input: I would say that this film gives an insight to the trauma that a young mind can face when a family is split by divorce or other disaster. I would highly recommend this film especially to parents or individuals planning to have a family.

I found the characters to be appealing and highly sympathetic from a multitude of dimensions.

The scary monster although probably not scary to most adults, has a very real hint of what the overactive imagination of a child who is facing unknown terrors might create.

I found the film to be delightful!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: 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.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Scientist working frantically in seclusion finds a way to locate the impact crater of a meteor carrying a new radioactive element. All (pseudo)science and breakthrough technology talks of the 1930s are right there, including the idea that radioactivity could heal any illness if properly harnessed. When he summons his rivals -who had cast him out of the scientific community and ridiculed him - to witness his discovery, they propose a 'joint' expedition to Africa...of course they end up stealing much of dr. Rukh's original discovery, giving him only residual credit. In addition to that, an effeminate weakling who looks like a supporting comedy actor from the worst Abbot&Costello (Lawton) literally steals dr. Rukh's young trophy wife (Drake), who falls head over heels for that scrap of a human being. Having grown horns like a deer wasn't going to make dr. Rukh (Karloff) any friendlier, so he embarks in an undercover revenge mission...killing 2 of his foes and friendly dr. Benet (Lugosi), the only one who had helped him...finally succumbing to the deadly radiations that had allowed him to embark in his revenge to start with but ( to my utmost dissatisfaction ) sparing the adulteress and that poor excuse for a human being she had married. Acting is mostly fine, with Karloff & Lugosi being very good. Check the hysterical chambermaid scene... Other characters aren't worth mentioning... Recommended, much like ALL old Universal horrors...

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I saw this film when it was first released. The memory of how bad it was has stayed with me almost forty years. I didn't want to trust my own sentiments about the movie when I saw it, so I consulted a movie review published in a major metropolitan newspaper the next day- sentiment confirmed, the reviewer wrote that the movie was incoherent, indecipherable, and uninspiring. A little research reveals that the producer was star Leslie Caron's husband, thus the whiff of nepotism suggests the beginning for this awful film. The film's roster of many capable actors - Caron, Warren Oates, Scatman Crothers, Gloria Grahame, and James Sikking among others - suggests that it holds some promise. But the death of this film is attributable to its terrible screenplay. The "mystery" implicated is so obscure and so little revealed throughout the film that the viewer is left perplexed from scene to scene. The movie seems torn between being a detective mystery and an espionage thriller, but never settles upon one or the other. The sense of suspense is entirely absent. The main characters settle on playing dry, emotionless types in a fashion that inspires no empathy whatsoever. The cinematography is pedestrian. The result is that the hapless viewer loses interest in the characters, the plot, and, in the end, the film itself. I am little surprised that there is no version of this pathetic film available to purchase. I hope that if TCM finds a print of this film and feels compelled to air it that it is safely relegated to the 4:00 am slot.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
negative