JohnHowardReid Copyright 1 August 1932 by United Artists Corp. New York opening at the Rivoli: 28 July 1932. U.S. release: July 1932. Original running time: 73 minutes. Present 1998 TV prints run only 68 minutes and are missing "the one scene which seemed most gripping to Rivoli audiences, wherein zombies carry a body out of its burial grounds and return the corpse to life at the will of hypnotist Murder Legendre." (New York Daily News). SYNOPSIS: An evil hypnotist who staffs his sugar mill with zombies is contracted to exert his influence over a young married girl whom a local plantation owner covets. NOTES: Shot in only two weeks at Universal studios (though of course the many elaborate glass shots and other laboratory work, plus the dubbing of dialogue, music and sound effects, extended the film's production time considerably), White Zombie became one of the most successful independent horror films ever made. It turned its backer, Phil Goldstone, into a multi-millionaire, and won for the Halperin Brothers a contract at Paramount where they made Supernatural which was equally weird, far more polished, but less financially successful. Technically, there's quite a lot wrong with White Zombie. For modern audiences the two most important are the extremely noisy soundtrack (presumably the Halperins could only afford the outmoded sound-on-disc system which was then going cheap for independent producers) and the old-fashioned acting (particularly by once super-popular silent star Madge Bellamy, here attempting a comeback after her 100% talkie debut in the 1929 Tonight at Twelve was indifferently received. Mind you, the other players are not much better. Miss Bellamy seems so bad mainly because the script requires her to mime most of her role. Even Lugosi hams it up, but then that is what we expect of the master. Harron is as unbelievable as Bellamy, but his part is so small it doesn't really matter. Frazer is hammy too, but manages to impress nonetheless. Cawthorn is the most assured of the lot, but he is saddled with an irritating line of comedy relief). Other technical problems include jerky cutting (partly caused by hasty shooting, partly by the need to clip either picture or track when the voices get out of sync); abrupt continuity (partly disguised in TV transmission by the insertion of commercial breaks); and the use of old, full-frame cameras, which means that the image is awkwardly truncated unless printed between bars (which fortunately the 1998 TV prints are). On the positive side, the film is such a genuine weirdie, most audiences will overlook most of the shortcomings. Superlatively atmospheric photography, imaginative direction, staggeringly impressive sets (achieved by almost faultless glass shots), and above all, some of the most bizarre sound effects (including music - note the credit to Xavier Cugat, of all people) ever assembled for a motion picture combine with Lugosi, Frazer and the zombies (brilliantly made up by Universal's legendary master, Jack Pierce) to create a movie experience of absolutely chilling intensity.

GManfred This picture has been on many times in the past and I always missed it. I'm glad to say I finally got to see it and was pleasantly surprised. Lots of horror pictures from this era are just schlock, but this had a pretty good story and holds your interest. I know, I know, but these are movie zombies, so for 70 minutes I suspended my disbelief and just went with it.A couple decide to get married on an island inhabited by zombies, but at the request of a 'good friend' who happens to live there. But who do you think is the Head of the Zombies? Of course, who else? There he is in all his creepy, sinister persona threatening, intimidating and glowering, and all in his unctuous, low key voice. This is one of the typecast Lugosi's best roles and is worth the price of admission - which in my case was a replay of the DVR I was smart enough to tape.

NonSequiturL The legendary George Carlin once said that zombies are unreliable, and while he wasn't referring to the quality of the films they appear in, I'll hijack his statement and agree with him. I'd also add that they're inconsistent in their behavior. Sometimes they run, sometimes they shamble, and sometimes they come back for revenge.The undead behave a little differently than what we as modern viewers have come to expect in"White Zombie." No, I'm not referring to Rob Zombie's industrial metal band - I'm talking about the 1932 film directed by Victor Halperin and starring Bela Lugosi. It's considered by many as the first feature-length zombie film, and its walking dead are less of the shambling, flesh-eating than they are voodoo and mind-controlled variety.The story takes place in the West Indies, and gets into swing when a witch doctor turns a newly-wed bride into a zombie slave. He's been doing it to the natives, but people only really start to care when he does it to a white woman. The commentary on slavery and racism here is daring for a movie of its time, though I'd be hesitant to claim it has anything particularly interesting to say about its subject matter. Bela Lugosi stars as zombiism-practitioner 'Murder' Legendre (could you have a name more badass than that?) and he chews up the scenery in a performance with more than a passing similarity to his one in "Dracula" a year earlier. I think the only difference is his facial hair. He glares at the audience and wears comical expressions throughout, and is a joy to watch whenever he's on screen. His ham is well complimented by the rest of cast, who bring a slice of their own cheese to this black and white sandwich. There's some inventive cinematography on display, but only occasionally, as the film resembles a stage play for the majority of its runtime. There are a couple of impressive, albeit primitive matte paintings, and a bizarre effects sequence where the screen is split in half with a Star Wars-style screen wipe that doesn't quite work. On a technical level, the film is ambitious. Sadly, the version I watched came in one of those "10 movies for 5 bucks!" packs and it wasn't exactly what I'd call "lovingly restored." The dialogue sounded like it was recorded on a potato. It's not just the technical elements that make films like "White Zombie" and others from its era a little more challenging to watch nowadays. 34 years after it was released, George Romero redefined - or, more bluntly - DEFINED the zombie genre with "Night of the Living Dead." It's difficult to see how scary "White Zombie" was to viewers in 1932 since our perceptions of horror have been molded by our experiences with another century worth of the genre's evolution. In fact, the most effective thing in the film was a large bird of prey that sounded like a woman screaming. If it wasn't so funny, it would be disturbing."White Zombie" hasn't lost all of its impact, however. It's still entertaining, and admirable for its claim as the first zombie film. There's a lot to appreciate about these films that did something new in their genre, and it's truly mind-boggling to think that there was ever a time history when the cinematic zombie was a fresh idea!

somejava To begin with, I'm a Bela Lugosi fan. He had a pair of the most evil eyes this side of Lee Van Cleef. And I think he did a typically good job of portraying a mysterious and sinister character. By today's standards the plot is not very deep. But it is nonetheless enjoyable. Fans of this early era of horror movie know that it's often not only the film that is black and white. Good and evil are clearly defined. And for my taste I believe that's why I sometimes enjoy these old movies of all kinds. There are no veiled social messages to have to sort through. One thing I noticed about this film are the early attempts at screen effects. Surely not to be compared with modern effects...I think some of the ones used in this movie were...effective. They add dimension to the film. Especially when you consider that this film is over 80 yrs. old I think some great imagination was shown in this regard. I didn't think the acting was bad. I didn't think it was great, either. But for me it didn't interfere with my enjoying the film. You'll also notice that in some scenes you can actually see the breath of the actors who appear to be in something like a dungeon. I don't know the exact circumstances that caused this. But it adds another sense of atmosphere to the film. I also like the very last line spoken. I got a chuckle out of it. I'd recommend this movie to anyone who would like to see the beginning of the evolution in film horror.