Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

BobforTrish In cinematic language 'sequel to' and 'follows' are frequently very loose - often ambiguous - terms. This is the case with Revolt of the Zombies which supposedly 'follows' the far superior 'White Zombie' of 1932. The tenuous connections in this case are that both films were made by the Halperin Brothers and both feature zombies. An even more tenuous connection is that the great Bela Lugosi starred in the first film whilst here only his eyes intermittently appear on screen as the zombies of the title are created.The gist of the story is that a Cambodian priest has the power to turn men into zombies, aptly demonstrated at the beginning by having them battle against the enemy in the First World War. Unfortunately the allied commanders are so appalled by the threat of zombies taking over the world that when he refuses to reveal his secrets they imprison him. After his murder an expedition is launched to Cambodia in order to find and destroy the means of zombification.The plot becomes more complicated with the development of a love triangle between our three main protagonists. Our hero Armand Lougue (Dean Jagger) is a man of honour and integrity, his brash friend Clifford Grayson (Robert Noland) has a philosophy of taking what he wants at any cost and their love interest Claire Duval (Dorothy Stone) is a manipulative two-timer quite willing to play both men off against each other.Our hero and heroine become engaged only for her to break it off citing her love for his friend. Disillusioned, he embarks on a lone but successful crusade to find the secret. As the story develops his metamorphosis into a madman intent on ruling the world with a zombie army is matched by the change in both his friend and the heroine who sacrifice their mutual love in order to ensure each others' survival.Amazingly, this is all packed into slightly over one hour - and this would seem to be where the problem lies. The short running length does not justify the complicated plot structures nor does it give time for proper character development. Other cast members, despite their importance to plot, seem to be peripheral - Roy D'Arcy for instance as the villainous Mazovia. Whilst Dean Jagger had a long Hollywood history, Claire Duval appeared in only six productions and this was Robert Noland's only film appearance. Stock footage and some rather shoddy sets along with rather inapt musical accompaniment certainly do not help. Despite this there are good moments to be had although anybody expecting a classic zombie film will feel disappointed which probably goes some way to explaining the low overall vote.Other than some rather old-fashioned - almost as if it were a silent film - acting, I, like other reviewers noted that there seemed to be some editing issues where scenes were cut almost before completion. Whilst there is no production information available it is possible that the original version of this film was cut down for some reason prior to release. We can but wait in expectation and hope...

dwpollar 1st watched 8/21/2009 - 6 out of 10 (Dir- Victor Halperin): Well written early zombie movie that is more about a man's obsession for a woman and the extremes he goes for her than it is about zombies. Zombies in this early movie are just people who are hypnotized to follow a person's commands -- not the dead risen(how this trend started I'm not sure). Anyway, this movie is about a gift that the Cambodians have of making their soldiers follow commands to kill relentlessly and how an American attains that power and uses it for his own purposes. This past statement and a love triangle are the core of the movie. Two friends are investigating this power when a woman steps in the way and mesmerizes one of them first, then the other. The first man's jeolousy brings him to use the power he finds from the ruins to bring her back to him. The movie is slow at times, and sometimes not acted well, but it is captivating none-the-less because of it's story. I'm surprised the movie hasn't been remade because it would make the good basis for a modern redo. It's really a love story with kind of a monster movie side-story(similar to Frankenstein or Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde) except with a hypnotizing mad man. This old gem should be seen and possibly be restored so it can be viewed in a better way, if possible.

catfish-er I'm working my way through the Horror Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES is one of the movies in the set. I am watching them with my soon-to-be seven-year old daughter, which makes most of these movies a laugh riot.I had high hopes for REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES, after watching White Zombie, which is really the precursor to so much that is the mainstay of zombies in cinema (think Clive Barker's Serpent and the Rainbow and James Bond's Live and Let Die funeral scene, NOT Night of the Living Dead).However, even though the title includes the word "zombies," it is little more than a love triangle, involving anthropologist Armand Louque, who is smitten with Claire Duval; who in turn is taken with his companion Clifford Grayson. What a yawn-fest, my daughter fell asleep half-way through.I had a real hard time deciphering who these people worked for -- the allies or the axis; but, I guess that doesn't really matter.I was shocked to see Bela Lugosi in the credits for this movie; but, of course those were his eyes (from White Zombie) serving as the mind-control device for the zombies.

shub789 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.