User reviews

This film is something like a sequel of "White Zombie", since it is made by the same man (Halperin) and features zombies. Halperin, the George A. Romero of his day, fails to deliver with this one, though.

We have a man who can control the minds of people in Cambodia, and a search to destroy the source of his power so the zombies can be sent free. Also, a love interest for the evil man.

Where this film really excels is in the imagery. The Cambodian temples and dancers are very nice and the zombie look very powerful in their large numbers. Unfortunately, we don't really get to see much of the zombies in action and the love story seems to play a much too large role for a horror film (though this has a valid plot reason later on).

I would have loved to see some 1930s zombies attack helpless city folk, but this film just did not deliver. And no strong villain (like Bela Lugosi) was waiting to do battle against our heroes. And the use of Lugosi's eyes? A nice effect, but misleading as he is never in the film... why not recreate this with the new actor's eyes? Overall, a film that could be a great one with a little script re-working and could someday be a powerful remake (especially if they keep it in the same post-war time frame). Heck, if they can fix up "The Hills Have Eyes" then this film has hope.

REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES (2 outta 5 stars) No, this is not a long-lost ancestor to the classic George A. Romero zombie flicks. This is a low-budget potboiler from 1936 that probably seemed very cool to audiences of the time... but seems awfully routine these days. There is actually a pretty good scene at the start of a soldier firing off his pistol into a horde of approaching zombie soldiers... and a close-up of bullets entering the bare chest of one of them. The effect looks hopelessly fake these days but in 1936 I'm sure it had audiences gasping. The story concerns the search for the secret of mind control... ostensibly to create an unstoppable zombie army... but later as a means for one character to win the woman he loves. The movie is barely an hour long but moves at a snail's pace so it seems feature-length, believe me! There really isn't much to recommend it... you may get some amusement from the faked studio shots of the star "wading" through a "swamp". The ending is interesting... so I'd say the movie is worth seeing at least once. More than likely you will see it as an extra feature on some cheap "4 movies on 1 DVD" compilation at Wal-Mart for five bucks. Hey, it's well worth the money...

"This might mean the end of the white race!" gasps a general as a dozen Native Zombies wander around the battlefields of Europe during the "Great War". An expedition sets out tor the long-lost, back-projected city of Kennif-Angor to stop this sort of thing and keep the battlefields clear for decent honest white people to slaughter each other by the tens of thousands.

It is a bit hard to tell when people are zombies or not in this film as the acting is so wooden. Even by 1936 standards the acting in this film is bad. From a previous decade. It looks like it came out of a correspondence school text book on 'How to Act'

------------- Chapter Three: Emotions -------------

"How to express fear and loathing (Female) Clench both fists. Place fist of one hand on heart. Open mouth as it to scream. Place other fist, palm out, against mouth. Hold pose for 10 seconds longer than is comfortable then quickly turn head 90 degrees away from direction of loathed object and sob".

"How to have difficult, heavily emotionally charged scene with ex-fiancé explaining your love for someone else. Do NOT make eye contact. Do not move. Do not show any emotion. Do not move your eyes too much as you read your lines off the studio wall."

To give us a respite from the leaden acting the director cunningly cuts in long pauses where nothing much happens except that film keeps running through the projectors. Thus 35 minute's worth of story is padded out to 60ish minutes.

The revolt of the zombies when it comes is so slow! Released from mental bondage the armies of ex-zombiefied minions turn on their former master by ambling slowly up hill and then sort of stabbing a door a bit and smashing a window. "Yea... let's... oh, I dunnno yeah. Let's get him grrr. Frankenstein must be destroyed - manana." (though I have just found a bit of hidden symbolism. Jagger is shot by a Native as some sort of ironic counterpoint to all the Natives being shot by the Germans at the start of the flick. see, even downtrodden Natives don't want the end of the White Race!) The chase (it you can call it that) through the back-projected swamp is hilarious and worth the admission price alone. Roy D'Arcy has a hell of a time camping it up, but is totally wasted, as Col. Mazovia.

There is one interesting moment in this film. A nice little montage of the zombied natives and white cast members falling under the evil eyes spell. face after face, cross-fade into one another. It works, though there is a strange little blip in the middle of each close up like a frame has been cut. I guess these must be Neg Cutters' frames between the fades.

Best watched with friends and in a silly mood.

The plot of the film has a Cambodian priest coming to aid the French during World War One. He is willing to use his powers to make an army of zombies to help the French win the war. When a successful demonstration frightens the French as much as the enemy the priest is locked up to save mankind from his power. While confined the priest is killed by someone looking to learn the secret. The French are frightened that someone else might learn the secret of zombies and sends an expedition to Cambodia to find any trace of the secret so it can be safeguarded. Unfortunately one of the men sent on the expedition discovers the secret just as his love life goes south and he begins to put his new found power to a dark purpose.

If that sounds exciting you might want to try this clunky little film, though be warned it turns dull for the middle stretch. Starting with a bang this movie hooks you with the premise of a zombie army fighting in the trenches of the western front, and then crashes into a ditch as the plot shifts to Cambodia and becomes, for a good chunk of its running time, a soapy love story. Its not terrible but but doesn't belong in a horror movie. If you cut the love story out you'd have a great 30 minute horror film. The romance, while a motivating factor for what follows, ends up being more filler than vital plot material.

Not the all time turkey that some people have labeled it, this is a movie that has a great start and great end but clunky middle. If you can get past that middle you'll probably find yourself liking this movie, if not you're in for a long night at the movies.

Not a bad idea for a film,, but it didn't totally work out that way in the film.. A Cambodian Priest decides he's going to help the French during World War 1. He mission is to take men and make them into zombies. not a bad idea if you're going to fight a war, you would probably win with some cool zombies ,, army of the dead on you're side. Well things get out of hand and the secret is stolen, or lost, and now it has to be found before someone can use the secret for a much darker purpose. I thought that this picture had a real good chance of being very good,, but the love story in the middle,, kinda killed it for me,, the beginning was good,, ending was nice,, but the middle,, well I could have seriously done without it.

Well, first off, if you're checking out Revolt of the Zombies as some very early Night of the Living Dead (1968)-type film, forget it. This is about "zombies" in a more psychological sense, where that term merely denotes someone who is not in control of their will, but who must instead follow the will of another. The "zombies" here, as little as they are in the film, are largely metaphors for subservience to the state or authority in general, as in wartime. It is quite a stretch to call this a horror film.

The film is set during World War I. A "French Cambodian" contingent had heard strange stories about zombification--supposedly Angkor Wat was built by utilizing zombies--and there are tales of zombie armies easily overcoming foes. Armand Louque (Dean Jagger) brings back a priest who supposedly knows the secret of zombification, but he won't talk. So Louque and an international military contingent head to Angkor Wat on an archaeological expedition designed to discover the secret of zombification and destroy the information before zombies have a chance to "wipe out the white race".

One of the odd things about Revolt of the Zombies is that it seems like maybe writer/director Victor Halperin decided to change his game plan while shooting the script. The film begins as if it will explore the zombie/military metaphor, and maybe even have adventure elements, but after about 15 minutes, it changes gears and becomes more of a love triangle story.

Halperin does stick with a subtext about will and power (and a Nietzschean "will to power"). The film is interesting on that level, but the script and the editing are very choppy. This is yet another older film for which I wouldn't be surprised if there is missing footage, especially since some scenes even fade or cut while a character is uttering dialogue.

Amidst the contrived romance story, Halperin tries to keep referring to the zombie thread, but little of the zombie material makes much sense. Louque discovers the secret of zombification, but it doesn't mean much to the viewer. The mechanics of the zombie material are vague and confusing—Halperin even resorts to using superimposed footage of Bela Lugosi's googly-eyes from his 1932 film, White Zombie, but never explains what it has to do with anything. There are big gaps in the plot, including the love story. Promising, interesting characters from early reels disappear for long periods of time. One potential villain is disposed of unceremoniously before he gets to do much.

If you're a big fan of old, creaky B movies, Revolt of the Zombies may be worth watching at least once--the acting isn't all that bad, and if you've got a good imagination, you can piece together an interesting story in your mind to fill in all of the gaps. But this is the second time I've seen the film, with the first only being about five years ago, and I could barely recall anything about it--so it's not exactly memorable.

Victor Halperin the director was already guilty of WHITE ZOMBIE, TORTURE SHIP and SUPERNATURAL, amazing horror films for this thirties period. I am myself amazed when watching this one, which brings a brilliant idea of plot concerning the zombies, thirty two years before George A Romero's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, which will create a new era in zombies genre horror films. Back to this one, yes, it is really impressive and not that old fashioned, even in 2023. It was not the first though to speak of zombies, Jean Yarbrough also gave us KING OF THE ZOMBIES, that I will comment in a few minutes. Gems to discover or watch again. Dean Jagger's character is pretty surprising too, interesting.

Ever since the cinema-loving universe made acquaintance with a guy named George A. Romero, the word "zombie" automatically gets associated with blood-soaked horror images and non-stop acting sequences. It's safe to say that his "Night of the Living Dead" formed the zombie movie as we know it now. Yet, in the earliest years of cinema, the premise of reanimated corpses was merely used in slow, nearly action-less psychological thrillers. Jacques Tourneur's "I walked with a Zombie" is a perfect example and so is "White Zombie", starring Bela Lugosi. This "Revolt of the Zombies" could have been another example but unfortunately it's a failure over the entire line and easily one of the most tedious movies I ever saw. Dreadful acting, a very poorly written screenplay and a complete lack of atmosphere and tension! The film only lasts 65 minutes and yet the first half hour is entirely wasted on stupid love-story intrigues and unexciting monologues. The setting in the legendary Cambodian city of Angkor surely could have resulted in a more compelling story but all we ever see are interior shots. The lead actress (Dorothy Stone, textbook blonde with curly hair and an ugly nose) irritated me enormously and I kept hoping a ravenous undead would suddenly appear out of nowhere to devour her. Unlucky again…. If you manage to struggle yourself through 60 soporific minutes, you'll be rewarded with a fairly decent finale. Still, this is far too little to give this film a positive rating, let alone a recommendation. Avoid! This is the type of movie you should only see in case you already saw everything else.

"Revolt of the Zombies" proves that having the same director revamp and recycle an idea doesn't necessarily make lightning strike twice.

The Halperin brothers, responsible for the horror classic "White Zombie", made this trite piece of garbage a mere few years later to cash in on its popularity and even recycled close-ups of Lugosi's eyes from that previous film. There was a court battle with the "White Zombie" film's rights owners, who didn't want the Halperins to be able to use the word 'zombie' in this title. That word was the only thing that could help this film, because, as everyone knows, bad films can make much more money simply by having the word 'Zombie' appear in the title. Knowing what Victor Halperin was capable of a few years before only makes this uninteresting film more insulting. It seems he never directed another horror film after this debacle. The zombies here seem not to be true walking dead, but simply hypnotism victims.

Wanna create a mind-controlled army of zombies? Be ready to crack a few eggs, including your own.

THE LAME PLOT: Man falls in love with scheming woman who plays with his heart and becomes engaged to him only to make his friend, whom she loves, jealous. This sends man into a spiral of madness in which he tries using zombie mind-control techniques to change things to his advantage in an attempt to win over a woman who isn't worth spit.

This includes one of the most blatantly obvious plot developments I've ever seen. You'd have to be blind or stupid not to see the ending coming. The acting isn't even good. This movie makes the racially insensitive "King of the Zombies" (which appeared on the same double bill DVD I bought) seems like an atmospheric horror masterpiece by comparison and reminds us that not every black and white film is a classic. It makes the atomic age sci-fi alien zombie cheese fest "Invisible Invaders" seem like a serious drama. This is one big ball of cheese so ridiculously melodramatic it could probably make many a Korean film fan twitch (South Korean films are often known for their use of melodrama). The credits list the ironically named company Favorite Films. I'm not sure whose favorite film this would be, but they're obviously an idiot.

Not recommended for fans of: zombies, romance, or classic films.

I am a lover of great classic horror movies and I think that this is one of the best. It is under rated but still you should make the effort to find this film and watch it.

While this film certainly does possess the stench of a bad film, it's surprisingly watchable on several levels. First, for old movie fans, it's interesting to see the leading role played by Dean Jagger (no relation to Mick). While Jagger later went on to a very respectable role as a supporting actor (even garnering the Oscar in this category for 12 O'CLOCK HIGH), here his performance is truly unique since he actually has a full head of hair (I never saw him this way before) and because he was by far the worst actor in the film. This film just goes to show that if an actor cannot act in his earlier films doesn't mean he can't eventually learn to be a great actor. Another good example of this phenomenon is Paul Newman, whose first movie (THE SILVER CHALICE) is considered one of the worst films of the 1950s.

A second reason to watch the film is the shear cheesiness of it all. The writing is bad, the acting is bad and the special effects are bad. For example, when Jagger and an unnamed Cambodian are wading through the water, it's obvious they are really just walking in place and the background is poorly projected behind them. Plus, once they leave the water, their costumes are 100% dry!!! Horrid continuity and mindlessly bad dialog abounds throughout the film--so much so that it's hard to imagine why they didn't ask Bela Lugosi or George Zucco to star in the film--since both of them starred in many grade-z horror films. In many ways, this would be a perfect example for a film class on how NOT to make a film.

So, while giving it a 3 is probably a bit over-generous, it's fun to laugh at and short so it's worth a look for bad film fans.

The title makes modern viewers think of waves of Romero-esque flesh-eating zombies--that's not what it meant then and, in any case, the title was probably thought up by some exec on the spot. Judge it for what it is (rather than what you thought/hoped it would be) and you get a pretty nifty, if creaky, 30s feature about the potential of an invincible army. It has none of the innovation of White Zombie. It feels very like a serial made into a movie. But it's not horrible, and it actually has some very good ideas.

Before the release of George Romero's genre-defining Night of the Living Dead, zombies were relatively well-behaved creatures. They certainly had much better table-manners in the old days. But social etiquette aside what thrills did these early zombies offer to the movie-going public? Judging by this film, a limited supply.

The story is about an expedition to Cambodia, whose purpose is to find and destroy the secret of zombiefication. One of the party discovers the secrets on his own and sets about building his zombie army.

This film is basically a love triangle with zombies. But seeing as this is a 30's movie, the said zombies are more like somnambulists than the flesh-eating variety we think of today. They seem to respond to mind-control, rather than insatiable appetites. And, quite frankly, the 'revolt' is somewhat underwhelming. The whole thing is a little lacking but the exotic setting does add something worthwhile to proceedings. The horror side of things is unfortunately marginalised in favour of romantic melodrama that doesn't really work all that well seeing as none of the participants are very likable. It seems unlikely that this could've provided much entertainment even 70 years ago. See it if you have to see everything with 'zombie' in the title but otherwise this is one for those with a taste for 30's poverty row flicks.

Made by the producing / directing team of Edward and Victor Halperin, who'd previously made the landmark horror film "White Zombie", this follow-up (rather than sequel) concerns an expedition into the heart of Cambodia to find and destroy the process that can create zombies. One would think that an interested party would desire the process so that they could contrive a zombie army, but one weak individual, Armand Louque (Dean Jagger) just wants to be with the woman he loves (Dorothy Stone). She desires another man, Clifford Grayson (Robert Noland).

"Revolt of the Zombies" is a lot less interesting than its predecessor. "White Zombie" was far more atmospheric and stylish. This is a plodding affair that moves much too slowly for a film that only runs 63 minutes long in the first place. The love triangle takes up too much of the run time, and horror elements are practically non-existent. There ARE some effective visuals, to be sure, but the story gets bogged down in talk too often. Only the sequence in which Armand noses around on his own has any real juice. Even the finale is much less ethereal than the finish of the first film. Fans of "White Zombie" may appreciate the frequent use of the haunting image of Bela Lugosis' eyes, which figured so prominently in that feature. And there is one amusing shot in which we see bullets penetrate a zombie chest, in the days before squibs were commonplace.

The performances are nothing special, for the most part. Roy D'Arcy IS an entertainingly malevolent antagonist, but Jagger is kind of dull. The presence of a villain as intense and charismatic as Lugosi is sorely missed. Teru Shimada ("You Only Live Twice") earns some sympathy as the victimized Buna.

Check out this movie if you must, but you're better off just revisiting "White Zombie" instead.

Four out of 10.

This quasi-supernatural story begins during First World War . On the Franco-Austrian Frontier during WWI , an oriental priest , chaplain of a French colonial regiment, is condemned to life imprisonment because he possesses the power of turning men into zombies . In order to solve the weird events , an expedition is prepared to find out the sinister secret . In Cambodia in 1937 Count Mazovia (Roy D'Arcy) finds out part of an incantation and formula to control men's minds and become them in to zombies . While on an expedition in Cambodia and at the temple of ¨Angkor Wat¨ the stubborn archeologist Armand Louque (Dean Jagger) discovers the whole incantation one evening . Meantime , Armand learns his lost girlfriend Claire Duval (Dorothy Stone) has thrown him over for the more stable and attentive Clifford Grayson (Robert Noland), something that Armand is extremely hurt by especially since Clifford is an associate archeologist and best friend . As Armand uses a stupor-inducing potion that turns Cambodian troops into dull-eyes slaves to control the entire archeologist expedition. As he rules an army of Zombies who execute every its eerie wishes . He confronts Claire with his plans by atteempting to convince her , as she leaves Grayson . Later on , Armand to release his power from those he has mentally imprisoned . Zombies--- Not dead, not alive!. Weirdest love story in 2000 years !

Following the unexpected hit of their independently produced ¨White Zombie¨ 1932 , brothers Edward and Victor Halperin strove to continue on his victory and found themselves making another zombie movie in 1936 : Revolt of the Zombies . Lacking the style and imagination of their earlier effort . Today is considered to be a cult movie in spite of being a little ridiculous , outdated and slow moving . The film is based on the novel with title ¨The magic island¨ and is set in Cambodia and deals upon an expedition in which Armand takes steps to put the archeologists under his control. It benefits deeply from being set in the famous temple of Angkor Wat , though filmed in studio. The movie was shot for a few weeks with low budget and short runtime (seventy five minutes) and was an authentic ¨sleeper¨. The picture has sinister scenarios and spooky images what are adding fascination into of gloomy and lugubrious atmosphere . Dean Jagger plays Armand who uses some magic incense to control the minds of his servant and others , giving a passable interpretation with his mesmerizing eyes and gestures . He's accompanied by a mostly unknown cast such as : Dorothy Stone , Roy D'Arcy , Robert Noland , George Cleveland , among others.

Victor Halperin's White Zombie and Revolt of the Zombies films had influence in other subsequent movies, such as : ¨Plague of Zombies¨(John Gilling) and ¨Night of living dead¨(George A Romero )¨. The motion picture was regularly directed by Victor Halperin. He was a skill craftsman who wrote and directed some films , usually along with his brother Edward Halperin and directing all kinds of genres with penchant for terror , such as : Girls' Town , Buried Alive , Torture Ship , Nation Aflame , Racing Blood , I conquer the Sea! , Supernatural , Ex-Flame , In Borrowed Plumes , The Unknown Lover , Party Girl , among others . Revolt of the Zombies(1936) rating : 5/10 . For curiosity seekers only .

REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES concerns the use of mesmerism / telepathy / hocus-pocus to create an army of unflinching, "zombie" super-soldiers. It seems a certain Cambodian priest is using his mystical mind powers to control his robotic hordes, making them a nearly unstoppable force. When the nefarious General Mazovia (Roy D'Arcy) murders the priest, he plans to use the automatons to fulfill his own wicked agenda.

In the midst of this, a team is sent to uncover the secret of the zombies. A love triangle develops between three of them- Clifford Grayson, Claire Duval, and Armond Louque (Robert Noland, Dorothy Stone, and Dean Jagger). Will one of them succumb to darkness, and use the power to get what they want?

While the title suggests an action-packed horror film, those expecting big thrills will be sorely disappointed. This movie is more of a slow-building tale of jealousy, bitterness, and revenge, using Eastern occultism as a backdrop, with a few zombies making cameos toward the beginning and end.

Not a terrible film, just misleading...

Revolt of the Zombies has no redeeming features. I'm tired of people arguing that it's not that bad, and that the effects must have packed more of a punch in 1936. I suspect this isn't true: it's not like IQ's have risen sharply in the last 7 decades. The average viewer in 1936 was probably just as bored by this rubbish as the average viewer today. Why? Just try watching the first scenes, and count the pauses between things happening, the awful choice of when to cut to close-up, the slapdash editing that seems to include an extra two seconds on every shot to pad out the running time. Pay attention to the utterly redundant dialogue: "I'm going to make some tea/go outside/read my book now." "Are you?" "Yes, I am." That sort of exchange happens several times. Normally I would love that, being a HUGE fan of bad movies, but watch the listless actors mumbling their trite and tedious lines, and all desire to laugh at the movie slowly fades away. This sort of disinterested, pot-boiling time-waster is far worse than energetic, imaginative mind-blowers like Plan Nine From Outer Space or Santa Claus Conquers The Martians. Those who claim that this is "better" than those more interesting movies have a backwards idea of entertainment. This movie is not bad in the sense that your jaw hangs open in astonishment: it's bad in the sense that your eyes slowly close in boredom. Which is far worse.

Knowing how old a film is, ought to prepare the viewer for a few things, and, with those things in mind, perhaps the movie'll be more tolerable. So it was when I watched Revolt of the Zombies. The heavy reliance on tedious dialogue and corny movements should be expected, as should the primitiveness (or absence) of special effects in those days. A great deal is asked from the imagination of the onlooker - maybe too much, in this case. And the plot isn't easy to follow: Some zombiefied southeast Asian soldiers in WWI performed very admirably. Although skeptical as to why, if true, the explanation should stay out of the wrong hands, so, off goes a group to archaeologically investigate. The key to long-distance hypnosis is learned by a member of the expedition, who uses it to, among other purposes, temporarily dispense with the beau of the gal for whom he has the hots. To prove his love for her, he gives up his hold on everybody, which he shouldn't have done 'cause, once they're all unzombiefied, many want to kill him so that he'll never control them again. Below average, even with precautionary forethought. Recommended for only the extremely patient.

I finally decided to watch Victor Halperin's 1936 independent production and, contrary to what I expected influenced by what I had read, «Revolt of the Zombies» turned out to be a good movie.

The problem about film criticism today is simple: the "evaluations" you usually find on the internet are written by people who have little knowledge of content analysis, aesthetics, history, or art. And, in the case of zombie movies, they are delusions by people for whom the zombie movie began in 1968 with «Night of the Living Dead» by George A. Romero, who, ironically, when he made that film, referred to his entities as "ghouls", not zombies. For most followers of the Romero line, the zombie is a monster that eats human flesh and without clear origins, since filmmakers have not defined them effectively. Zombies made in the USA (or elsewhere!) appear by spontaneous generation.

In contrast, the traditional zombie icon, its history and legends, as reviewed in recent films such as «Zombi Child» and «Atlantique», are related to slavery, colonialism, cultural dispossession, oppression and exploitation of men and women by themselves ; and not to "zombie walks" and other nonsense that have brought the subgenre (and the moviegoers) to surfeit and indigestion. The zombies cut cane in Hait in «White Zombie»; here they are cannon fodder during war time.

In the tight script (co-written with playwright Rollo Lloyd), the story takes place in the French colony of Cambodia, during World War I. The action is triggered by an event on an Austrian war front, in which an army of indestructible Cambodian soldiers, created by a priest (also from Cambodia), was seen. The priest is soon killed with his secret, so an expedition of European military men goes in search of the secret formula to create zombies, hidden in the ruins of the city of Angkor. Against this story, a drama of seduction and deception unfolds. The tragic romantic situations play a key role in the resolution, when the man who discovers the formula has his colleagues and Cambodian troops under his will. Played by Dean Jagger in a measured performance, the man goes from a humble translator to a tyrant with a soft heart, a man betrayed by his best friend and a woman he never ceases to love.

Made with a low budget, noticeable in the interior settings, combined with some real oriental-type buildings to evoke Cambodian landscapes, the film has the freshness and shortcomings of a 1930s production: above all, the editing rhythm is as slow as in «Dracula,» «Scarface,» or «King Kong,» which modern audiences applaud because someone told them these were classic movies. No one warned them of this one, not a classic but quite a serviceable entertainment product... so, without a clue, they opt for the easy way and vilify it. I assure you that you will enjoy it if you take for what it is: a 1936 film, about domination and seduction, about control and heartbreak, which lasts just over an hour and was made with enthusiasm despite its limited funds.

No, not in any way a masterpiece, but in no way deserving of a 2.6 on the IMDb poll, this film is better than its' reputation!

I have avoided this film directly for 10 years because of its' reputation. 10 years ago I first saw White Zombie, the Halperin brothers' first zombie film, and a horror classic, and was impressed. However, I didn't get this one mostly because Lugosi wasn't in it.

Finally, after skipping this title nearly a hundred times, year after year, I finally decided to shell out the eight bucks and sit in horror of pure nonsense, and honestly it wasn't that bad. In fact, there are some redeeming qualities in this. It reminds me a bit of another good independent effort from the year before, Condemned to Live. And the acting is certainly not any worse than in White Zombie, minus, of course, the huge Lugosi charisma.

Needless to say, the Halperin brothers employed many of the same cinematic styles from their previous zombie hit. Gone, though, is the heavy music; this time less influential stock music is used. Gone also, are the split screen wipes that made some of the imagery in the previous film so memorable. But, this is still a typical-looking low budget horror from 1936. No better, but no worse.

What the problem must be is reputation. This film seems to have some undeserving bullseye on its' head because it is the follow-up to White Zombie. The truth is, another soon-to-be bankrupt studio produced this film and did as good a job on it as any other poverty row horror production up to that time.

If you look up other, EXTREMELY SIMILAR low budget horrors from the 30s, many of which I have suffered through, this one has by far the worst IMDb rating. It only proves that the weighted average is no safety against ballot stuffers - it is equally damaging when only 25% of the people vote below the weighted average and 75% is above. It feels like Bush- Gore all over again. :-) 6/10 - 2 1/2 stars.

Of the many problems with this film, the worst is continuity; and re-editing it on VHS for a college cable channel many years ago, I tried to figure out what exactly went wrong. What seems to have happened is that they actually constructed a much longer film and then chopped it down for standard theatrical viewing. How much longer? to fill in all the holes in the plot as we have it would require about three more hours of narrative and character development - especially given the fact that the film we do have is just so slow and takes itself just so seriously.

That's staggering; what could the Halperins have possibly been trying to accomplish here? Their previous film, "White Zombie", was a successful low budget attempt to duplicate the early Universal Studios monster films (The Mummy, Dracula, etc.), and as such stuck pretty close to the zombie mythology that those in North America would know from popular magazines.

Revolt of the Zombies, to the contrary, appears to have been intended as some allegory for the politics of modern war. This would not only explain the opening, and the change of Dean Jagger's character into a megalomaniac, but it also explains why the zombies don't actually do much in the film, besides stand around, look frightening, and wait for orders - they're just allegorical soldiers, not the undead cannibals we've all come to love and loathe in zombie films.

I am the equal to any in my dislike for modern war and its politics - but I think a film ought to be entertaining first, and only later, maybe, educational. And definitely - a film about zombies ought to be about zombies.

Truly one of the most bizarre films in Hollywood history, but not one I can recommend, even for historic value.