Michael_Elliott
Revolt of the Zombies (1936) ** (out of 4)At the end of WWI the French learn that some people in Cambodia has discovered the secrets of creating an undying killing machine. Bullets bounce off their bodies and naturally governments want the secret. One man (Dean Jagger) sets out to learn the secrets and to use it for his own power when the woman (Dorothy Stone) he loves prefers another man. Victor and Edward Halperin made a hit out of the Bela Lugosi film WHITE ZOMBIE and it got them a studio film but that was pretty much it for their career. They tampered in a few genres but for the most part they were always trying to recapture their :"glory days" of that 1932 film. Sadly, REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES just doesn't have enough going for it to make it worth, which is really too bad.One must consider that horror films were pretty much dead by 1936 due to certain regulations across the world. The could still be made but the censors were so tight that filmmakers had to be careful on what they did but there's just zero horror elements here. The zombies are downplayed so much that you have to wonder what the point was of even having them in the film. It certainly doesn't help that the majority of the performances are really bad and often get laughs and especially during a couple places where it seems a bad take was left in.There are a couple effective moments scattered throughout the 62 minute running time. One is when we see bullets striking the chest of one of the zombies. I'm surprised this scene was allowed by the censors. Another sequence happens when some men are walking through some waters trying to get to a certain location. Still, these scenes certainly aren't enough to keep REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES from being anything other than a disappointment.
Woodyanders
Wimpy stuffed shirt Armand Louque (blandly played by veteran character actor Dean Jagger in a rare lead role) joins a group of researchers who want to find and destroy the secret technique of creating zombies. Armand falls for the lovely Claire Duval (fetching blonde Dorothy Stone), who uses the meek sap to get Armand's colleague Clifford Grayson (the hopelessly wooden Robert Noland) to marry her. Furious over being used and spurned by Claire, Armand uses his knowledge of voodoo to get revenge. Sound exciting? Well, it sure ain't. For starters, Victor Halperin's static (non)direction lets the meandering and uneventful talk-ridden story plod along at an excruciatingly slow pace. Worse yet, Halperin crucially fails to bring any tension, atmosphere and momentum to the hideously tedious proceedings. The mostly blah acting from a largely insipid cast doesn't help matters any; only George Cleveland as the hearty General Duval and E. Alyn Warren as the irascible Dr. Trevissant manage to enliven things a bit with their welcome and refreshing hammy histrionics. The drippy stock film library score, the painfully obvious stagebound sets, and the crude cinematography are pretty lousy and unimpressive as well. In fact, this feeble excuse for a fright feature is so crummy that not even the uncredited starkly staring eyes of the great Bela Lugosi can alleviate the brain-numbing boredom. A dismally dull dud.
mirosuionitsaki2
After going to Best Buy to buy the 50 Movie Pack Horror Classics 12-DVD Collection, I decided that the first movie to watch was this. This was just a random selection, and I didn't really know what this movie would be about except that it would contain zombies and an army. Well, this is incorrect. This movie is far from being about war, although you may see people in military uniforms. This movie is mostly a love story, and contains the plot of a mad man trying to win his girlfriend.This movie was very confusing, mainly because the plot switches continuously and the story doesn't stick with one character. You see the story of many characters, and that's too hard to shove in your brain. If this movie seems easy for whoever watches it, go right ahead. But, I just thought that there were too many characters.The acting is quite alright. Actually, it's excellent. This is quite hard to find in movies of this era. Well, not really.I don't really recommend this movie unless you are really bored.
MartinHafer
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.
AD
