La tumba de los muertos vivientes

I first saw this film when I was about eight or nine. It was at a "99 Cent Video" store in Hesperia, California, and I went there with one of my parents. I always liked to comb through the horror section of video stores (and I still do). I guess I have always had some kind of (morbid?) fascination with that section of the store. Seeing all the horrific video box covers, old films and new, sitting their on the shelves -- I had more fun and more chills reading the back of those video boxes -- films such as "The Seven Doors of Death" (and, yes, I know that is actually a heavily cut version of "The Beyond" by Fulci) or "Zombie Lake", "Slaughter High", or another ghastly title (a lot of them hard to find, and ones that you'll probably never find again) -- and imagining what the particular film would be like to watch then actually watching the film itself. It was in this store that I came across Jess Franco's "Oasis of the Zombies". It was the Filmland distribution copy, and the brief, paragraphic summary on the back of the box was just as said. I don't know how, but one way or another I (conned?) my parent into renting it for me. I got home, popped it in, and began watching it. Let me diverge from the track for a minute by saying that lots of commentors on this film have said that is was "boring".

Now, I can't recall it being boring -- of course, I was only eight or night, and this film was one of those ghastly oddities from the horror section, and I had the luxury of actually being able to view it... so I was hooked. I didn't remember a lot about the film -- that is to say, about the story -- but what I did remember of it was what would come to be a graphic standard of the genre: a scene where the star zombies were making blue plate specials out of some campers in the desert. It was stomach churning, it was gruesome, yet at the same time I was covering my face with my hands, was I was looking between my fingers, I continued to watch it with that same, weird fascination.

That was also when one of my parents walked in, took one look at the movie and scene I was witnessing, said "Unh-ugh,", and turned it off, and that was the end of that.

Ten years passed before I would be able to find and watch that movie again. I didn't remember the title, and I didn't remember the story -- but I had always remembered what the box looked like, and that gory zombie luncheon scene had definitely stuck with me in the back of my mind. So, armed with that much knowledge, I had always searched different video stores during those ten years just on the chance that I might find it, and, low and behold, in August of 2001, at a video discount store in Simi Valley, California (you know, one of those places that has racks and racks of all different kinds of films for low prices), I found it without even looking for it. Same box, same everything.

I bought it for a couple of bucks, popped it in, and watched it. And I didn't see what was so bad about it. Sure, it had a very low budget, and perhaps the acting was at times mediocre, but, all in all, I still felt it was a nice effort by an apparently notorious director -- I was just as intrigued watching the film as I was ten years earlier at any rate. As I said, many have said it was boring -- particularly the "flashback time-filler". I've come to attach these type of comments from this and other films of the genre to those persons that I like to refer to as "gorehounds". They like zombie movies, they LOVE zombies movies, but the only thing they love about them, apparently, is the gore, and that's all. Now, perhaps I'm wrong here, but I felt that there was a decent attempt at concentration on the STORY here. Sure, there was a long flashback sequence -- but I don't see how it could be boring. Most of it depicted a heavy gun battle. What's boring about something like that? And so what if it did have a flashback sequence? "The Green Mile" and "The Bounty", as other films, were both told in flashback for the entirety of them. I'm not comparing this film to those wonderful cinematic events, but why don't people give old Jess a break? He gave it his best with what he had. Which is what most filmmakers do -- otherwise they wouldn't be taking the time to do it. Yes, by today's standards, this film probably is boring. But this is a foreign film, remember, and it's also twenty years old, and people had longer attention spans then.

Give this underrated film a showing if you have about an hour and a half to spare -- and don't be a gorehound and watch this film for the blood and guts; watch it for the atmosphere, which I feel it's loaded with. Pay attention to the story, because there just so happens to be a little one whether you like it or not, and you might just find yourself getting drawn into it. I quote the man on the camel at the end of this film. He asks one of the survivors of the zombie attack: "Did you find what you were looking for?" The survivor replies: "Yes... but I think I mostly found myself." Maybe you'll find a neat little gem of a movie here. Give it a chance. Granted: It's not Romero, and for all you gorehounds out there it may not be a Fulci... but I think it's worth a look.

those expecting a gory blood bath will be disappointed, which is probably why everyone hates it, but i think it's pretty good. the zombies are really cool looking, and the attacks are directed with some style. Daniel White's music adds a certain flavor too. unfortunately, the slow pace will put some viewers to sleep, but i think it adds to the atmosphere. not a great film, but a good one.

When someone says, "I like bad movies." you can see how sincere they are by subjecting them to anything Jesus Franco has ever made. Franco films are my meditation. They seem to numb my mind more than a crate of wine and a week of network television. This movie is classically Franco. It has a plodding pace, horrible voice overs, hot women, terrible lighting, deliriously bad camera work, a script written by a chimp, varying and disconnected ambient noise... Christ, Jess Franco is terrible and shamelessly I adore his films. They have the feel of a twelve year old with his first camera. His childishness is abound in this and really, all of his movies. He is a testament to tenacity (and hot women).

Jess Franco has directed what is widely considered two of the worst zombie movies of all time, Zombie Lake and Oasis of the Zombies. How Franco, who writes and directs this yawn-inducer, is considered an exploitation icon is an absolute mystery to me. There isn't a single scene in this film that hints at any talent whatsoever.

During the second world war a nazi Afrika Korp is ambushed by the British at an Oasis outside of Tripoli where $6,000,000 of gold is buried. Fast forward to the present day, one assumes as the movie gives no dates, and the former British and German commanders meet to discuss where the exact location of the oasis is, excavate the site, and split the gold. As soon as the German learns where the location is he kills the British character. We next jump to a university in London where a young man named Robert receives a message about the death of his dad. Turns out the British commander was his father. Robert feigns sadness and immediately gathers his friends Ronald, the bowl cut dork, Ahmed, who insist on wearing a fez hat making him look even dorkier than Ronald, and Robert's girlfriend. They travel to Tripoli in search of the Sheik who knows the location to the Oasis as well as a warning that it's infested with the living dead corpses of the Nazis. Robert ignores the warnings and travels to the oasis. He does find something more important however. (Eyes Rolling)

Manuel Gelin manages to outdo his zombie counterparts as the most lifeless corpse on the screen. Just watch the scene where he learns of his father's death. Emote baby, emote! The backstory is told through a flashback which has some serious flaws. First is the fact that Robert's dad must be an immortal as he has not aged a day since the war. At least cut his hair and shave that mustache for crissakes! Second, Robert was the product of his father and the Sheik's daughter Aisha. This is during World War II which would make Robert in his late thirties at the very least! Instead Robert is a mid-twenties college student. More Franco brilliance? They at least try to make the Sheik age as he is given silver streaks in his hair and adorned with the most fake mustache ever. The zombies themselves are on par with I Eat Your Skin which was made twenty years earlier. They are basically men smeared with mud, worms, and oatmeal. One of the non-actor zombies looks as if it's a male blow up doll. Probably the source for Jess Franco's "inspiration". Even the ending sucks! Was he hiding the jeep under his sheets? An oasis from solid movie-making. Don't bother.

In the WWII, a platoon of German soldiers is attacked by the Allies in an oasis and only the British Commander survives. The Sheik and his daughter Aisha (Doris Regina) rescue him in the desert and bring him to their house, where he recovers. Years later, the survivor tells to the mercenary Kurt (Henry Lambert) that the German troop was transporting a shipment of 6 million-dollar in gold and he informs the location of the treasure. However Kurt kills him and organizes an expedition to find the treasure.

Meanwhile the student Robert Blabber (Manuel Gélin) reads notes of his father and discovers that there is a treasure hidden in the desert. Robert joins his friends and they travel to the desert to seek the gold. However, when they reach the location, they are attacked by an army of German living dead.

"La Tumba de los Muertos Vivientes" is a lame and cheesy zombie movie by Jess Franco. This film is incredibly awful: story, screenplay, acting, dialogs, cinematography and special effects. The senseless exploitation in the beginning, with two women dressing very short Bermuda shorts is ridiculous. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Oasis dos Zumbis" ("Oasis of the Zombies")