Ravagers

The movie has some New Vegas and Fallout 3 vibe. You got the hero, the companions, Rivet City on a ship, some revenge pot on both the hero and the villain side. The villain got mad because the younger guy who got killed was his brother, maybe? I'm not sure, but it would make sense. That's why he cannot let it go...

The character is often annoying, but at the end he almost starting to make sense.

I liked the movie. You should watch it, if you are into the post apocalyptic genre.

What's wrong with it though?

The main character is not that likable. Characters actions often make no sense, or they speak nonsense. Maybe the acting is choppy for a main character. He doesn't appreciate his companion either, even though his companion is ready to die for him.

The gang is strange too, they are not smart like Negan's group, they so things the dumb and unnecessary violent way.

The ship-town's leader is the smartest in the whole movie, probably. He was just made a mistake at the end. New peoples showed up, yet he didn't tripled the security forces of the ship.

This movie could be a real classic with a better script, better main character and better ending.

Don't get me wrong, it's an alright movie, has it's moments, it just could be way better. Let's say this movie is a missed opportunity.

Columbia Pictures barely released this end-of-the-world movie, understandably so. It's an extremely cheap movie, using abandoned industrial sections to depict the burnt-out and rusting cities, but mostly shooting on bland Alabama countryside during the off-season. Some locations are even used more than once, sometimes shooting at different angles, but also cutting long scenes into pieces. I got a kick out of how the ravager gang's long march through the countryside through the first third of the movie was obviously originally one five-minute walk through the same rock quarry!

Speaking of editing, that's what the movie suffers a bad case of. We never find out exactly what happened to screw up the earth so bad, we don't know the relationship of the guy Harris kills near the beginning of the movie to James' gang leader character (A brother? Gay lover? A good friend?), and there are garbled moments like the night siege at the abandoned house where what exactly happened to Carney's character is never made clear - especially since he was well-armed and doing well on his own before the movie cuts to an outside shot of the house, then to Harris and Turkel far away! (Well, I admit we DO find out... eventually.) Not to mention how the background of Harris' character and his relationship to the various tribes/gangs in the area seems especially unclear.

But what really kills the movie is how utterly boring it is, with little action, but also scenes that serve no real purpose, like how Seymour Cassel's character is introduced before suddenly being removed. Certainly, seeing people like Richard Harris, Art Carney, and Ernest Borgnine in an end-of-the-world movie is lightly amusing for a few minutes, especially when you see them shooting or beating the crap out of people with the vigor of people half their age! But even that gets old fast. To save you from falling asleep, should you decide to see this movie, think about this: Columbia advertised this 1979 movie taking place in 1991. Yet Harris' character at several points indicates that the whatever-disaster took place when he was a boy. If you figure that one out, let me know!

Apparently there are good reasons for this film's obscurity status as well as for the low rating on this wondrous website. Richard Harris doesn't nearly whoop as much butt as I expected in this overall dull and completely unmemorable post-apocalyptic Sci-Fi feature from the late 70's. The one strong point this movie benefices from (set pieces) isn't nearly enough to overlook the massive amount of weaknesses (lack of action, miscast players, no script…), but it has to be said the location spotters and set piece designers pulled off an exquisite job. The story may be non-existent and sadly ruining all its potential, at least all the exteriors look very depressing and the scenery appears to genuinely have lived through a nuclear holocaust. The story, as said, is mundane and hardly worth wasting words on. Falk (Harris) and his wife are two of the last few civilized people left in the world, all the rest is either extinct or joined Ravagers clans. When a gang viciously kills his wife (of screen even, damned!), Falk flees towards … nowhere. On his journey chased by the same scum that killed his wife, Falk encounters an army sergeant who went a little mad due to the loneliness, a community of cave people and the new & highly enlightened leader of mankind Rann. "Ravagers" had copious possibilities and could have become a great film, but nothing justifies the script boredom! Falk doesn't even want to avenge the death of his wife? Bah! There may be some famous names in this American production, but without hesitating I prefer the anonymous but violence & spectacle-packed Italian exploitation efforts instead.

Based on an excellent book called Path To Savagery by Robert Edmond Alter and then butchered beyond recognition in typical Hollywood fashion, Ravagers is a lack-luster film pretty much from start to finish. Unconvincing matte paintings of a destroyed city starts things off and before you know it we are introduced to a forlorn Richard Harris with hang-dog face and soon-to-be-killed wife. After being sniffed out by scruffy "ravagers"and suffering loss of said wife Harris (even more mopey)takes to the road. His journey is not conducted with any sense of urgency but is marked by some striking scenery. The rocket graveyard is particularly effective. So is the ship used as a hang-out for Ernie Borgnine and his crew of authoritarian head-busters or whatever the hell they were supposed to represent. Judging by the names in the cast it is obvious that a fair amount of money was spent on the project. But the film lacks excitement. The pace drags.Richard Harris gives a bad performance. The story meanders. It is all very vague. Fans hoping for another post-apocalyptic adventure like 1975's The Ultimate Warrior will be disappointed. Ravagers is rather flat and dull. What interest it does hold owes to its 70s period flavor.

I recently viewed The Ravagers (1979) on Tubi. The plot unfolds in a post-apocalyptic society, where communities form amidst the chaos, and others aim to ravage them. We follow an older man and his female companion on a quest for a rumored oasis, facing the constant threat of ravagers.

Directed by Richard Compton (Angels Die Hard) and featuring Ernest Borgnine (Marty), Richard Harris (Unforgiven), Ann Turkel (Humanoids from the Deep), Anthony James (Unforgiven), and Alana Stewart (Delivered).

The film effectively establishes the circumstances with well-chosen settings, attire, and props, immersing viewers in the characters' challenges. However, there's a notable lack of significant events until the very end. The focus on survival and dialogue feels prolonged, with the boat segments at the end being a highlight. The boat's atmosphere is well-crafted, and though the Ravagers could have been better portrayed, the final shootout is excellently executed.

In conclusion, while the film has a promising premise and characters, the scarcity of action sequences prevents it from standing out in the genre. I would give it a 5/10 and recommend watching it once.