Revenge of the Lost (2017) User Reviews

A one-man band fiasco

[dominionlimo-75616 · 3/10 · 5 January 2021]

Erik Franklin, acting as Ray O'Brien, overextends himself as actor, writer, director, editor - in fact the rolling end credits give him at least nine job titles. Others with the same surname share another dozen job titles. A real family affair like so many films financed by Indiegogo. You'd think the writer would have given himself a more likable character. For example when hitchhiking Michelle and Ray are picked up by a considerate driver, Ray proceeds to constantly berate and abuse the driver - no gratitude whatsoever for being picked up. The CGI ranges from fairly high quality to images with only smooth undefined details you would expect as pre-viz temporary place holders.

Warning

[megaruda · 1/10 · 13 February 2020]

It Is a very low quality Film, I thought It was a comedy, but It actually tries, It should of gone full satire. There are way too Many amateur first Time filmmakers without distribution out there AND this Gets Amazon prime? The audio was the one thing I couldnt stand, the levels kept jumping. I am all down for terrible acting, AND terrible vfx. That didint matter. I could not finish It. The music was too forced, just make It a Damm comedy. Wasted oportunity.

The worst dinosaurs you'll ever see

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 27 June 2017]

REVENGE OF THE LOST is probably the most laughable dinosaur film you'll ever witness in your life. It's been shot on a tiny indie budget and features a trio of characters roaming around a devastated post-apocalyptic landscape that is now full of barely-glimpsed dinosaurs. Said dinosaurs look abysmal, animated by the worst kind of CGI which looks inferior even to those stop motion efforts of the 1920s. The plot is a little like DAY OF THE DEAD with dinosaurs instead of zombies, and most of it is padded with talking in cars and in the woods.

we have a problem larger than any of these dinosaurs.

[PNWReview · 1/10 · 15 February 2022]

The problems are large enough that I would need a whole book to display my frustrations. I'll make it simple. Bad acting, poor CGI, terrible story. People always use terms like "hallmark" or "Syfy" movie to reference tv movies. While you would think this would fall into the latter it does not. Even Syfy would say no. Sharknado is so bad it's good. This is so bad it's just bad.

A train wreck

[eddietude-1 · 9/10 · 30 June 2017]

Its so bad, it's actually entertaining.

The acting is atrocious, which ins't helped by the inanely ridiculous dialogue.

I can forgive the hysterically poor CGI, but there's no excuse for using BAD ACTORS. There are great actors EVERYWHERE. Hell, some people who've done community theatre would have been better than these three.

The performances are about as wooden as they can be, and this film is a great example why directors should NOT act in their own films... Unless you're Clint Eastwood, and let's be honest. None of us are Clint Eastwood...

Decent for what it is

[info-83771 · 10/10 · 29 June 2017]

Okay, going in you know it's going to be a low budget film with plenty of amateurish aspects to it. Still, I enjoyed myself with the action/creature scenes. They are not up to Hollywood quality, but far superior to anything The Asylum has put out.

The writing is a bit on the nose for certain plot points, and overall the acting/directing needed improvement, but I give Franklin-Husser credit for trying. According to the IMDb it's their first film, so I was willing to give them a break.