward Ott, who, as
you can tell by looking at this page, has had an illustrious career as a movie composer.
Ultimately, as we all know, words cannot do music justice, so I've made the song available
for anyone who wants to hear it. But, be warned: you listen to it at your own peril.
Aside from "The Dead Are After Me", what else can be said about Raiders of the Living
Dead's soundtrack? This: most of the incidental music used in the film sounds like tunage
that was leftover from TJ Hooker. I don't know what that means, but I think it's bad.
Score: 2
| When this is the hottest person in your cast, you know you’ve got problems. |
Breast Factor/Nudity: There is NO nudity in Raiders of the Living Dead, probably due to that
PG-13 rating thing that I talked about earlier. Now, normally a complete lack of nudity would
merit a score of '1' in this category; however, in this film's case, I'm going to award a perfect
'5' here, for the simple reason that it's a good thing that we don't see any of the uggos in this
film in the buff. Seriously, there hasn't been a cast this sexually unattractive since the
heyday of The Golden Girls. Shudder.
Score: 5
Lead Actor: Robert Deveau as Morgan Randall. I'm tempted to say that Robert Deveau is
the poor man's Robert Urich, but (a) it's an unfair comparison because Robert Urich can
actually act, and (b) Robert Urich is already the poor man's Harrison Ford, so that would
make Robert Deveau...what...the thoroughly destitute man's Harrison Ford? That's just
stupid. Which brings me back to Robert Deveau as Morgan Randall: stupid.
Score: 1
PG-13 rating thing that I talked about earlier. Now, normally a complete lack of nudity would
merit a score of '1' in this category; however, in this film's case, I'm going to award a perfect
'5' here, for the simple reason that it's a good thing that we don't see any of the uggos in this
film in the buff. Seriously, there hasn't been a cast this sexually unattractive since the
heyday of The Golden Girls. Shudder.
Score: 5
Lead Actor: Robert Deveau as Morgan Randall. I'm tempted to say that Robert Deveau is
the poor man's Robert Urich, but (a) it's an unfair comparison because Robert Urich can
actually act, and (b) Robert Urich is already the poor man's Harrison Ford, so that would
make Robert Deveau...what...the thoroughly destitute man's Harrison Ford? That's just
stupid. Which brings me back to Robert Deveau as Morgan Randall: stupid.
Score: 1
| Morgan Randall to Crockett and Tubbs: eat your hearts out! |
Sidekick(s)/Love Interest: Donna Asali as Shelly Godwin. Not to be outdone in the shitty
performance department by Robert Deveau, Donna Asali brings to her role the personality
of a potato bug and the acting talent to boot. Let's just move on.
Score: 1
Overall Cast: Overall Cast? More like Overall Crap! Yeah!
Score: 1
Token Scientist: If inept in virtually every other way, Raiders of the Living Dead has an
embarrassment of riches (emphasis on embarrassment) when it comes to the Token
Scientist category. This is in part due to the presence of the evil Dr. Corstairs and the
not-so-evil Dr. Kopek. Or is it the other way around? Frankly, I'm not sure: all I know is that
one of them is a "genius" who has figured out a way to reanimate the dead (to serve what
purpose, we'll probably never know), and the other one is a "genius" who has figured out a
way to stop the first so-called genius. Does that make sense? Good. Here's something
that might not make sense: despite the scientific prowess of doctors Corstairs and Kopek,
I'm dubbing the character of Jonathan, played by Scott Schwartz, the film's Token Scientist.
Why? Simple: because, as I've mentioned, he turns a laser disc player into a powerful
laser-based zombie-killing weapon. Show me another scientist who could do that. If the
movies have taught us anything, it's that lots of people seem capable of reanimating the
dead; but, it takes a very special mind indeed to create a high-tech weapon out of a device
that's normally utilized to play shitty films like The Dark. Which was a film that (a) was
originally intended to be a zombie movie and (b) also featured lasers. That's weird.
Anyways, the point is that not only does Jonathan clearly possess the most brilliant
scientific mind in the film, but mentioning him provides me with the opportunity to point out
that the actor who portrayed him, Scott Schwartz, went on to become a porn star after
Raiders of the Living Dead, thereby proving that old adage: there's but a thin line separating
zombies and people who have sex for money. Yeah. Think about it.
Score: 4
Token Fat Guy: As there were an embarrassment of riches in the Token Scientist category,
there is not an embarrassment of riches in the Token Fat Guy category, because there
aren't any fat dudes in Raiders of the Living Dead; but, I'm not sure that saying that there
isn't an embarrassment of riches is appropriate here, because fat guys are embarrassing,
so the situation is like some sort of non-embarrassing embarrassment. Actually, it's like a
paradox wrapped in a riddle that's covered in sprinkles. But, that makes it even more of a
riddle, because as we all know, wherever there are sprinkles, there are fat guys, and yet, as
I said, there aren't any here. Wow. My head hurts.
Score: 1
Best Line: In a film this bad and this boring, it's understandable that there really aren't any
contenders for this category. However, I have to award the prize to something, so I guess I'll
go with the comment from the film that "There's a lot of strange people out there."
Yeah--like people who actually claim that they like this movie. Zing!
Score: 1
Intangibles: Raiders of the Living Dead features more drudgery and soul-crushing
boredom per frame of film than any movie this side of Meet Joe Black, and you can't put a
price on what that does to you as a viewer when you're JUST TRYING TO GET THROUGH
THE DAMN MOVIE. There are extended sequences without dialogue where nothing
happens, and then when something does happen, it's either confusing (e.g., when a guy
takes hostages at a decrepit, nearly empty power plant), boring (e.g., when another guy
discusses getting his laser disc player fixed), or not related to the film at all (e.g., when
several extended clips from a Three Stooges movie are played).
Additionally, as a viewer of this film one has to contend with the psychologically traumatizing
fact that the initials of the movie's title are identical to that of a far, far, FAR superior zombie
movie (Return of the Living Dead); in other words, it's hard not to spend the film thinking
about another, better zombie movie that you've seen.
As if the preceding points weren't enough, one also has to deal with the confusion instilled
by the film's tagline, which is: "A terrorist's secret...a teenager's revenge." What the fuck
does that have to do with anything that happens in Raiders of the Living Dead? I'm
seriously asking here. I was awake for most of this movie, and I remember nothing about
terrorists, nor about a teenager taking revenge on anyone for anything.
To sum up: Raiders of the Living Dead takes a bunch of turds and makes a shit sandwich
that, considered as a whole, is somehow larger and nastier than any of its fecal
ingredients. Nasty.
Score: 1 (Although in a perfect world, I would award a more accurate score of -349012938)
performance department by Robert Deveau, Donna Asali brings to her role the personality
of a potato bug and the acting talent to boot. Let's just move on.
Score: 1
Overall Cast: Overall Cast? More like Overall Crap! Yeah!
Score: 1
Token Scientist: If inept in virtually every other way, Raiders of the Living Dead has an
embarrassment of riches (emphasis on embarrassment) when it comes to the Token
Scientist category. This is in part due to the presence of the evil Dr. Corstairs and the
not-so-evil Dr. Kopek. Or is it the other way around? Frankly, I'm not sure: all I know is that
one of them is a "genius" who has figured out a way to reanimate the dead (to serve what
purpose, we'll probably never know), and the other one is a "genius" who has figured out a
way to stop the first so-called genius. Does that make sense? Good. Here's something
that might not make sense: despite the scientific prowess of doctors Corstairs and Kopek,
I'm dubbing the character of Jonathan, played by Scott Schwartz, the film's Token Scientist.
Why? Simple: because, as I've mentioned, he turns a laser disc player into a powerful
laser-based zombie-killing weapon. Show me another scientist who could do that. If the
movies have taught us anything, it's that lots of people seem capable of reanimating the
dead; but, it takes a very special mind indeed to create a high-tech weapon out of a device
that's normally utilized to play shitty films like The Dark. Which was a film that (a) was
originally intended to be a zombie movie and (b) also featured lasers. That's weird.
Anyways, the point is that not only does Jonathan clearly possess the most brilliant
scientific mind in the film, but mentioning him provides me with the opportunity to point out
that the actor who portrayed him, Scott Schwartz, went on to become a porn star after
Raiders of the Living Dead, thereby proving that old adage: there's but a thin line separating
zombies and people who have sex for money. Yeah. Think about it.
Score: 4
Token Fat Guy: As there were an embarrassment of riches in the Token Scientist category,
there is not an embarrassment of riches in the Token Fat Guy category, because there
aren't any fat dudes in Raiders of the Living Dead; but, I'm not sure that saying that there
isn't an embarrassment of riches is appropriate here, because fat guys are embarrassing,
so the situation is like some sort of non-embarrassing embarrassment. Actually, it's like a
paradox wrapped in a riddle that's covered in sprinkles. But, that makes it even more of a
riddle, because as we all know, wherever there are sprinkles, there are fat guys, and yet, as
I said, there aren't any here. Wow. My head hurts.
Score: 1
Best Line: In a film this bad and this boring, it's understandable that there really aren't any
contenders for this category. However, I have to award the prize to something, so I guess I'll
go with the comment from the film that "There's a lot of strange people out there."
Yeah--like people who actually claim that they like this movie. Zing!
Score: 1
Intangibles: Raiders of the Living Dead features more drudgery and soul-crushing
boredom per frame of film than any movie this side of Meet Joe Black, and you can't put a
price on what that does to you as a viewer when you're JUST TRYING TO GET THROUGH
THE DAMN MOVIE. There are extended sequences without dialogue where nothing
happens, and then when something does happen, it's either confusing (e.g., when a guy
takes hostages at a decrepit, nearly empty power plant), boring (e.g., when another guy
discusses getting his laser disc player fixed), or not related to the film at all (e.g., when
several extended clips from a Three Stooges movie are played).
Additionally, as a viewer of this film one has to contend with the psychologically traumatizing
fact that the initials of the movie's title are identical to that of a far, far, FAR superior zombie
movie (Return of the Living Dead); in other words, it's hard not to spend the film thinking
about another, better zombie movie that you've seen.
As if the preceding points weren't enough, one also has to deal with the confusion instilled
by the film's tagline, which is: "A terrorist's secret...a teenager's revenge." What the fuck
does that have to do with anything that happens in Raiders of the Living Dead? I'm
seriously asking here. I was awake for most of this movie, and I remember nothing about
terrorists, nor about a teenager taking revenge on anyone for anything.
To sum up: Raiders of the Living Dead takes a bunch of turds and makes a shit sandwich
that, considered as a whole, is somehow larger and nastier than any of its fecal
ingredients. Nasty.
Score: 1 (Although in a perfect world, I would award a more accurate score of -349012938)
| This parking job reflects the overall quality of movie. |
Zombie Believability: It's pretty hard to judge the believability of the zombies in Raiders of
the Living Dead for the simple fact that between the dinginess of the film itself and the way
several shots are framed, you can't really see the so-called zombies most of the time.
Considering how half-assed the rest of the movie is, this is probably a good thing. I will say
that the viewer is treated to multiple shots of the footwear sported by the zombies in this
film, but as none of the shoes are Air Jordan's, there's really nothing interesting to look at.
Score: 1
the Living Dead for the simple fact that between the dinginess of the film itself and the way
several shots are framed, you can't really see the so-called zombies most of the time.
Considering how half-assed the rest of the movie is, this is probably a good thing. I will say
that the viewer is treated to multiple shots of the footwear sported by the zombies in this
film, but as none of the shoes are Air Jordan's, there's really nothing interesting to look at.
Score: 1
| Is that actually a zombie? Who can even tell? |
Zombie Attack Scenes: There are a WHOPPING three zombie attack scenes in this movie.
In other words, there are more Three Stooges clips featured in Raiders of the Living Dead
than there are zombie attack scenes. Wow. Think about that. On second thought, don't:
don't waste any more thought on this film than you have to. All you really need to know with
regards to this category is that there are attack scenes that take place in the woods, in a
boarding house, and in a prison, and each one is more boring and confusing than the last.
Score: 1
Zombie "Orgy" Scenes: What with the paucity of zombie attack scenes in Raiders of the
Living Dead, it should come as no surprise that there are no zombie "orgy" scenes in the
film at all. But, I'll throw in an extra point here for the fact that, as mentioned earlier, Scott
Schwartz went on from this film to become a porn actor, which means that he probably
participated in enough orgies to cover the fact that there aren't any in this movie. Way to go,
dude: share the love. Literally.
Score: 2
Anti-Zombie Weaponry: Considering how little human/zombie combat takes place in this
movie, there is an astonishing array of anti-zombie weaponry utilized, including boredom,
gasoline, boredom, shotguns, boredom, super advanced laser rays, boredom, a bow and
arrow, boredom, ugly haircuts, boredom, 80s nostalgia, and boredom.
Score: 3
In other words, there are more Three Stooges clips featured in Raiders of the Living Dead
than there are zombie attack scenes. Wow. Think about that. On second thought, don't:
don't waste any more thought on this film than you have to. All you really need to know with
regards to this category is that there are attack scenes that take place in the woods, in a
boarding house, and in a prison, and each one is more boring and confusing than the last.
Score: 1
Zombie "Orgy" Scenes: What with the paucity of zombie attack scenes in Raiders of the
Living Dead, it should come as no surprise that there are no zombie "orgy" scenes in the
film at all. But, I'll throw in an extra point here for the fact that, as mentioned earlier, Scott
Schwartz went on from this film to become a porn actor, which means that he probably
participated in enough orgies to cover the fact that there aren't any in this movie. Way to go,
dude: share the love. Literally.
Score: 2
Anti-Zombie Weaponry: Considering how little human/zombie combat takes place in this
movie, there is an astonishing array of anti-zombie weaponry utilized, including boredom,
gasoline, boredom, shotguns, boredom, super advanced laser rays, boredom, a bow and
arrow, boredom, ugly haircuts, boredom, 80s nostalgia, and boredom.
Score: 3
| Wow, so that’s what the inside of a VCR looks like. Awesome. I'm glad I finally know. |
Zombification Explanation: The reason that there are zombies in Raiders of the Living
Dead is because the evil prison doctor (Corstairs? Kopek? Seriously--I have no idea which
was which) is reanimating them. Sounds simple, right? Well, it is until you ask yourself the
question: why is he doing this? I have no idea--apparently just because he could. Maybe
it's his hobby--some people collect stamps, some people read books, and some people
bring the dead back to life. I don't know. Anyways, ancillary to this is the question: why does
anyone care about the zombies enough to try to stop them? I mean, once they're
reanimated, they don't really appear to do much of anything, so what's the point of trying to
neutralize them? Never kill a zombie unless you have a reason to, that's what I say.
Score: 1
Zombie Uniqueness: I'm not sure how unique the zombies are in Raiders of the Living
Dead for the simple fact that the actors portraying the "living" are so wooden and stilted in
their roles that it's hard to tell the difference between the humans and the zombies. What a
depressing state of affairs.
Score: 1
Zombie Consistency: You would think that with the pathetically small amount of
zombie-action in this "zombie movie", it would be pretty easy to at least give the living dead
a uniform look, right? Wrong! There are approximately 3 zombies in this entire film, and yet
none of them look anything like each other. As I mentioned earlier, one of them kind of
looks like he played guitar in The Misfits, while another of them kind of looks like he was in
Planet of the Apes. Whatever.
Score: 1
Signature Zombie: As we all know, few zombies = impossible to say who the signature
zombie is. As such, I'll go with the crazy dude from the film's beginning who eventually gets
killed and becomes zombified. I choose him mainly because he looks like TV's Squiggy,
and I've always thought that there should be more lovable greaser zombies in the movies.
Score: 2
Dead is because the evil prison doctor (Corstairs? Kopek? Seriously--I have no idea which
was which) is reanimating them. Sounds simple, right? Well, it is until you ask yourself the
question: why is he doing this? I have no idea--apparently just because he could. Maybe
it's his hobby--some people collect stamps, some people read books, and some people
bring the dead back to life. I don't know. Anyways, ancillary to this is the question: why does
anyone care about the zombies enough to try to stop them? I mean, once they're
reanimated, they don't really appear to do much of anything, so what's the point of trying to
neutralize them? Never kill a zombie unless you have a reason to, that's what I say.
Score: 1
Zombie Uniqueness: I'm not sure how unique the zombies are in Raiders of the Living
Dead for the simple fact that the actors portraying the "living" are so wooden and stilted in
their roles that it's hard to tell the difference between the humans and the zombies. What a
depressing state of affairs.
Score: 1
Zombie Consistency: You would think that with the pathetically small amount of
zombie-action in this "zombie movie", it would be pretty easy to at least give the living dead
a uniform look, right? Wrong! There are approximately 3 zombies in this entire film, and yet
none of them look anything like each other. As I mentioned earlier, one of them kind of
looks like he played guitar in The Misfits, while another of them kind of looks like he was in
Planet of the Apes. Whatever.
Score: 1
Signature Zombie: As we all know, few zombies = impossible to say who the signature
zombie is. As such, I'll go with the crazy dude from the film's beginning who eventually gets
killed and becomes zombified. I choose him mainly because he looks like TV's Squiggy,
and I've always thought that there should be more lovable greaser zombies in the movies.
Score: 2
| Happy filmgoers, clearly not watching Raiders of the Living Dead. |
Total Points: 44
Verdict: Raiders of the Living Dead was unleashed upon the American public in 1986, i.e.
the year immediately following what could arguably be called the greatest year in zombie
cinema history (1985, in case you weren't paying attention), seeing as how it featured the
releases of Day of the Dead, The Return of the Living Dead, and Re-Animator. Alas, all
good things must come to an end, and Raiders of the Living Dead showed that 1986 would
bring 1985's awesome zombie-movie run to an end with a vengeance. You know, I almost
wish that it had been released in 1985, just so that I could make a comment like "if the third
time's the charm, Raiders of the Living Dead proves that the fourth time's the piece of shit."
But it wasn't, so I can't.
Look, I think I've said all that there is to say about Raiders of the Living Dead, and writing
this much about such garbage has put me dangerously close to developing a terminal
case of somnambulism. So, let me close by asking two questions raised by the DVD copy
of this film:
Next Time: Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things
Verdict: Raiders of the Living Dead was unleashed upon the American public in 1986, i.e.
the year immediately following what could arguably be called the greatest year in zombie
cinema history (1985, in case you weren't paying attention), seeing as how it featured the
releases of Day of the Dead, The Return of the Living Dead, and Re-Animator. Alas, all
good things must come to an end, and Raiders of the Living Dead showed that 1986 would
bring 1985's awesome zombie-movie run to an end with a vengeance. You know, I almost
wish that it had been released in 1985, just so that I could make a comment like "if the third
time's the charm, Raiders of the Living Dead proves that the fourth time's the piece of shit."
But it wasn't, so I can't.
Look, I think I've said all that there is to say about Raiders of the Living Dead, and writing
this much about such garbage has put me dangerously close to developing a terminal
case of somnambulism. So, let me close by asking two questions raised by the DVD copy
of this film:
- The DVD of Raiders of the Living Dead features an altered version of the film
entitled Dying Day. It is described on the disc's menu thusly: "The following film is
an unfinished alternate version of Raiders of the Living Dead. There is missing
audio and poor quality elements throughout this bonus feature." Given such a
description, I have to wonder, how is this different from the actual Raiders of the
Living Dead? Frankly I think that they should have stuck with this earlier,
"unfinished" version. At least in that version, one might be able to make the
argument that the cinematic incompetence on display is artistic or "experimental." - What's the point of putting an FBI Warning on a movie like this? I ask in all honesty:
would anyone want to rip off anything from such a film? If so, s/he is the saddest
copyright violator EVER. I don't think that I'd want to live in a world where people
were compelled to steal any element from this film in lieu of exerting about ten
seconds worth of creative effort to come up with something worthwhile. Here's
some free advice: if you want to make a film, and you can't come up with something
better than Raiders of the Living Dead, perhaps you should consider pursuing
another line of work. I hear that they're hiring down at the local nitroglycerin factory--
perhaps you could check there?
Next Time: Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things
| All text on this page is copyright 2007 ZombieTastic.com, and may not be reused without written consent from the author. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
