Skip to main content

Plague of the Zombies (1966) Review


Conclusion


A highly influential zombie film that still regards the White Zombie inspired traditional link between Voodoo and the undead with a modicum of respect. There are no toxic substances or medical explanations for zombies here, only Voodoo tainted blood.

A British made film from the prestigious Hammer collection. Highly recommended for horror buffs, especially because it is the only Hammer zombie film, but it would probably put fans of films paced like The Matrix to sleep. An unsettling sleep, but sleep nonetheless.

Plot synopsis


Sir James Forbes is a highly respected doctor. He is summoned to a remote Cornish village by one of his former students, doctor Peter Tompson, to help deal with a mysterious disease. The illness is killing off villagers, but since the locals are superstitious, the doctor had been unable to perform any kind of autopsy.

Sylvia, the daughter of Sir Forbes, accompanies her father on his journey to the countryside to reinforce her feeling of silver spoon superiority over the simpletons in the country. She is an English bird, and due to her characteristically pale skin it is hard to tell whether she is a zombie or not.

Sir James Forbes digs up a grave of a recently deceased villager, only to discover that the grave is empty. Only to be discovered by constable Swift, digging up a grave, looking like a very demented thrill seeker with his panting breath, his rolled up sleeves and his sweaty palms. Somehow, Sir Forbes manages to convince the constable not to charge him for grave robbing, and also to aid him in his investigation.

The investigation soon turns more exciting when more people are put to their graves, more empty graves are unearthed and more dead people start walking the earth.

A secretive local links all the risen dead in seemingly innocuous ways. The squire, Clive Hamilton, spent some time in Haiti and some Voodoo seemed to have followed him home.

Review


It is estimated that Plague of the Zombies offers social critique of the practices of slavery and colonialism. I did not really notice any such critique. What I did notice instead was that the male hierarchy in the film is distinctly represented by their facial hair.
  • Sir James Forbes is obviously the older alpha male who enjoys the highest regard. He has a hirsute appendage of the upper lip with graspable extremities, in other words a handlebar moustache.

  • Squire Clive Hamilton is the antagonist, who is a candidate for the next alpha male. He sports a modest approach to a mutton chop. This suggests that he is well groomed, however the fact that sporadic mutton chop remains on his cheeks suggest he has a wilder nature and that he is hiding something.

  • Doctor Tompson is a spineless nancy boy who is 19th century Emo or Buddhist, or perhaps both. He has no facial hair whatsoever, but he does sport a modest approach to the one eye fringe.


Jacqueline Pearce portrays the role of doctor Tompson's wife. She is promptly transformed into a chicita del morte, and along with Return of the Living Dead 3's Mindy Clarke, she is a certified C.I.L.F.

certified M.I.L.F milf corpse
That's a corpse I'd like to find a good home for.

The only bone of contention I have with this film is the rather unimaginative ending. It just ends. There is no interesting twist in the plot, even though the audience is set up exactly for a marvellous twist in the plot. Clearly, this film came out before the 10 commandments of horror were conceived.

Director


John Gilling

Cast


John Carson, Diane Clare, Adré Morell, Jacqueline Pearce, Brook Williams.

Rating


most amazing heavy metal rating skulls

Comments

dvdisgo said…
Always loved this one...

In the UK you can get this in a 21 film Hammer collection for about £40. A bargain.

Popular posts from this blog

Fist bump the Trump

I must confess that I did not follow this election as it unfolded, because I have no skin in this game. I only became interested when I saw the crocodile tears on Facebook.

What fascinated me more was that the Trump supporters came out of the closet for the first time to voice their opinions. Virtually none of these Trump supporters espoused racist, misogynistic or any of those kind of deplorable views. Most of them were just pointing fingers at the know-it-all Clinton supporters.

What characterised this election? Rather than enlightened liberals waging a culture war with backward rednecks and hayseeds, three things characterised this election for me:
Shared hubris: Our candidate is bad, but the other candidate is even worse. Both parties seemed to espouse this sentiment.Joe Sixpack's Revenge: Based on voter turnout and based on for whom the largest voting group voted, this election was the revenge of the average American. That is average American by sheer number. Nobody bothered t…

Why has outrage come to dominate platforms like Twitter?

This question was posted on twitter by Sarah Britten Pillay. I shall try to answer that here, or at least address some of the topics surrounding this notion.

What makes a platform like Twitter more outrageous than the next? A brief summary of my thoughts on the topic: It would be interesting to contrive some outrage meter that could detect outrage levels in a piece of text.Plenty if not most of social media outrage is manufactured as a distraction.Outrage that isn't manufactured can be analysed by means of kin selection concepts from biology.If you aren't entirely sold on the sociobiology idea, then the balance of risk and incentive from game theory can also shed some light on the rationale behind social media outrage. Outrage levels are too damn high I do agree that social media platforms tend to be filled with more outrage than others, but as far as I know there is no means of detecting or measuring outrage. The need exists for some outrage quotient or some method of classify…

White tears the most valuable currency but not as valuable as fauxtrage

This formerly glorious publication which I shall not even bother naming has also fallen into the habit of censoring its comments section, at least when it comes to white tears. Fortunately, I could still save this obviously far superior comment from the rather myopic agitprop from whence it came. I know it is superior because the quality of your commentary is inversely proportional to how long it stays unscathed. That's why the sanctimonious finger-wagging op-eds rarely get deleted, but the comments rarely last long.
Anyone - black or white or of any other pigmentation persuasion - with a Rhodes Scholarship can but only cry White Tears. Someone with a Rhodes Scholarship is in the very lap of privilege, the likes of which not even the majority of pale South Africans born with a silver spoon will ever see. That is why it is not uncommon to see their ilk waiting on tables instead of whipping their slaves on their ill-begotten land, which they refuse to give up, you see.
A similar campa…