Die Revolte der Zombies

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.

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.

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.

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.