GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

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

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Leofwine_draca Victor Halperin's WHITE ZOMBIE (1932) was a decent example of the undead movie, the first zombie film and featuring a great performance from Bela Lugosi as an evil black magician. This semi-sequel, blatantly cashing in on that movie's success, has neither Lugosi nor zombies, other than in a one-minute sequence at the film's opening. This scene, set during an unspecified war, sees foreign soldiers, under mind control, overwhelming their enemies. In one classic moment, bullets riddle a man's chest and don't even slow him down. I loved this moment when I saw it, and I was all ready to love the rest of the movie...but after a while I realised that was all the horror we were getting.Instead this film goes along the lines of melodrama, with a half-baked love triangle exacerbated by the lead's transformation from love-struck guy to total madman. Along the way he puts plenty of people under mind control; somehow clapping a fist to his forehead achieves this (pretty cheap, I know). Halperin desperately tries to add atmosphere to the proceedings by using close-up shots of Bela Lugosi's eyes, ripped from WHITE ZOMBIE, but this is nothing other than a cheap gimmick. The mildly exciting revolt of the title happens in the last couple of minutes but comes as too little, too late. Dean Jagger, familiar from his later turns in such fare as X THE UNKNOWN and GAME OF DEATH, appears here as the madman in what is a wooden performance. All talk and no action, REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES is a real bore, a clichéd cash-in with little to recommend it.

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

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.