mark.waltz It really amazes me that only four years after the not quite perfect but still classic "White Zombie" (1932), Edward Halperin would put together something as cheap and awful as this. There is no horror or suspense whatsoever, and even with the music from the original and constant close-ups of Bela Lugosi's eyes from that film, it falls flat. The film is not boring, which makes it somewhat worse, but simply a fraud in its attempt to advertise itself as a follow-up to the moody, atmospheric earlier film. That film was slow-moving and sometimes boring, but its atmosphere, photography and pacing were closer to the horror films of the silent era, making it even eerier in spots than "Dracula" and "Frankenstein". Dean Jagger is the lead who seems to have no real motive for his desire to turn Cambodian natives into zombies. There is absolutely no horror element, even in the few murders that do occur thanks to his zombies. Missing Lugosi's brilliant hand movements ("You must be Hungarian, and you must be double-jointed", Martin Landau's Lugosi told Johnny Depp's Ed Wood when they were watching "White Zombie" on Elvira's TV show in "Ed Wood"), the film simply lags as if it really didn't know what it was supposed to be. The DVD print I saw is actually quite good for a public domain film, and better than many other $5 or under videos that I've seen over the years. That doesn't change the fact that this film was really unnecessary. I would have rather seen Lugosi retreading his old ground in "Son of White Zombie" or even "Voodoo Man" than this stinker.

Red-Barracuda Before the release of George Romero's genre-defining Night of the Living Dead, zombies were relatively well-behaved creatures. They certainly had much better table-manners in the old days. But social etiquette aside what thrills did these early zombies offer to the movie-going public? Judging by this film, a limited supply.The story is about an expedition to Cambodia, whose purpose is to find and destroy the secret of zombiefication. One of the party discovers the secrets on his own and sets about building his zombie army.This film is basically a love triangle with zombies. But seeing as this is a 30's movie, the said zombies are more like somnambulists than the flesh-eating variety we think of today. They seem to respond to mind-control, rather than insatiable appetites. And, quite frankly, the 'revolt' is somewhat underwhelming. The whole thing is a little lacking but the exotic setting does add something worthwhile to proceedings. The horror side of things is unfortunately marginalised in favour of romantic melodrama that doesn't really work all that well seeing as none of the participants are very likable. It seems unlikely that this could've provided much entertainment even 70 years ago. See it if you have to see everything with 'zombie' in the title but otherwise this is one for those with a taste for 30's poverty row flicks.

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.

winner55 Of the many problems with this film, the worst is continuity; and re-editing it on VHS for a college cable channel many years ago, I tried to figure out what exactly went wrong. What seems to have happened is that they actually constructed a much longer film and then chopped it down for standard theatrical viewing. How much longer? to fill in all the holes in the plot as we have it would require about three more hours of narrative and character development - especially given the fact that the film we do have is just so slow and takes itself just so seriously.That's staggering; what could the Halperins have possibly been trying to accomplish here? Their previous film, "White Zombie", was a successful low budget attempt to duplicate the early Universal Studios monster films (The Mummy, Dracula, etc.), and as such stuck pretty close to the zombie mythology that those in North America would know from popular magazines.Revolt of the Zombies, to the contrary, appears to have been intended as some allegory for the politics of modern war. This would not only explain the opening, and the change of Dean Jagger's character into a megalomaniac, but it also explains why the zombies don't actually do much in the film, besides stand around, look frightening, and wait for orders - they're just allegorical soldiers, not the undead cannibals we've all come to love and loathe in zombie films.I am the equal to any in my dislike for modern war and its politics - but I think a film ought to be entertaining first, and only later, maybe, educational. And definitely - a film about zombies ought to be about zombies.Truly one of the most bizarre films in Hollywood history, but not one I can recommend, even for historic value.