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.

BobforTrish In cinematic language 'sequel to' and 'follows' are frequently very loose - often ambiguous - terms. This is the case with Revolt of the Zombies which supposedly 'follows' the far superior 'White Zombie' of 1932. The tenuous connections in this case are that both films were made by the Halperin Brothers and both feature zombies. An even more tenuous connection is that the great Bela Lugosi starred in the first film whilst here only his eyes intermittently appear on screen as the zombies of the title are created.The gist of the story is that a Cambodian priest has the power to turn men into zombies, aptly demonstrated at the beginning by having them battle against the enemy in the First World War. Unfortunately the allied commanders are so appalled by the threat of zombies taking over the world that when he refuses to reveal his secrets they imprison him. After his murder an expedition is launched to Cambodia in order to find and destroy the means of zombification.The plot becomes more complicated with the development of a love triangle between our three main protagonists. Our hero Armand Lougue (Dean Jagger) is a man of honour and integrity, his brash friend Clifford Grayson (Robert Noland) has a philosophy of taking what he wants at any cost and their love interest Claire Duval (Dorothy Stone) is a manipulative two-timer quite willing to play both men off against each other.Our hero and heroine become engaged only for her to break it off citing her love for his friend. Disillusioned, he embarks on a lone but successful crusade to find the secret. As the story develops his metamorphosis into a madman intent on ruling the world with a zombie army is matched by the change in both his friend and the heroine who sacrifice their mutual love in order to ensure each others' survival.Amazingly, this is all packed into slightly over one hour - and this would seem to be where the problem lies. The short running length does not justify the complicated plot structures nor does it give time for proper character development. Other cast members, despite their importance to plot, seem to be peripheral - Roy D'Arcy for instance as the villainous Mazovia. Whilst Dean Jagger had a long Hollywood history, Claire Duval appeared in only six productions and this was Robert Noland's only film appearance. Stock footage and some rather shoddy sets along with rather inapt musical accompaniment certainly do not help. Despite this there are good moments to be had although anybody expecting a classic zombie film will feel disappointed which probably goes some way to explaining the low overall vote.Other than some rather old-fashioned - almost as if it were a silent film - acting, I, like other reviewers noted that there seemed to be some editing issues where scenes were cut almost before completion. Whilst there is no production information available it is possible that the original version of this film was cut down for some reason prior to release. We can but wait in expectation and hope...

wes-connors "After World War I, an expedition representing the Allied countries is sent to Cambodia to stop the efforts of Count Mazovia in creating a zombie like army of soldiers and laborers. Hoping to prevent a possible outbreak of war due to Mazovia's actions, the group presses through the jungle to Angkor Wat in spite of the perils. The group includes Armand who has his own agenda contrary to the group's wishes," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. Heads up! the zombie make-up department revolted before the cameras started to roll. Also, this "Revolt of the Zombies" has little to do with its supposed predecessor "White Zombie" (1932) *****, which starred Bela Lugosi. If that film's zombies didn't thrill you, this one's certainly won't. A younger-than-usual Dean Jagger (as Armand Louque) stars as a man obsessive with blonde Dorothy Stone (as Claire Duval). A couple supporting performances are good: devilish Roy D'Arcy (as Mazovia) and subservient Teru Shimada (as Buna); however, neither are given enough material to really pull this one out of the dumps.** Revolt of the Zombies (1936) Victor Halperin ~ Dean Jagger, Dorothy Stone, Roy D'Arcy

lastliberal What? You were not aware that Scooby-Doo battled zombies? Well, you might also not be aware of this little film that was directed by Victor Halperin, who had also directed White Zombie four years earlier. That would probably make it the second zombie film made.No, don't go looking for Dorothy Stone to expose her breasts as you would expect in most zombie films, and don't even look for any brains being eaten. This is 1936, you know.So, what you will see is typical of the period - lots of talking.You do get to see Dean Jagger (Twelve O'Clock High ) and Bela Lugosi's eyes, but that is about it. Zombies in Cambodia, indeed!