Revolta dos 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.