Revolt of the Zombies

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.