Revolt of the Zombies (1936)

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...

Released in July 1932, "White Zombie," the original zombie picture, starred Bela Lugosi, one year after his "Dracula" success on screen, and was a moderate box office success. Hoping for another profitable and artistic coup, its filmmakers tried their hand at another zombie outing four years later, with infinitely fewer rewards, both artistically and financially. "Revolt of the Zombies," released in June '36, was created by many members of the team responsible for the previous film--including director Victor Halperin, his brother/producer Edward Halperin, and composer Hugo Riesenfeld--but sadly, lightning failed to strike twice, and the film, as it turns out, is hardly as memorable as the original picture, and is actually something of a labor to sit through.As in "White Zombie," the picture transpires in an exotic locale; Haiti for the former, Cambodia for the latter. In the waning days of WW1, the Allied forces near Phnom Penh have been confounded by the native automatons that have been facing them on the battlefield. (Indeed, in the film's only scene that is even remotely chilling, we see a gaggle of these zombies advancing on the European trenches, seemingly oblivious to the bullets ripping into their abdomens....) When the Cambodian priest who is in control of these zombies is captured but later murdered by the European general Mazovia, who is desirous of the holy man's secrets, an expeditionary force is sent to the ruins of Angkor Wat to endeavor to find some clues. French translator Armand Louque (Dean Jagger, probably younger here than you've ever seen him) is part of this team, and makes the mistake of falling in love with a general's daughter, Claire Duval (Dorothy Stone, who at times bears a passing resemblance to Fay Wray). Claire ultimately dumps Armand in favor of handsome Englishman Clifford Grayson (Robert Noland), and so the dejected Armand, once he discovers the secret of zombification in the Angkor ruins, does what any lovesick wackadoodle might do: use his newfound powers to command an automaton army of local natives, break up the happy couple, and bend Claire to his demented will....Unfortunately, what sounds pretty cool in synopsis turns out to be anything but as this film unreels, and its 65-minute running time may feel like the longest 65 minutes of your life. From the non sequitur circus music that plays over the film's cheap-looking opening credits to its overly abrupt denouement, this is a decidedly inferior entertainment, beginning to end. The film gives us not a single character to identify with or even admire, and has been remarkably shoddily put together. I usually don't even notice things like this, but this picture has been clumsily edited, with awkward scene transitions that would suggest an amateur effort if one didn't know better. Offhand, I also cannot recall ever having seen such an unconvincing use of backdrops; just get a load of Dean pretending to trudge through that rear-projected swamp! Laffably bad! And speaking of laffable, the film offers up what has to be the lamest instance ever of a female native doing an exotic dance; an octogenarian at a Delray Beach nursing home might have done better! Another aspect of film production that is usually not an issue with this viewer is the acting, but here, some of the thesping is, again, of the sort that will surely engender snickers. Dorothy Stone is especially bad, her style of overacting at once dated and unconvincing. To quote Glenn Kay on this film, from his terrific encyclopedia "Zombie Movies: The Ultimate Guide," "Nothing even remotely scary is going on here (apart from the bad acting)." But even worse than the lousy FX and lame emoting is the fact that the film's story (cowritten by Victor Halperin) is confusing and features many plot threads that simply peter out. For example, we are initially shown that Louque must concoct a drug of sorts, heat it over a Bunsen burner, and waft the resultant fumes into a victim's face to achieve zombification, but later on, he is somehow able to bend men to his will at a distance. (The close-up shots of Lugosi's eyes from "White Zombie" are shown repeatedly here to imply this long-distance coercion!) And the subplot concerning General Mazovia is resolved in a brisk two-minute interlude! Worse yet, when that officer is strangled to death by one of Louque's automatons, the film is too chickenhearted to even show us this bloodless murder on screen. And as for the titular "revolt" near the film's end...well, let's just say that George A. Romero has nothing to worry about, on this score!"ROTZ" (a perfect acronym for a film that really rots!) can be found today on a DVD from the Roan Group, on the flip side of which resides another fairly lame zombie picture, "King of the Zombies" (1941). But "King" at least is an entertaining film, and often quite funny, thanks largely to the amusing one-liners of Mantan Moreland. "Revolt" is a completely humorless affair; a self-serious production that should have been infinitely better. "The Weirdest Love Story in 2,000 Years," its one-sheet poster originally proclaimed. Unfortunately, the weirdest thing about "Revolt of the Zombies" is that it is a zombie film without a single scare. Talk about being dead on arrival!

"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

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!