Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Though the title includes the word "zombies", this film is not what you'd expect from a movie made today, though for 1936 the concept is played out about as well as would probably be expected. Dean Jagger portrays Armand Louque, an officer in the French Army of World War I, who has stumbled upon an ancient tale of soldiers turned into automatons, or "zombies", who are impervious in battle and may hold the key to victory in the war, though on whose side is not certain. At first he has trouble convincing his superiors of this phenomenon, but eventually French General Duval (George Cleveland) orders a non military expedition into the ancient Cambodian city of Angkor to find the secret of the zombies and destroy it.

The story is played out against the backdrop of a love triangle involving Louque, Duval's daughter Claire (Dorothy Stone), and Clifford Grayson (Robert Noland), all a part of the expedition. When Louque laments over his lack of forcefulness and resolve, Grayson offers him advice to go after what he wants in life with all his power. That advice begins to transform Louque, particularly after he's successful in obtaining a stone tablet resembling a photo from the ancient city. Having followed a temple priest into a swamp, Louque now appears to hold the secret he had been seeking, though it's not made clear how he has instantaneously been able to command the power of "zombiefication". All it takes is placing his right fist to the forehead simulating a third eye, and casting his thoughts out to those he wishes to control. This comes in handy for winning back his girl, and taking Grayson's early advice as he comments to his servant, "Buna, we're learning to be ruthless".

Fans of early "B" horror flicks will recognize the use of Bela Lugosi's signature eye stare, plucked from the 1932 film "White Zombie", also from director Victor Halperin. Of the two movies, "White Zombie" is preferably superior, both in story content and in it's depiction of the undead, where the zombies have a more sinister appearance and are more threatening. In "Revolt", the zombies are enemy soldiers with a glazed over look that merely react to their mentor's commands. In fact, the actual revolt of the title occurs only when Louque releases the soldiers from his mental command in deference to his love for Claire; they overrun his compound and kill him in the process.

Not to be too harsh on the film, it plays out decently within the parameters of it's story outline, but if you're thinking "zombies!!!" within the traditional context, you'll probably be disappointed. If you want to sample an early treatment of the subject, the aforementioned "White Zombie" with Bela Lugosi is the way to go.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:no comment - stupid movie, acting average or worse... screenplay - no sense at all... SKIP IT!
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I can remember seeing this movie as a kid in 1977 or 1978. HBO would show it late at night back when they were they one and only movie pay channel in existence. Back then it was UNRATED and was the only movie of its kind ever shown on pay television...especially back then. I would love to see it now as an adult where I would be more apt to understand the adult theme of it. It was probably the closest thing I had ever seen to pornography at the young age of 7 or 8. Luckily I had stupid babysitters and party-going parents on the weekends. Most of my memory of this movie was the completely erratic sexual behavior of these two guys. Breaking into houses to sniff underwear, feeding on a stranger's breast milk on a public bus, and fornicating in a cab at the request of one of their female subjects were just a few of the whacked escapades these guys were pulling off. A very racy film for the early '70s. Until I checked IMDb, I had no idea this movie had such a following. Most people I talk to have never heard of it.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This isn't art, it's inner-urban, politically-correct propaganda! Jindabyne's political intolerance is beyond unforgivable... it doesn't see people as individuals, but rather, as members of categories.

This is the most patronisingly offensive Australian movie I can recall ever (and it's up against some pretty stiff competition!). A message movie, every tired theme beloved of the trendy left is there: Aborigines are victims; white men are violent or alcoholics; white women aren't that bad -particularly if they are lesbians - but they're most likely of a depressive nature.

Four men who go away fishing, find the body of a murdered woman (Aboriginal, naturally) and leave her in the river for several days while they catch trout. It's a strange decision taken with almost no discussion, as if the men are animals. The one man who briefly demurs is the goodie... we know this because he's living with a bisexual woman - he likes to hold his baby a lot - and eventually moves to a more fashionable costal location (away from all these beastly bush-dwellers).

This is a film made by those trendy urbanites who live in fear of the Australian landscape and those evil rednecks who reside within. It's ignorance of country life is almost as shocking as its contempt. The film is shot through with long-distance views of the bush backed by foreboding, mysterious music. It's made very clear by the end that Aboriginal people are the only ones at home in this landscape. It concludes with an excruciatingly implausible scene of black-white reconciliation.

In Jindabyne, country life is reduced to little more than a backdrop for a story that by implication proclaims the superiority of the values of enlightened leftist urban dwellers over those of other Australians.

This film was not made by people with real jobs but funded by the Government's Film Finance Corporation. It's a product of the artsy set, that soulless void populated by the beautiful people for whom lavish government funding sustains these patronisingly offensive projects (which are as detached from real life as possible), as opposed to actually making popular films people want to see. It doesn't matter if the film is a stinker, they still get paid.

Spare yourself from wasting time, avoid it like the plague. More jaded social commentary than actual entertainment, this film deserves to pan!
+++++++++
A:
negative