I finally decided to watch Victor Halperin's 1936 independent production and, contrary to what I expected influenced by what I had read, «Revolt of the Zombies» turned out to be a good movie.
The problem about film criticism today is simple: the "evaluations" you usually find on the internet are written by people who have little knowledge of content analysis, aesthetics, history, or art. And, in the case of zombie movies, they are delusions by people for whom the zombie movie began in 1968 with «Night of the Living Dead» by George A. Romero, who, ironically, when he made that film, referred to his entities as "ghouls", not zombies. For most followers of the Romero line, the zombie is a monster that eats human flesh and without clear origins, since filmmakers have not defined them effectively. Zombies made in the USA (or elsewhere!) appear by spontaneous generation.
In contrast, the traditional zombie icon, its history and legends, as reviewed in recent films such as «Zombi Child» and «Atlantique», are related to slavery, colonialism, cultural dispossession, oppression and exploitation of men and women by themselves ; and not to "zombie walks" and other nonsense that have brought the subgenre (and the moviegoers) to surfeit and indigestion. The zombies cut cane in Hait in «White Zombie»; here they are cannon fodder during war time.
In the tight script (co-written with playwright Rollo Lloyd), the story takes place in the French colony of Cambodia, during World War I. The action is triggered by an event on an Austrian war front, in which an army of indestructible Cambodian soldiers, created by a priest (also from Cambodia), was seen. The priest is soon killed with his secret, so an expedition of European military men goes in search of the secret formula to create zombies, hidden in the ruins of the city of Angkor. Against this story, a drama of seduction and deception unfolds. The tragic romantic situations play a key role in the resolution, when the man who discovers the formula has his colleagues and Cambodian troops under his will. Played by Dean Jagger in a measured performance, the man goes from a humble translator to a tyrant with a soft heart, a man betrayed by his best friend and a woman he never ceases to love.
Made with a low budget, noticeable in the interior settings, combined with some real oriental-type buildings to evoke Cambodian landscapes, the film has the freshness and shortcomings of a 1930s production: above all, the editing rhythm is as slow as in «Dracula,» «Scarface,» or «King Kong,» which modern audiences applaud because someone told them these were classic movies. No one warned them of this one, not a classic but quite a serviceable entertainment product... so, without a clue, they opt for the easy way and vilify it. I assure you that you will enjoy it if you take for what it is: a 1936 film, about domination and seduction, about control and heartbreak, which lasts just over an hour and was made with enthusiasm despite its limited funds.
The problem about film criticism today is simple: the "evaluations" you usually find on the internet are written by people who have little knowledge of content analysis, aesthetics, history, or art. And, in the case of zombie movies, they are delusions by people for whom the zombie movie began in 1968 with «Night of the Living Dead» by George A. Romero, who, ironically, when he made that film, referred to his entities as "ghouls", not zombies. For most followers of the Romero line, the zombie is a monster that eats human flesh and without clear origins, since filmmakers have not defined them effectively. Zombies made in the USA (or elsewhere!) appear by spontaneous generation.
In contrast, the traditional zombie icon, its history and legends, as reviewed in recent films such as «Zombi Child» and «Atlantique», are related to slavery, colonialism, cultural dispossession, oppression and exploitation of men and women by themselves ; and not to "zombie walks" and other nonsense that have brought the subgenre (and the moviegoers) to surfeit and indigestion. The zombies cut cane in Hait in «White Zombie»; here they are cannon fodder during war time.
In the tight script (co-written with playwright Rollo Lloyd), the story takes place in the French colony of Cambodia, during World War I. The action is triggered by an event on an Austrian war front, in which an army of indestructible Cambodian soldiers, created by a priest (also from Cambodia), was seen. The priest is soon killed with his secret, so an expedition of European military men goes in search of the secret formula to create zombies, hidden in the ruins of the city of Angkor. Against this story, a drama of seduction and deception unfolds. The tragic romantic situations play a key role in the resolution, when the man who discovers the formula has his colleagues and Cambodian troops under his will. Played by Dean Jagger in a measured performance, the man goes from a humble translator to a tyrant with a soft heart, a man betrayed by his best friend and a woman he never ceases to love.
Made with a low budget, noticeable in the interior settings, combined with some real oriental-type buildings to evoke Cambodian landscapes, the film has the freshness and shortcomings of a 1930s production: above all, the editing rhythm is as slow as in «Dracula,» «Scarface,» or «King Kong,» which modern audiences applaud because someone told them these were classic movies. No one warned them of this one, not a classic but quite a serviceable entertainment product... so, without a clue, they opt for the easy way and vilify it. I assure you that you will enjoy it if you take for what it is: a 1936 film, about domination and seduction, about control and heartbreak, which lasts just over an hour and was made with enthusiasm despite its limited funds.