Doomed

First things first: I bought this at a car boot sale for 50p so I'm going easy on it. Plus I bought it because I knew it would be terrible. It just wasn't as terrible as I hoped it'd be.

Story is: convicts on an island as part of a game show, split into team and being hunted by really bad army zombie types. You know the drill. These are fast zombies but for some reason is doesn't take much to kill them off.

There's not much else to the story. Folk die. Folks double cross each other. This one isn't too slow on the action however and I cut it a lot of slack for not being boring or too long (It's only 76mins). The game show angle is good but not executed as well as, say, the film Slashers (picked that one up at the same car boot sale!).

What really does this film in is a severe lack of gore. It's a zombie film, for f*ck's sake! The film has plenty of instances where there could be gut munching, but pulls away every single time. Not good. No nudity either, so don't expect anything there.

If you like very low budget films (like me) then it's worth a watch. We've had much more terrible films foisted on us. If it had some bite to it to, I would have rated it much higher.

my girlfriend bought it from Tesco fro a pound and what monstrously bad film it is. i think i could make a better film with a budget of 50p, i mean come on you can See down the barrel of the sawed off shotgun and can see the person holding it at the other end and the Katana sword is under the "super zombie's" arm towards the film.

I've seen better acting in a child's nativity play, the same group of people are used for every zombie attack scene, and even then their wearing Halloween masks.

but I'm glad i got it because i can truly say i have seen the worst film in cinema history.

I am not a "Survivor" fan. I find all those game boring. But, come up with a "Survivor" episode where you have to escape a bunch of zombies to win the prize, and I'll be glued to the set.

Forget the story here, what there is of it has so many holes it looks like Swiss cheese, and the dialog is rehashed from other low budget films.

In fact, halfway through a hot girl called looking for a shoulder to cry on and I muted the sound and read the subtitles while we talked. I guess everyone else was out partying, and I was the only one left. I didn't miss a thing. That's how heavy this was.

Bottom line, the only person in this film with any experience was Mary Christina Brown. But the fact that there was no nudity, and no gore made this one zombie film to pass on - even if you see it free.

Every so often lucky stars align in the making of a movie.

In this case, the lucky stars of crappy writing, cliché dialogue, ham acting, cheap special effects, and inept direction align to produce that all-too-common of beasts: a movie which can be released directly to the 99 cent bin. It's overpriced at that.

The thoughtful comments of other IMDb members have been spot on, and I wish I'd taken them seriously before wasting my time with this movie.

"Doomed" has a few redeeming values; there's some nice action choreography, and the visual cutting and the music aren't too bad. Not surprising, since they've been scalped from TV shows like 'Survivor'.

Still, there ought to be a law that a 'horror movie' should at one time or another actually try to _scare_ the audience. If anyone tried here, they failed miserably. The zombies aren't scary, and the characters are so one-dimensional that you don't care whether they live or die. This is a common problem with bad horror films.

The 'kicker', which is stolen wholesale from Lucio Fulci's "Zombie 2", is so predictable that you find yourself counting seconds until it happens. If they'd had the cones to steal more from Fulci, this movie might have been watchable.

The main problem this film faces is indecision about what kind of movie it wants to be, and then failing at each turn. 'Survivor' spoof? Not funny enough. Zombie horror? Not gory enough. Biting social commentary on the reality show industry? Not smart enough. Action flick? Sorry. Not even Jean-Claude Van Damme (whose acting skills I came to appreciate while watching this) could have helped this.

The 'computer game' analogy perpetrated on the audience adds the finishing kill shot to this miserable effort; instead of enriching the experience, it annoys the hell out of the viewer. Getting a score for each body blow or kill is only interesting if you're in control of the game and the score is yours. Otherwise, it's disturbing visual clutter.

While not the worst horror film I've seen recently (that honor might befall "House of the Dead", a *real* turkey), it is plenty awful. Zombie horror fans have nothing to get out of this one.

Look for the leading actors behind the counter of your local Wendy's. And, if you should step over the writer lying in some gutter in Your Town, U.S.A, give him a kick for me. He should have been eaten by Zombies.

I bought this on DVD from Tesco for £1, I'd never heard of it and I was fooled because it said in the tradition of 28 Days Later. Well, it certainly was not in the tradition of 28 Days Later, in that, 28 Days Later is a brilliant film, well acted, good script and excellent special effects, whereas this film has none of those attributes.

I'm still glad I bought this DVD as I didn't know they still made films that were this bad, and when I say bad, it was so bad, it's inspired me to write my first ever review on IMDb. I can honestly say it is one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life.

Where do I start? The acting is more wooden than Pinocchio, I mean I know it's a low budget film with a very poor script, but you'd think they could at least find one member of cast who could act. The special effects are really awful, I cannot think of a film in recent times with such bad special effects, come to think of it, I can't even think of a film since Plan 9 from Outer Space with such unconvincing effects, but at least that film was funny in its own way.

The background music in this film is particularly annoying, as are the computer generated effects, which look like they may have been produced on an old Atari. The plot is dumb beyond belief.

The only fascinating thing about this film is to know what kind of people made it in the first place? What on Earth possessed someone to make such a bad film, let alone distribute it? I can only assume it was made by someone with a bit of money (though evidently not that much) who wanted to be a movie maker. I think next time, lend a camcorder to some kids at the local comprehensive school, give them £200 and ask them to come back in a week, I'm sure they'd produce something better than this truly awful film. A real stinker!