I must say, I thought I had seen it all. I am an extremely jaded movie buff. This movie didn't shock me, by any means. I'm way past that point. But it did take me to certain emotional places I didn't know I could go to. I had no idea I could ever find (ick) the idea of beastiality erotic. Never never never. Ever. Ever. But there you go. He did it. I have to give the director credit. He pulled it off.
For the first 40 minutes this movie is a TOTAL bore. We start off with some very explicit footage of two horses having sex. After five minutes of this I started wondering if buying this movie wasn't a mistake. Then an old guy in a wheelchair talks to some other old guy about two people getting married. Then some nervous guy shaves. Then we see (briefly) a hot chick getting it on with a butler (but this is very brief). At this point I was cursing the movie out loud while trying to stay awake. In fact, I fell asleep at about the 40 minute mark and forced myself to finish it the next night.
We finally get the good stuff when a girl (who knows who she is, or who anyone is in this movie) has a dream about a Victorian-era gal being ravaged by a beast-thing in the forest. The scene goes on for quite some time and is really the meat (heh-heh) of the whole deal. It's beautifully shot, superbly edited, and does deliver the goods. They do try to wrap up the plot at the end and it sort of makes sense but sort of doesn't either. Oh well. I would definitely recommend this film. The first 40 minutes made me want to shoot myself (and my TV) but the last 50 minutes totally redeems it.

Of the many problems with this film, the worst is continuity; and re-editing it on VHS for a college cable channel many years ago, I tried to figure out what exactly went wrong. What seems to have happened is that they actually constructed a much longer film and then chopped it down for standard theatrical viewing. How much longer? to fill in all the holes in the plot as we have it would require about three more hours of narrative and character development - especially given the fact that the film we do have is just so slow and takes itself just so seriously.
That's staggering; what could the Halperins have possibly been trying to accomplish here? Their previous film, "White Zombie", was a successful low budget attempt to duplicate the early Universal Studios monster films (The Mummy, Dracula, etc.), and as such stuck pretty close to the zombie mythology that those in North America would know from popular magazines.
Revolt of the Zombies, to the contrary, appears to have been intended as some allegory for the politics of modern war. This would not only explain the opening, and the change of Dean Jagger's character into a megalomaniac, but it also explains why the zombies don't actually do much in the film, besides stand around, look frightening, and wait for orders - they're just allegorical soldiers, not the undead cannibals we've all come to love and loathe in zombie films.
I am the equal to any in my dislike for modern war and its politics - but I think a film ought to be entertaining first, and only later, maybe, educational. And definitely - a film about zombies ought to be about zombies.
Truly one of the most bizarre films in Hollywood history, but not one I can recommend, even for historic value.