Reviews & Ratings for
Revolt of the Zombies More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Index

33 reviews in total

---

14 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
"Buna, we're learning to be ruthless", 7 September 2005
Author: JoeytheBrit from www.moviemoviesite.com

The reputation suffered by this cheap 30s horror flick would suggest that it belongs somewhere down there in Cinema's Hall of Shame, but it isn't actually anywhere near as bad as that reputation suggests. That doesn't mean it's particularly good, but it isn't spectacularly, Ed-Woodishly, Santa-Claus-Conquers-the-Martians-ishly *bad*.

An impossibly young Dean Jagger plays tame Armand Louque, a reserved young man on an expedition to find the source of a unit of zombies who fought the French forces on the Austrian border in WW1. Louque's fiancé, Claire (Dorothy Duval) comes along for the ride, as does old war comrade Clifford Grayson (Robert Noland). Grayson is the complete antithesis of Louque: an extrovert who believes that a person should satisfy their own desires no matter what the cost to others. Of course, Grayson's desires are fired by the comely (and willing) Dorothy – which is a bad thing for the pair of them when Louque discovers how to control people's minds and turn them into zombies…

The pace of this film is extremely slow. At times it seems to forget it is a horror film and gets absorbed in the ménage-a-trois that develops between the three protagonists. And yet, paradoxically, some aspects zip along at breakneck pace (unlike the 'zombies' who saunter around like Sunday afternoon shoppers at your local garden centre). No sooner does the hapless Louque find himself engaged to Dorothy than, two scenes later, he finds himself unceremoniously dumped – a fact that makes it a little difficult to sympathise with the lovers when the worm turns. Although, as I mentioned, the pace is slow, it isn't any slower than many other films of its era. Another reviewer mentioned Bela Lugosi's Dracula, which is a perfect comparison. Dracula is slow, the acting is stagy ( and camp) but most people consider it to be a classic. 'Horror' movies from that era paid a lot more attention to character development than they do today, and it's unrealistic to expect anything like the stalk-and-slash rituals of the modern-day genre. The film is poor in many respects; much of the acting is third-rate – although Jagger, while not the finished article, displays a pleasing talent – and editing and continuity are particularly slapdash at times. But it seems fairly clear that Halperin has made an attempt to deliver a decent story and to involve the viewer with the plight of the main characters while operating within the constraints of a minuscule budget. And there are a couple of effective moments: an early scene, in which we see an advancing 'army' (about four men to be honest) of zombies in the WW1 trenches is well done, and it's a shame Halperin didn't concentrate on this aspect of the story – had he done so he would have beaten the first horror movies (to my knowledge) to be set in the Trenches by some sixty years. There are also a couple of good montage sequences, played out under the piercing stare of Bela Lugosi's eyes, which were stolen from Halperin's earlier zombie flick, White Zombie.

This is no classic, but, judged against the standards of its day, it's no turkey either, and will appeal to fans of vintage horror

---

12 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Plod Plod Plod..., 24 July 2005

Author: junk-monkey (liam@merriol.freeserve.co.uk) from Highlands of Scotland

"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.

---

11 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
"You have the secret of the zombies, let me have it.", 6 July 2005

Author: classicsoncall from United States

Though the title includes the word "zombies", this film is not what you'd expect from a movie made today, though for 1936 the concept is played out about as well as would probably be expected. Dean Jagger portrays Armand Louque, an officer in the French Army of World War I, who has stumbled upon an ancient tale of soldiers turned into automatons, or "zombies", who are impervious in battle and may hold the key to victory in the war, though on whose side is not certain. At first he has trouble convincing his superiors of this phenomenon, but eventually French General Duval (George Cleveland) orders a non military expedition into the ancient Cambodian city of Angkor to find the secret of the zombies and destroy it.

The story is played out against the backdrop of a love triangle involving Louque, Duval's daughter Claire (Dorothy Stone), and Clifford Grayson (Robert Noland), all a part of the expedition. When Louque laments over his lack of forcefulness and resolve, Grayson offers him advice to go after what he wants in life with all his power. That advice begins to transform Louque, particularly after he's successful in obtaining a stone tablet resembling a photo from the ancient city. Having followed a temple priest into a swamp, Louque now appears to hold the secret he had been seeking, though it's not made clear how he has instantaneously been able to command the power of "zombiefication". All it takes is placing his right fist to the forehead simulating a third eye, and casting his thoughts out to those he wishes to control. This comes in handy for winning back his girl, and taking Grayson's early advice as he comments to his servant, "Buna, we're learning to be ruthless".

Fans of early "B" horror flicks will recognize the use of Bela Lugosi's signature eye stare, plucked from the 1932 film "White Zombie", also from director Victor Halperin. Of the two movies, "White Zombie" is preferably superior, both in story content and in it's depiction of the undead, where the zombies have a more sinister appearance and are more threatening. In "Revolt", the zombies are enemy soldiers with a glazed over look that merely react to their mentor's commands. In fact, the actual revolt of the title occurs only when Louque releases the soldiers from his mental command in deference to his love for Claire; they overrun his compound and kill him in the process.

Not to be too harsh on the film, it plays out decently within the parameters of it's story outline, but if you're thinking "zombies!!!" within the traditional context, you'll probably be disappointed. If you want to sample an early treatment of the subject, the aforementioned "White Zombie" with Bela Lugosi is the way to go.

---

11 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Keep It In Context... This Was Probably Cool Stuff in 1936!, 3 July 2005

Author: hokeybutt from Milwaukee, Wisconsin

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...

---

18 out of 28 people found the following review useful:
Better than what everyone says!, 30 December 2003

Author: the_mysteriousx

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.

---

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Dean Jagger has a Zombie Hairpiece, 22 October 2006

Author: verbusen from Fahaheel, Kuwait

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

OK maybe thats Dean's real hair, but thats about the coolest (?) thing in this middle of the road 30's horror flick. The plot has been described a thousand times here as well as talking about Lugosi's eyes, so lets move on. What made a movie made then cool to watch now was stuff like Tesla coils and lots of test tubes, and if your going to do a zombie flick zombies that look scary. Actually if they had done this right the zombies here would have been scarier than normal zombies because these zombies can mix in well with the population. Imagine if Dean had taken his army of zombies to England and taken over the palace? That would have been really cool! But no Dean has to forfeit his power to show his love to a chick who screwed him over earlier in the flick so I'm like "screw that Dean, kill her, take the zombie army to England, and take over the palace!". Anyway, what the hell did he see in her, she was kind of average at best, no Fay Wray thats for sure, more like Martha Reye. My input on the settings, was it just me or did that native dancing girl look totally non oriental and more like a Brooklyn girl with that hook nose? She danced pretty good though, just amazes me that they couldn't get an oriental woman to do that part, maybe take one of the dancers from the Laurel and Hardy flick Sons Of The Desert when they are dancing to Honolulu Baby, remember that one? Those were some hotties, hot cha cha! I give this lame zombie flick a 5 of 10, it had some real promise. Mask of Fu Manchu blows it away.

---

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Much Potential, But Halperin Drops the Ball, 3 October 2006

Author: gavin6942 from United States

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.

---

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Recommended only for the zombie film historical completist. If you want to see voodoo zombies, watch "White Zombie" or "I Walked with a Zombie" instead., 1 August 2006

Author: Death_to_Pan_and_Scan from United States

"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.

---

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Second act turn toward romance hobbles what should have been a horror classic, 15 January 2006

Author: dbborroughs from Glen Cove, New York

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.

---

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
wow, was this bad, 5 May 2006

Author: jerm1944 from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Seriously, I absolutely love these old movies and their simplicity but I just watched this for the first time last night and it easily slotted itself into my bottom five of all time. Was this supposed to be about the love story or the zombies??? This movie was so bad that after it mercifully ended all I could do is laugh at how ridiculously bad it really was. Thankfully I'm too anal to turn a movie off without seeing the entire thing or I wouldn't be able to brag about watching this all the way through in one sitting! I like to think something positive can be said about anything in life so in keeping with that theory I will acknowledge this film's most positive asset, it was very short for a full length film.

---

---

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	External reviews	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user reviews	Your vote history