Customer Reviews

Fright Night 3: Revolt of the Zombies

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

A dreary follow-up to the Halperins' "White Zombie" - minus Bela Lugosi and the atmospheric qualities associated with the 1932 horror classic. Despite the offbeat Cambodia setting, "Revolt of the Zombies" (1936) is a lifeless disappointment. Random close-ups of Bela's eyes and Arthur Martinelli's photography cannot redeem this 65-minute journey into boredom. Dean Jagger (miscast beyond belief) makes a poor substitute for Lugosi.

REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES is set among Cambodian temple ruins but is clearly a studio-based product. Fake-looking shrubs and super-sized photo backdrops are poor substitute for Angkor Wat, while an appropriately-garbed native dancer brings us as close to Southeast Asia as one can get on a Poverty Row movie budget.

Like the other cribbed and borrowed appurtenances here, Bela Lugosi's eyes, shown every so often, were 'nicked' from the only other HALPERIN production, WHITE ZOMBIE (1932). Because of this stock footage, some budget brands laughingly label "Revolt" an official Lugosi work. Revolting!

THE STORY--
A scientific expedition is sent to Cambodia. Their mission: find and destroy an ancient formula that instantly changes men into mindless zombies. Armand Louque translates an inscription and realizes he's located the formula. Experimentation on an unwitting subject turns him into a human automaton, so Louque declares to an empty room that he is now the most powerful man in the world! (Yah, and this is the greatest motion picture ever made.)

Twelve-cent finances along with a dime novel script and several unmotivated actors make watching this twenty-two-cent bomberoo a real chore. Only for zombie film fans, those in need of a nap and incurable masochists.


Parenthetical number preceding title is a 1 to 10 imdb viewer poll rating.

(2.8) Revolt of the Zombies (1936) - Dorothy Stone/Dean Jagger/Roy D'Arcy/Robert Noland/George Cleveland (archive footage: Bela Lugosi)

Well, first off, if you're checking out Revolt of the Zombies as some very early Night of the Living Dead (1968)-type film, forget it. This is about "zombies" in a more psychological sense, where that term merely denotes someone who is not in control of their will, but who must instead follow the will of another. The "zombies" here, as little as they are in the film, are largely metaphors for subservience to the state or authority in general, as in wartime. It is quite a stretch to call this a horror film.

The film is set during World War I. A "French Cambodian" contingent had heard strange stories about zombification--supposedly Angkor Wat was built by utilizing zombies--and there are tales of zombie armies easily overcoming foes. Armand Louque (Dean Jagger) brings back a priest who supposedly knows the secret of zombification, but he won't talk. So Louque and an international military contingent head to Angkor Wat on an archaeological expedition designed to discover the secret of zombification and destroy the information before zombies have a chance to "wipe out the white race".

One of the odd things about Revolt of the Zombies is that it seems like maybe writer/director Victor Halperin decided to change his game plan while shooting the script. The film begins as if it will explore the zombie/military metaphor, and maybe even have adventure elements, but after about 15 minutes, it changes gears and becomes more of a love triangle story.

Halperin does stick with a subtext about will and power (and a Nietzschean "will to power"). The film is interesting on that level, but the script and the editing are very choppy. This is yet another older film for which I wouldn't be surprised if there is missing footage, especially since some scenes even fade or cut while a character is uttering dialogue.

Amidst the contrived romance story, Halperin tries to keep referring to the zombie thread, but little of the zombie material makes much sense. Louque discovers the secret of zombification, but it doesn't mean much to the viewer. The mechanics of the zombie material are vague and confusing--Halperin even resorts to using superimposed footage of Bela Lugosi's googly-eyes from his 1932 film, White Zombie, but never explains what it has to do with anything. There are big gaps in the plot, including the love story. Promising, interesting characters from early reels disappear for long periods of time. One potential villain is disposed of unceremoniously before he gets to do much.

If you're a big fan of old, creaky B movies, Revolt of the Zombies may be worth watching at least once--the acting isn't all that bad, and if you've got a good imagination, you can piece together an interesting story in your mind to fill in all of the gaps. But this is the second time I've seen the film, with the first only being about five years ago, and I could barely recall anything about it--so it's not exactly memorable.

Why is this entitled FRIGHT NIGHT 3? Its an older movie about zombies...good, but the header is misleading. i think in the Fright Nights there were only 2-unless this is a general description like Elvira's Fright Night...zombie

Gray market discs such as this offer no commentary, deleted scenes and other bonus features. Dubs are "best available source" and can vary from very good to only fair.


REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES is set among Cambodian temple ruins but is clearly a studio-based product. Fake-looking shrubs and super-sized photo backdrops are poor substitute for Angkor Wat, while an appropriately-garbed native dancer brings us as close to Southeast Asia as one can get on a Poverty Row movie budget.

Like the other cribbed and borrowed appurtenances here, Bela Lugosi's eyes, shown every so often, were 'nicked' from the only other HALPERIN production, WHITE ZOMBIE (1932). Because of this stock footage, some budget brands laughingly label "Revolt" an official Lugosi work. Revolting!

THE STORY--
A scientific expedition is sent to Cambodia. Their mission: find and destroy an ancient formula that instantly changes men into mindless zombies. Armand Louque translates an inscription and realizes he's located the formula. Experimentation on an unwitting subject turns him into a human automaton, so Louque declares to an empty room that he is now the most powerful man in the world! (Yah, and this is the greatest motion picture ever made.)

Twelve-cent finances along with a dime novel script and several unmotivated actors make watching this twenty-two-cent bomberoo a real chore. Only for zombie film fans, those in need of a nap and incurable masochists.


Parenthetical number preceding title is a 1 to 10 imdb viewer poll rating.

(2.8) Revolt of the Zombies (1936) - Dorothy Stone/Dean Jagger/Roy D'Arcy/Robert Noland/George Cleveland (archive footage: Bela Lugosi)

Three and a half stars. Not as bad as some would have you believe, but when it is compared to White Zombie (as it must be), it is found lacking.

The Good:
A lot is right about this movie. Halperin does another good job with a low budget and an exotic setting. While I doubt the crew ever went to SE Asia, the film does an admirable job of transporting the audience to the mysterious time and place of what would be Viet Nam in the years World War One.
In the plot, a meek British soldier in love with a girl who loves his friend discovers the secret to controlling minds. The doomed romance angle explored in Revolt is intelligent, even interesting, building as it does on some of the themes present in White.
It just isn't handled in a very thrilling manner. Which leads me to...

The Bad:
There is not much action in this movie. There is quite a lot of talk. A predictable outcome. Uneven performances. No Lugosi. And only two or three brief scenes possessing the surreal horror which infused White with such atmospheric, dreamlike menace.
Too much of the film is taken up by the young lovers, making this less like White Zombie and more like White Christmas.

The Ugly:
Plus, the audience is left with no one to root for. Certainly you can't root for the guy turning men into murdering zombies. But I can't find it in my heart to root for his callous "friends," either, who drove him to such lengths by toying with his heartstrings. But maybe that's just me, the romantic monster film fan.

The Extras:
The extras on the disc are spare but amusing, including a trivia game. For correct answers you are treated to footage of a zombie being bludgeoned in Night of the Living Dead. For wrong answers you are mocked with a clip of this movie's villain laughing in your face. Nice.

The word `zombie' is thrown around a lot in this film titled Revolt of the Zombies (1936), and it made me question if the term was being used properly, as I always associated it with regards to reviving and maintaining power over the dead, perhaps through a ritual, or some such manner...well, there were a few definitions (including one for a tall drink made of rum, liqueur, and fruit juice), and one did specify `One who looks or behaves like an automaton'...which is pretty much how the word is used this film (zombification by means of hypnosis), as opposed to reanimation of corpses through that voodoo that you do so very well...co-written and directed by Victor Halperin (White Zombie), the film stars Dean Jagger (X the Unknown), Dorothy Stone (Savage Fury), and Robert Noland, in his only big, or small, screen appearance. Also appearing is Roy D'Arcy (El Capitan Tormenta), George Cleveland (The Devil and Daniel Webster), and E. Alyn Warren (Tarzan the Fearless).

The beginning of the film is a little confusing, but the gist is during the first world war there was a regiment of French Cambodians, hailing from the lost city called Angkor (or somewhere there abouts), that appeared on the Franco-Austrian front and proved to be impervious to death by conventional means, fighting like they were robots. The allies learn of this, and also of the existence of a priest, the last in a long line of those familiar with the ancient art of turning men into zombies, or mindless automatons who will do their masters bidding. Seeing as how the priest won't give up the ghost, they decided to imprison him, as the secret is too dangerous to fall into enemy hands, but someone has a more permanent solution, if you get my drift...upon learning the secret of the process may be located in the lost city of Angkor (which seemed awful easy to find, being a `lost' city and all), the allies form a international expedition featuring General Duval (Cleveland), his daughter Claire (Stone), Armand Louque (Jagger), Clifford Grayson (Noland), and a Colonel Mazovia (D'Arcy), among others. They manage to find the not-so-lot city, but locating the secret is a bit more difficult...and dangerous. During this time Armand falls in love with Claire, but she only has eyes for Cliff. She agrees to marry Armand, but only as a means to provoke Cliff into action as it turns out Cliff loves Claire, but Armand had gotten to her first, or some such thing...anyway, Claire gives Armand the old dumparoo, which leaves him a shell of his former self, that is until Armand accidentally stumbles upon the secret of making zombies, something he then puts to use in order to obtain that which he desires most, the backstabbing Claire, by creating a virtual army of zombies to do his bidding (seriously, he goes on a hypnotizin' jag, giving the whammy to everyone in sight)...soon Claire and Cliff become suspicious, but it may be too late, as those around them are under Armand's fiendish control...

I was a little disappointed with this movie, primarily because I was hoping for a little of that old black magic that made the Halprin's Brothers 1932 release titled White Zombie, starring Bela Lugosi, one of my favorite non-Universal horror films from the classic age of horror films, but it's missing...replaced by a huge, honking hunk of melodrama...bah...an admirable effort, but one that missed the mark, for me at least. What really annoyed me was the one halfway interesting character of Colonel Mazovia had so little screen time, and not a whole lot to do with the story, which sort of went against the impression of importance I got from the story early on...oh sure, he was so sinister as to be a cartoonish caricature of evil (leering eyes, pencil-thin mustache forming into a goatee, always dressed in black, and constantly slinking about) but he was, at the very least, more interesting than most of the other characters presented. You see, he, too desired the secret, and had quite the convoluted plan to achieve his goal, one that relied a little too much on uncontrolled factors, in my opinion...and I'll tell you what, the lead characters weren't all that likable, especially Armand who becomes a real egotistical a-hole once he learns the power to control men's minds, driven by an obsession to obtain something he can never have...I suppose one could make the argument that he was ultimately a sympathetic character, caught up in delusions of grandeur, a puppet to his own desires, but that'd be a tough sell, from where I sat. And then there's Claire...what a peach she is, using her engagement to Armand solely as a ploy to get with Cliff...oh yeah, she's a keeper...dames...can't live with `em, can't kill `em (legally, at least)...and I didn't understand why she was along in the first place. Yeah, she was General Duval's daughter, and he seemed in charge of the expedition, but she had no real purpose other than being a pretty plot point...the story is fairly straightforward, but tends to jump forward in a startling and confusing manner at times...a perfect example is near the beginning when Armand meets Claire and we see his almost immediately infatuated with her...while, in the same scene, we see her drawn to Cliff. Right after this there is a scene with Armand and Claire celebrating their engagement...how in the heck did we get here from there? Ah well...the performances were adequate, possibly (but unlikely) hampered by an overly talkative script...check out how proper and erudite Armand becomes after imbibing in the intoxicating juices of his newfound knowledge. And if this was the best Ms. Stone had, I'm really not surprised her career petered out after only two more films. One aspect I liked a lot was the sets, which were much better than the story deserved in that they created a creepy and spooky atmosphere just waiting for the appropriate material.

The full screen print on this Alpha DVD release looks really decent, and comes across clear, despite obvious signs of age (missing frames, lines, etc.). The audio is decent, and I had no problems making out the dialog. There are no special features, but there is a visual depiction of other Alpha DVDs.

Cookieman108

By the way, if you're wondering about my title for my review, whenever Armand would use his new power, a large set of eyes, meant to be Armand's, but really belonging to Lugosi, was superimposed on the screen. This effect was taken from Halprin's previous film White Zombie (1932), which is really worth checking out, if you're a fan of early horror classics, as this was how Bela Lugosi's character created zombies...

Dean Jagger (yep, the loveable old colonel from White Christmas) plays a man who loses his fiancee to his best friend. Does he just roll over and give her up? No way! He does what any red-blooded american guy would do, he goes to Angkor, discovers an ancient hoodoo secret, and builds an army of killer zombies (these are mesmerized, living folks, NOT living dead flesh-eaters)! Roy D'Arcy tries to stop him and steal the secret, but is dispatched rather quickly by one of the zombie horde. Remember, ROTZ is mostly a love story with some "zombies" sprinkled in here and there. Don't expect WHITE ZOMBIE 2 (even though Halperin directed it as such). It's more of a love story than a horror movie. Just when our zombie meister gets his zombies together, he lets them all go free! All due to his love for the gal who dumped him in the first place! Sheesh! Well, at least the de-zombified (ex-zombified??) minions come after Jagger's character during the climax. So, it's not a total loss, but don't expect a masterpiece...