REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES

 

I'm currently reading Frank Dello Stritto's new book PATRON SAINTS OF THE LIVING DEAD. It's the latest volume in what I call the "Strittoverse", where the author takes various classic movies, TV episodes, and characters and weaves fantastic tales of his own. In PATRON SAINTS, Frank takes on the numerous filmed stories involving zombies, voodoo, possession, and the living dead--at least the stories made before George Romero totally changed those genres in 1968. 

One of the films Frank touches upon in his book is the 1936 REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES, directed and produced by the Halperin brothers. The movie is considered a follow-up to the Halperins' now-legendary WHITE ZOMBIE, but the two productions are very, very different. 

REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES starts off with a promising enough premise, as a squad of seemingly unstoppable Cambodian soldiers fights in World War One. The men are actually being controlled by a mysterious East Asian priest, and a number of Allied officials are so worried about what these men could do that an expedition is sent to Cambodia to discover the secrets behind their development. Included in the expedition is a young French officer named Armand Louque (Dean Jagger). Louque is obsessed with learning the secret of controlling the will of others, and he discovers it, in a lost jungle temple. Louque is also obsessed with the blonde daughter (Dorothy Stone) of one of the expedition's officials, and this leads him to use the secret for his own nefarious ends--but in time-honored fashion, the would-be dictator gets his comeuppance. 

WHITE ZOMBIE had a very, very low budget, but it also had a spooky, off-kilter atmosphere that allowed it to make an impact. It also featured a fantastic performance by Bela Lugosi. REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES also has a very, very low budget, but the atmosphere is dull and lifeless, and Dean Jagger is obviously no Bela Lugosi. 

Most of the "action" in REVOLT takes place in front of a back-projection screen, and most of the scenes take place during the day (why the Halperins didn't use darkness to hide the low budget and pump up the atmosphere is beyond me). The Halperins were able to get Arthur Martinelli as cinematographer--he did the same job on WHITE ZOMBIE--but REVOLT has a lackluster tone to it. 

Dean Jagger, at least at this early point in his acting career, just isn't up to carrying a poverty row thriller through his own personality. In all fairness, it has to be pointed out that Armand Louque isn't the most charismatic guy in the world. He's established in the beginning of the story as lacking in confidence and assurance--which makes his later turn into a zombie master a bit hard to swallow. (Jagger doesn't even get top billing in the movie's credits--Dorothy Stone gets that spot.) 

At various points the Halperins interject a dramatic close-up of Bela Lugosi's eyes from WHITE ZOMBIE to try and convince the viewer that Louque is using his "power". But the story never really explains how Louque is able to control others, and he's such a nebbish you can't understand why the rest of the cast doesn't just stand up to him. One thing a poverty row horror desperately needs is a strong, forceful personality in the cast--a Lugosi, an Atwill, or Zucco, etc.--a performer that can make a viewer overlook any low-budget flaws. REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES doesn't have that--and it really doesn't have very much zombie action either. What's left is a boring tale that makes one realize why the Halperins never achieved consistent success in the American movie industry.