White Zombie (1932)

Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

One of my all time favorites.

Best movie ever!

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

I wanted to like White Zombie more. After all, it is considered to be the first "zombie movie" ever made. But the pacing and acting made it seem like the longest 68-minute film ever made. I think it would have worked better as a silent film.

Released in 1932, "White Zombie" is a rather under-rated horror film.The film has atmosphere, a fairly good plot, a great performance from Bela Lugosi and good direction.The only thing I am a bit wary of, (and this is no fault of the film) is that a lot of DVD releases are of rather poor quality. It took me a while to locate a good DVD but luckily I have.

The legendary George Carlin once said that zombies are unreliable, and while he wasn't referring to the quality of the films they appear in, I'll hijack his statement and agree with him. I'd also add that they're inconsistent in their behavior. Sometimes they run, sometimes they shamble, and sometimes they come back for revenge.The undead behave a little differently than what we as modern viewers have come to expect in"White Zombie." No, I'm not referring to Rob Zombie's industrial metal band - I'm talking about the 1932 film directed by Victor Halperin and starring Bela Lugosi. It's considered by many as the first feature-length zombie film, and its walking dead are less of the shambling, flesh-eating than they are voodoo and mind-controlled variety.The story takes place in the West Indies, and gets into swing when a witch doctor turns a newly-wed bride into a zombie slave. He's been doing it to the natives, but people only really start to care when he does it to a white woman. The commentary on slavery and racism here is daring for a movie of its time, though I'd be hesitant to claim it has anything particularly interesting to say about its subject matter. Bela Lugosi stars as zombiism-practitioner 'Murder' Legendre (could you have a name more badass than that?) and he chews up the scenery in a performance with more than a passing similarity to his one in "Dracula" a year earlier. I think the only difference is his facial hair. He glares at the audience and wears comical expressions throughout, and is a joy to watch whenever he's on screen. His ham is well complimented by the rest of cast, who bring a slice of their own cheese to this black and white sandwich. There's some inventive cinematography on display, but only occasionally, as the film resembles a stage play for the majority of its runtime. There are a couple of impressive, albeit primitive matte paintings, and a bizarre effects sequence where the screen is split in half with a Star Wars-style screen wipe that doesn't quite work. On a technical level, the film is ambitious. Sadly, the version I watched came in one of those "10 movies for 5 bucks!" packs and it wasn't exactly what I'd call "lovingly restored." The dialogue sounded like it was recorded on a potato. It's not just the technical elements that make films like "White Zombie" and others from its era a little more challenging to watch nowadays. 34 years after it was released, George Romero redefined - or, more bluntly - DEFINED the zombie genre with "Night of the Living Dead." It's difficult to see how scary "White Zombie" was to viewers in 1932 since our perceptions of horror have been molded by our experiences with another century worth of the genre's evolution. In fact, the most effective thing in the film was a large bird of prey that sounded like a woman screaming. If it wasn't so funny, it would be disturbing."White Zombie" hasn't lost all of its impact, however. It's still entertaining, and admirable for its claim as the first zombie film. There's a lot to appreciate about these films that did something new in their genre, and it's truly mind-boggling to think that there was ever a time history when the cinematic zombie was a fresh idea!

To begin with, I'm a Bela Lugosi fan. He had a pair of the most evil eyes this side of Lee Van Cleef. And I think he did a typically good job of portraying a mysterious and sinister character. By today's standards the plot is not very deep. But it is nonetheless enjoyable. Fans of this early era of horror movie know that it's often not only the film that is black and white. Good and evil are clearly defined. And for my taste I believe that's why I sometimes enjoy these old movies of all kinds. There are no veiled social messages to have to sort through. One thing I noticed about this film are the early attempts at screen effects. Surely not to be compared with modern effects...I think some of the ones used in this movie were...effective. They add dimension to the film. Especially when you consider that this film is over 80 yrs. old I think some great imagination was shown in this regard. I didn't think the acting was bad. I didn't think it was great, either. But for me it didn't interfere with my enjoying the film. You'll also notice that in some scenes you can actually see the breath of the actors who appear to be in something like a dungeon. I don't know the exact circumstances that caused this. But it adds another sense of atmosphere to the film. I also like the very last line spoken. I got a chuckle out of it. I'd recommend this movie to anyone who would like to see the beginning of the evolution in film horror.