SoTrumpBelieve Must See Movie...

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Rainey Dawn "Revolt of the Zombies (1936)" is sorta a sequel to the Lugosi film "White Zombie (1932)". We did have Lugosi's eyes from the original film showing up every so often in "Revolt" but Lugosi is NOT in this film otherwise. They could have very easily used someone else's eyes or simply left that part out of the "Revolt" film.The movie is pretty good and worth watching if you liked the original film but it really does lack that luster, darkness, mysteriousness & story appeal of "White Zombie (1932)".Armand Louque (Dean Jagger) discovers the secret to zombism but does not use the power to destroy his rival Clifford Grayson (Robert Noland) in a way that you would assume he would. That is the bonus to the movie - not using an easy and typical horror cliché which is 'kill the rival'.Gen. Mazovia (Roy D'Arcy) looks something like Lugosi's "White Zombie" character 'Murder' Legendre. And he does reference his ties to Satanism before Armand's zombie servant kills him. I found this interesting but really nothing to tie Satanism into the film and really was not a need for this reference otherwise. I just think they could have tied this into the film better.I personally think this film could have been better with more work on the script and longer screen time. It would have been nice for "Revolt" to have been tied closer the original film "White Zombie".Overall, this film was entertaining and worth watching.6/10

bkoganbing After watching Revolt Of The Zombies starring future Academy Award winner Dean Jagger I was left with one burning question. How was a society that created these ultimate warrior fighting machines ever defeated in the first place? That's the question you'll be pondering if you take time to watch Revolt Of The Zombies. Towards the end of World War I, the French discover a cult from occupied Cambodia where these undead creatures who cannot be stopped with bullets form a brigade of monks who go over the top and dislodge the Hun.This scares the living fecal matter out of everyone concerned so an international expedition is formed to find out destroy the secret of these zombies so no nation can get their hands on it and rule the world.But we've got some dissent in those ranks. First is Snidely Whiplash villain Roy D'Arcy who murders the Buddhist monk who has the secret and second is Dean Jagger. Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac as we all know and he's determined to woo Dorothy Stone away from rival Robert Noland.I think you've got some idea how this comes out, especially since a race of zombies didn't conquer the world for one country. Dean Jagger as he got the Oscar for Twelve O'Clock High must have shuddered every time he thought about this film and the awful dialog he tried to give a spark of sincerity to.Moral of the story, you might make an ultimate warrior with the zombie potion and the zombie chant, but you can't make an ultimate love slave.

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

shub789 Revolt of the Zombies has no redeeming features. I'm tired of people arguing that it's not that bad, and that the effects must have packed more of a punch in 1936. I suspect this isn't true: it's not like IQ's have risen sharply in the last 7 decades. The average viewer in 1936 was probably just as bored by this rubbish as the average viewer today. Why? Just try watching the first scenes, and count the pauses between things happening, the awful choice of when to cut to close-up, the slapdash editing that seems to include an extra two seconds on every shot to pad out the running time. Pay attention to the utterly redundant dialogue: "I'm going to make some tea/go outside/read my book now." "Are you?" "Yes, I am." That sort of exchange happens several times. Normally I would love that, being a HUGE fan of bad movies, but watch the listless actors mumbling their trite and tedious lines, and all desire to laugh at the movie slowly fades away. This sort of disinterested, pot-boiling time-waster is far worse than energetic, imaginative mind-blowers like Plan Nine From Outer Space or Santa Claus Conquers The Martians. Those who claim that this is "better" than those more interesting movies have a backwards idea of entertainment. This movie is not bad in the sense that your jaw hangs open in astonishment: it's bad in the sense that your eyes slowly close in boredom. Which is far worse.