Oasis of the Zombies (1983) from Tuna

Oasis of the Zombies (1983) is probably more interesting for the amount of misinformation about it than for the plot or exposure. After Jean Rollin was brought in to finish Zombie Lake and bail Jess Franco out, Franco wrote a second Zombie film, where the Zombies are German soldiers guarding $6m in gold. 
A college student and son of the man who killed all of the Germans during the war discovers, upon his father's death, that his mother was the daughter of a Sheik, and also learns about the supposedly still hidden $6m. 


There is distant nudity from France Jordan and Doris Regina. There is also good breast exposure by an unidentified actress, possibly Myriam Landson.
He takes a few classmates and a professor to recover the gold. The Zombies nearly win, although they crawl noisily out of the sand and attack at a snail's pace. The film is every bit as bad as this sounds. We have a strong contender for worst film here. 

DVD info from Amazon.

  • no widescreen, no features 

There has been a running battle for years as to whether this film is Franco's work or not. The confusing stems from the fact that he did two films under different names, one in Spanish and one in French, and had somewhat different casts in each, although there is a lot of shared footage. This is the French one, and is the version that many people claimed was not done by Franco. Franco has now owned up to doing both. The IMDB entry is not even close in terms of cast and versions. To the best of my knowledge, the Spanish version is not currently available.

The DVD transfer is not bad, but is not enough reason to watch a film this bad. I will say the Zombie make-up had its moments. 

The Critics Vote

  • no reviews

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 2.1 
IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics - or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is an F.

Return to the Movie House home page