Product Details

• Actors: Dorothy Stone, Dean Jagger, Roy D'Arcy, Robert Noland, George Cleveland
• Directors: Victor Halperin
• Writers: Victor Halperin, Howard Higgin, Rollo Lloyd
• Producers: Edward Halperin
• Format: Black & White, DVD, NTSC
• Language: English
• Region: Region 1 (U.S. and Canada only. Read more about DVD formats.)
  
• Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1
• Number of discs: 1
• Rated: NR (Not Rated)
• Studio: Alpha Video
• DVD Release Date: September 9, 2003
• Run Time: 65 minutes
• Average Customer Review: 2.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (8 customer reviews)
• ASIN: B0000A0DVI
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,552 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
• For more information about "Revolt of the Zombies" visit the Internet Movie Database (IMDb)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars "Light Zombie", October 15, 2010

By 

Scott T. Rivers (Los Angeles, CA USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Revolt of The Zombies (1936) (DVD)

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.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Boooooo!-gie, man..., October 20, 2009

By 

Annie Van Auken (Planet Earth) - See all my reviews
(TOP 50 REVIEWER)    (VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Revolt of the Zombies (1936) (DVD)

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)

3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars An okay time-passer for "Golden Age" film fanatics, September 6, 2006

By 

Farffleblex Plaffington (Parnybarnel, Mississippi) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Revolt of the Zombies (DVD)

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.