Having just watched this film again from a 1998 showing off VH-1, I just had to comment.
The first time I saw this film on TV, it was about 1981, and I remember taping it off of my mother's betamax. It wound up taping in black and white for some reason, which gave it a period look that I grew to like.
I remember very distinctively the film beginning with the song, "My Bonnie", as the camera panned over a scene of Liverpool. I also remember the opening scene where Paul gestures to some girls and says, "Look, talent!" So it was with great irritation that I popped in my 1998 taped version and "remembered" that the film opens with "She Loves You", instead of "My Bonnie". When you see how slowly the camera pans vs. the speed of the music, you can see that "She Loves You" just doesn't fit. Also, in this "later" version when Paul sees the girls, he says, "Look, GIRLS!"..and somehow having remembered the earlier version, THAT word just didn't seem to fit, either. Why they felt they had to Americanize this film for American audiences is beyond me. Personally, if I'm going to watch a film about a British band, I want all of the British colloquialisms and such that would be a part of their speech, mannerisms, etc.
Another irritation was how "choppy" the editing was for television. Just after Stu gets beaten, for example, the film cuts to a commercial break-LOTS of 'em. Yeah, I know it depends on the network, but it really ruins the effect of a film to have it sliced apart, as we all know. What some people might find as insignificant in terms of dialogue (and thereby okay to edit), may actually go the way of explaining a particular action or scene that follows.
My point is, the "best" version of this film was probably the earlier version I taped from 1981, which just so happened to include the "Shake, Rattle & Roll" scene that my 1998 version didn't. I started to surmise that there had to have been two different versions made for television, and a look at the "alternate versions" link regarding this film proved me right. That the American version had some shorter/cut/different scenes and/or dialogue is a huge disappointment to me and something worth mentioning if one cares about such things. Imo, ones best bet is to try and get a hold of the European version of this film, if possible, and (probably even less possible), an unedited version. Sadly, I had to discard my old betamax European version because I didn't know how to convert it.
All that aside, I found this film to be, perhaps, one of the best films regarding the story behind the "birth of the Beatles". Being well aware that artistic and creative license is often used in movies and TV when portraying events in history, I didn't let any discrepancies mar my enjoyment of the film. Sure, you see the Beatles perform songs at the Cavern that made me wonder, "Did they even write that back then?? I don't think so", but, nevertheless, I thought it was a great film and the performances, wonderful.
The real stand-out for me, in fact, was the actor who played John, Stephen MacKenna. I just about fell in love with him. His look, mannerisms, personality and speaking voice seemed to be spot-on. He looked enough like a young John for me to do a double-take towards the end of the film when you see the Beatles performing on Ed Sullivan for the first time. I actually found myself questioning whether or not it was actual Beatle footage, until I saw the other actors in the scene.
If you're looking for a dead accurate history of The Beatles' life and beginnings, you can't get any better than, "The Beatles' Anthology", as it was "written" by the boys', themselves. However, if you're looking for a fun snapshot of their pre-Beatlemania days leading up to their arrival in America and you leave your anal critical assessments at the door, you can't go wrong with the "Birth of the Beatles"--a MUST for any "real" or casual Beatle fan.

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.