One of the wrost movies I have ever seen

A lot of fun.

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.

"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

This was the second attempt by the Halperin brothers to make a Zombie film, which they did this time without elements like Bela Lugosi or a coherent plot.The plot is that a Cambodian mystic (Cambodia being an exotic land back in the 1930's) finds a way to turn Colonial troops into Zombies who are so terrifying on the battlefield that the allies decide they need to make sure that they are never used again. (Funny, I thought the point of the war was to win the war!) A multi-national expedition goes to the ruins of Angkor Wat to find the Zombie formula, not realizing that, hey, maybe something wiped out the Angkor civilization. That would have made an interesting plot, but it got lost in bad editing, bad filming and bad film preservation. The characters in this film are largely interchangeable, as the leading lady shows when she hops from one to the other.Apparently, there is a part where the "Hero" zombifies the whole population of Pneom Pehn, until he releases them all and they kill him.Keep in mind, these are pre-Romero zombies, who could just be scary by standing around. They didn't actually need to eat anyone, the slackers.

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!

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.