Review: VooDoo

Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2019
Images from the Internet

VooDoo (Unrated Version)
Written and directed by Tom Costabile
HyperCube Films / Agenda Avenue Productions /
Wild Eye Releasing / MVD Entertainment
84 minutes, 2017 / 2018
http://voodoothemovie.com/
www.wildeyereleasing.com
www.mvdvisual.com

So how long does it take to overstay your welcome at someone else’s home? For this this film, we meet Dani (Samantha Stewart), and the answer is a single night. After the break-up of a relationship (he’s married; more on that later), she heads from New Orleans to visit her “cuz” Stacy (Ruth Reynolds) in LA. Stacy is staying at a house with the rest of her band, who are trying to “make it” (though we never hear their music). Interestingly, the house share is filmed in Billy Idol’s actual home, so there are lots of instruments and sound recording devices around. This was a nice touch.



Ruth Reynolds and Samantha Stewart

Dani is a bit of a ditz, and not exactly likeable, though not a horrendous human. For example, she ended the relationship with the married guy when confronted by his wife, a (wait for it) voodoo priestess who curses her (shades of Drag Me to Hell). However, on the being an ass side, she steps all over her cousin boundaries without a second thought, and films everything (oh, did I mention this is a found footage flick?). Thanks to her conscious actions, she also involves Stacy into her own curse. Of course I won’t go into detail about that, but it was a real shitty move to do to someone who is opening their place for you. Now mind you, Stacy isn’t exactly a shining light as a person either. But they do get to have a cameo with Ron Jeremy, so it can’t all be bad, right?

 

My next question is, what is it about found footage films where the first 20 minutes are just following the characters around and not really giving too much info about them? I mean, we do learn a bit about their personalities, and the set-up of why the curse is happening, but that could have been done in much less time. However, this is consistent with so many films these days, where the first 20 minutes are padded on to make it into feature length, or to fit in the cameos. I’m not pointing a finger at this film specifically, as it is almost endemic in both indies and mainstream releases (of course with blockbusters, the rule is reversed and the over-indulge to the point of drowning the audience with too much).

Now, interspersed between the 20-minute mark and the 20-minute-plus finale, there are some really fine moments of spookiness that come unexpectedly, and is quite the relief from the annoyance that is Dani’s personality. Again, I’m not saying she is a bad person, just grating. But does she deserve what she gets in the end? I’m not saying.

Where Drag Me to Hell ends with the main character being – err – dragged to Hell, but here we get the scenic route. Needless to say, the film truly picks up at the moment Dani gets there, delving into a cavalcade of blood, gore, demons, and certainly makes up for the drips and drabs of the first 40 minutes.

What confuses me (lots of questions, you see), is it continues with the found footage style even in Hell. Who is going to see it? Well, other than us, of course.

I really don’t want to give away the different levels of Hell, because each one makes a point in Christian dogma, and also the result of Christian (in this case Roman Catholic) “salvation” by priests. For the genre fan who likes “blood and gore and veins in mah teeth,” as Arlo Guthrie once postulated, this vision of the underworld will be mild after the likes of Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975) or any of the Japanese or American Guinea Pig series. For the average film goer, used to mainstream cinema, this can be seen as quite extreme. Personally, I think many crime dramas they show on cable are more horrific, but that’s me.

The cast is quite attractive, and also accomplished, if one looks at some of the credits for the actors. While Ron Jeremy may be the most famous of the bunch (which makes me happy in an odd and twisted way), there is a lot of talent in this group. I guess I should say the two main leads of Stewart and Reynolds anyway, as they are the draw of both the focus of the camera and story. Everyone else is kind of peripheral, even the architect of evil here, the priestess Serafine L’Amour (Constance Strickland), who’s ironic name translates as “Angel of Love.”

It may sound like I’ve been a bit hard on this film, but note that it is the director’s first feature, and found footage (hopefully a dying breed at this point) is somewhat easier to work on the learning curve as technical precision can be fudged over a lot easier on a moving and somewhat spontaneous camera (even with storyboards and pre-blocking). I hope Christensen has learned from the experience and will continue to grow, as I see potential in here.

One recommendation I have to the viewer is check out the Trivia section for this film in IMBD. It is chock full of interesting goodies that may have you go back and revisit certain scenes, if’n yer so inclined. This is especially true as the only extras on the DVD are a cavalcade of Wild Eye Releasing trailers, including for this film.

 

Review: Inner Demon

Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2018
Images from the Internet

Inner Demon (Unrated Version)

Written and directed by Ursula Dabrowsky
Demon Girl Productions / South Australian Film Corporation / Saylavee Productions / Terror Films / MVD Entertainment
84 minutes, 2014 / 2018
www.mvdb2b.com

This South Australian film has won a bunch of awards, and I can certainly see why. Anyone familiar with horror from Down Under, such as 2005’s Wolf Creek, knows that the genre tends to lean towards the darker side of events, be it human or supernatural.



Sarah Jeavons

Within the first few minutes of this release, the tension if ramped up and stays at high gear throughout. But first we meet two sisters, teenage Sam (Sarah Jeavons) babysitting her younger sis (Scarlett Hocking) when they are kidnapped by a serial killing couple, Karl (Andreas Sobik) and Denise (Kerry Reid).

With Sam in the trunk and thanks to some smart resourcefulness (such as always keeping her weapon close at hand rather than leaving it behind after using it, even when falling short in the follow-through), she escapes into the woods. Note that this is in the description on the box, etc., so I’m not really giving away any spoilers here). It’s when she believes she has found a safe haven (though my fellow genre fans will know better… and again, printed on the box), of course, she’s gone into the lion’s den without Daniel.

I’ve professed before that sometimes when tension is overused, rather than keeping up the adrenaline, it tends to become wearisome after a minute or two. Dabrowsky skillfully manages to make every moment count, and rarely winds down the volume of tension, yet continually keeps it interesting.



Andreass Sobik

The main focus of the film is more the human monsters in the serial killer forms of the reluctant Denise and cold-hearted Karl, who seems to kill out of need more than any real personal satisfaction, as he never seems to be happy about his actions – but also does not want to stop. Both Sobik and Reid are totally believable in their roles, and Sobik portrays an ideal and soulless human monster that cannot control his own inner demons (figuratively speaking).

Of course, the film is focused more on Sam, even when she’s rendered relatively helpless (nope, not giving it away). Jeavons does a bang-up job, and even with the camera often focused on her white tee cleavage, her acting skill shines through.

There definitely are some squishy flesh moments (one in particular hard to watch for me), so the application SFX (didn’t notice any bloody CGI) was effective. It’s not a huge cast with essentially five main characters, including a neighbor, scraggly haired Wayne (Todd Telford) who I’m pretty sure is having an affair with Denise, but it’s more implied (red dress) than spoken. Or perhaps Denise is looking for a way out. Again, it’s left kind of open. Anyway, my point is the onscreen kill factor is relatively low, but incredibly well done.

By the time the supernatural element shows up in the last act, well, I felt that was the weakest element of the film as it felt like it was almost unnecessary. The human serial killers story would have actually have been sufficient with some tooling with the story. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good supernatural or even creature feature (not the latter, here), but it almost felt like when the cake is excellent, and there’s too much icing added on to it. Note that this is a personal thought, and I respect this film a lot. Just seemed almost out of place for me.

The accents are thick as black flies, and at times muttered, so I highly recommend turning on the captioning while you’re watching. Speaking of which, the extras involved how you want the sound, captioning, chapters, and three label trailers (including for this film).



Kerry Reid

While Aussie cinema can be dark (even comedies like Muriel’s Wedding), I have found that (as a gross generalization) women directors have a slightly different eye, and approach a subject in a more subtle way than many male directors who seem to like to use the sledgehammer style. For example, the volume of gore is not outrageously used, so when it is, it’s highly more effective. Don’t get me wrong, as I said, there are some nasty, squishy scenes here, but it’s presented sparingly in a very effective manner.

So, to sum up: dark film, great acting, scary human characters, and a bit of the supernatural towards the end that will either feel right or out of place, depending on your perspective. As the director stated for the Etheria Film Night website: “Horror audiences are so bored with most of the horror films that come out because they are so predictable. I know I am, so I decided to take liberties with the narrative, push the boundaries, experiment, and come up with something different. But this means the audience has to work at understanding what is happening. It’s a risk, but one I decided was worth taking in order to offer horror fans a fresh perspective.”

My only real “has to work at understanding” question is the how of the supernatural. That being said, this is a strong piece of cinema, and I have no problems recommending it to genre fans.

 

 

Review: Cat Sick Blues

Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2018

Images from the Internet

Cat Sick Blues

Directed and edited by Dave Jackson

Phandasmes Video / Wild Eye Releasing Raw / MVD Visual

101 minutes, 2016 / 2018

www.facebook.com/CatSickBlues

http://phantasmesvideo.com/

www.wildeyereleasing.com

www.mvdvisual.com

D’jever have one of those pals or acquaintances who treated their pet with so much attention, it seemed a bit... unhealthy? You know, all their Facebook posts are pictures of them with the critter, or the beastie dressed up in some inappropriate costume that made you kinda feel sorry for the pet more than the owner? You’ve probably thought to yourself, they are just lonely and they need to find the right human person to connect with, right?

Matthew C. Vaughn

Ted (Matthew C. Vaughn, giving off a Norman Bates/Anthony Perkins meets Eb from ”Green Acres” vibe and look) is just such a person. After his cat walks over the rainbow bridge (though it’s body is in the fridge’s freezer), he has a shrine to it in his abode, and oh, by the way, kills women while wearing a cat mask and a cat-claw glove (references to Freddy K. are bound to turn up); don’t ask about the giant, spiked strap on dildo… He’s under the psychosis that if he kills nine people, one for each of the cat’s lives, he can bring it back. Yeah, Teddy-lad is not playing with a full deck.

As for Claire (Shian Denovan), her cat is a viral internet star until a sudden and brutal occurrence. She’s distraught, and it’s only a matter of time until cat fanciers Ted and Claire are bound to meet. Him with his creepiness and cat obsession, and her on the verge of a breakdown, they are two unhappy people with little in common other than Meow Mix and a filled litter box that is unemptied. Their relationship is more symbiotic than nurturing, but they are desperate people in need for companionship and comfort in some way, no matter how unconventional.

Shian Denovan

But these are two very disturbed people in actually very different ways. The path does not follow the usual Psychos in Love formula, I’m happy to say, and we are presented with wholly different and quite unexpected scenarios. Kudos to the writers for that.

This is almost a horror cyberpunk with Ted adding technology to his own physicality, doing a Marshall McLuhan by adding to his body parts to make them extensions of himself (I got me some ed-ju-ma­-cation, y’see). What he does with these devices is kinda what you’d expect if you are a fan of this kind of fare, as am I, and I’m grateful that the technique used is more strike than torture, in most cases. I mean, I was wondering if I would have liked the story if he had used the spikey dildo more often or less… of course I’m not even going to give a hint, but I was satisfied.

There are some quite stunning practical SFX in general, especially the head near the beginning of the film. That being said, the blood was a bit too bright red and watery, especially in certain cases, but I’m willing to forget that as it was quite enjoyable to see the gushing. Yes, this is a very graphic and wet film.

My big issue with the production was, believe it or not, the sound. Even without the Australian accents (yes, this comes from a land down under… sorry), a bit of the dialogue is hard to make out with the industrial Nosie soundtrack. Luckily this is not a dialogue heavy flick, so don’t let that stop ya.

Ted is an interesting character, especially the way Vaughn plays him. Sometimes he’s shy, sometimes he quite assured and confident, and other times quite neurotically out of his league. While not discussed, I’m willing to bet he’s on the autism scale. But he manages to set out on his goal to resurrect his purr. That is, when he’s not having grand mal seizures (I know someone who actually died of this), especially after a kill; perhaps it’s the adrenaline rush that triggers it. I realize he’s quite a sexual deviant (the story makes that quite clear), but I was a bit annoyed that all his victims were female, which is a bit of throwback to the bad part of the genre.

That being said, I found Claire even more interesting, even if she is not always likeable. Lovely Denovan plays her in many states of emotions and manic. While Ted may technically be the main character, I felt the film was more about her, the way she deals with multiple levels of grief, and how she works through the pain and fear.

Loneliness is another key factor throughout the film. Whether it’s the two leads, the members of a pet grieving group, Claire’s friend (attractive Rachel Rai), or a fan obsessed with Claire’s cat (Noah Moon), nearly everyone is alone on a substantive level. Even there is a physical connection between characters, it’s never on a positive emotional way.

There’s a nice interplay of reality and dementia, as both our protagonists go through their situations in various ways. But what struck me the most was the use of social media and technology throughout the film, be it feel good viral kitty videos or the dark web’s more sinister side. But what affected me more is how people are so casual about online (real) violence, and being looky-loos in the midst of it. The overall technological culture is a mass of sensationalist headlines and banality of viewing genuine ferocity.

Rachel Rai

Extras abound in this DVD release, so let’s get at it. In no particular order, to start there is the 10:07 short with the same name from 2013. Also starring Vaughn, I’m guessing this was part of the Kickstarter campaign to give the investors some peek of what is to come. A couple helps a masked Ted and he follows them home to a game of – err – cat and mouse. It could well have been a deleted scene from the main feature.

Another short black-and-white short film at 5:03 is “Kappa” (2012). An annoyed guy is asked by is kinda-slow roomie to watch over some Claymation birdlike creature in a box. Things go weird and, well, again, I’m not telling. It’s a pretty crisp looking pic.

Speaking of Deleted Scenes, there are five of them officially, ranging from a few seconds to a couple of minutes. I say “officially” because the first one is kind of a compilation of a few short bits. Yeah, it was good most of them were excised as they didn’t add anything to the story, but I was happy to see them, and honestly, there were a couple I would put back in. Take that as a compliment.

Next up is “Claws and Cat Cocks,” a behind the scenes documentary at a lengthy 35:15, shot by Lucas Haynes. Very grainy, it is footage of different scenes being shot. You get the impression that along with the hard work, the crew and cast both got along and had a bit of fun. Most of the focus is on Vaughn, understandably. My opinion of the featurette is that it was kinda meh, with not enough cast interviews or real direction. It really feels like just random shots with no fixed rhyme or reason other than being there. While I stayed for the whole thing, I fought the urge to skip around.

Other than a bunch of nice Wild Eye Raw trailers (including the one for this film), lastly there are two full length commentaries. The first is with the director (who also co-wrote), Vaughn (who is also a co-producer), co-writer Andrew Gallacher, and producer Taena Hoshi. Sometimes too many people on a commentary can get chaotic, but fortunately they are pretty even, though sometimes it’s hard to tell who is talking. The comments lean towards the creation, the cast, the characters and some technical bits, so it’s pretty interesting throughout.

The second one is more crew based, with the director and Toshi once again, plus five others. There are way too many to get anything substantive as they all talk over each other or are too far from the microphone, though you get they’re enjoying the group’s company. I ended up giving up after the third of nine chapters, at the 18 minute mark.

Back to the feature, the word that I’ve seen associated with it is ”surreal,” and there are definitely moments of that here and there, especially in the third act. It should be noted, however, that the story mostly follows a narrative, so the surreal elements don’t work against it. It’s a beautifully shot and edited film, and while it probably could have used a tad more trimming, it’s definitely worth the viewing.

The film doesn’t hit you over the head with any philosophy, but doesn’t shy away from it either. That’s just part of what makes this a nice entry into the genre from where women blow and men thunder (dammit! Sorry again!!).

Extra, unrelated video:

Review: Fear the Forest

Text © Richard Gary / FFanzeen, 2013
Images from the Internet

 

Fear the Forest: Unrated Edition

Written, produced and directed by Mathew Bora
Radiant Pictures
110 minutes, 2009 / 2013
www.radiantpicturesent.com
www.MatthewBora.com
www.centralfilmcompany.com
www.lostempirefilms.com
www.mvdvisual.com

One of the aspects I love about independent horror films, more than any other genre, is when you say “Boy, this is a bad film,” it does not mean avoid it. That being said, boy, this is a bad film.

Shot like a crisp version of VHS-type of video, rather than digitized to look like film, the writing is atrocious, the creature looks like a gorilla suit, and the acting is more wooden than the Pennsylvania/New Jersey border Mountains in which it is filmed. And yet…

Years after a series of killings by a rumored Bigfoot (which we see in the extended prologue), and the aftermath of a bunch of yahoo hunters (going huntin’ rather than hunting, as a comedian once made the distinction) try to earn the $2.5 million (really?) bounty on the creature, a group of five overage college students (I’m guessing) and a dog decide to go to those very woods to camp out. They are led by Matt (director Matthew Bora), who looks about 10 years older than everyone else, to the area via canoe. We know they are being watched by someone or something by the orange-hued POV camera.

Ah, these mid-twenties teens...

Needless to say, they fall prey to the creature – I’m not telling you anything you don’t know already, right? Not that most of them are of any great loss. Most of the three guys are just, well, stooopid. They make the Tony Manero crowd look like they stepped out of "The Big Bang Theory."  They disrespect their girlfriends, act like buffoons among themselves, and make you want the Bigfoot to kill them just to get rid of them. For example, one of the women finds some human bones, and they laugh at her, rather than checking it out themselves. Yeah, I want these clowns to have my back.

And how stupid is this group? No one brings a cellphone. Really? Even in 2009, the thought of someone in their teens or early twenties not having a cell phone seems so unrealistic to the point of unreliability. Another proof of the questionable writing? The number of days in the woods keeps jumping by two. They go up there, and the next sign says “Day 3,” then “Day 5,” followed by “Day 7,” etc.

Anna Kendrick

And when some of the group is on the run, they meet up with a couple of backwoods guys, including one named Bubba.  Near the Catskills? Really? The main character, Barbara (Anna Kendrick), despite being a blackbelt, is manhandled often before semi-fighting back, when she should easily have kicked their machismo-sans-masculinity asses. And Barbara’s father, the New York State governor, takes nine days to send a rescue crew? And what happened to the dog? And then there’s over-the-top Kyle…

What I find amazing is the sheer size of the cast, including extras. There must be dozens of hunters, bit players, families, reporters, radio DJs, government staff, party guests, gratuitous mean girls, and so on. The budget for this film, according to IMDB, is approximately $500,000. I don’t see it. Even with the huge cast, renting a camera, hiring the music and having a British company (!?!) design the creature, I have to wonder where all the money went.

Let’s talk about the gritty now. When it comes to blood and gore, well, there is a little blood, but nothing big, and certainly no body innards. There is one quick topless flash, but that’s it. As for the big, expensive monster costume from overseas, well, I think Matthew got ripped off. There are plenty of effects artists in the States, not to mention in New York alone, that could have done a much better job, even with the animatronic head. Mostly, it looks like a ‘50s creature features man-in-a-suit more than a terrifying beast. So why is it the “unrated” version? Is there a rated version? Must be PG-13, or a very soft R, as it is

There are some cool extras here, the major one being a 50-minute making of documentary that folds in interviews with the director, crew and some of the cast, and how the creature was created from thought to actuality, among many other topics. It remains interesting throughout it’s time. Then there is the deleted scenes, which includes the bloopers, and the trailer, along with a few other bits.

Now, to answer the first paragraph, do I think you should go see it? Hell, yeah. While not so-bad-it’s-good, there is definitely a fun spirit to the film that would make a nice evening with the buds over some popcorn. Just don’t choke while you are amused by it all.

I have not seen any of Matthew Bora’s other work, but I get the feeling that he is possibly “up and coming” as he claims on his bio, and I think with the right people guiding and mentoring him, he might get somewhere.