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.

 

Would a Zombie by Any Other Name Smell as Meat?…

Text (c) Richard Gary, 2012 / Indie Horror Films Blog

Images from the Internet

As with many others, I am a fan of the whole zombie genre, which seems to have picked up steam again over the past few years. But I am having terminology issues.

Growing up, pre-Night of the Living Dead (1968) [NOTLD], zombies were a whole different breed. They were slow and lumbering, undead, and usually Haitian. While there were horror films based on the characters, such as Bela Lugosi’s White Zombie (1932), mostly they were used as comedic fodder, as was with Bob Hope’s The Ghost Breakers (1940, infamous for the Willie Best line, “Feets, don’t fail me now!”). Of course, as most zombies were black, since they originated in the voodoo culture of Hispaniola, they were seen as derogatory and existed to be made fun of in a white colonialist stereotyping Hollywood way. Just the double-entendre title of the Bowery Boys’ Spooks Run Wild (1941) alone is an indication of that.

Early zombie

Even as late as the mid-1960s, zombies kept their kitsch appeal and were mainly used in comedies, such as in Ray Steckler’s ridiculously bad (in a good way) cult classic musical, The Incredibly Strange Creatures That Stopped Living and Became Mixed Up Zombies (1964), or, as they called a re-release when it played a midnight show at a Brooklyn theater where I worked during the mid-‘70s, Teenage Psycho Meets Bloody Mary.

Of course, NOTLD was a paradigm shifter, changing the image of clumsy voodoo servants and mindless murderers who followed the orders of their masters into clumsy flesh eaters free roaming the countryside (and malls, natch). This became the standard for years, through the likes of Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things (1973) and Return of the Living Dead (1985; including sequels).  While just a bit more limber in these later films, a sheriff from NOTLD said it best with “Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up.”

However, once again things took an evolutionary leap with the Brit flick, 28 Days Later... (2002; not to be confused with Sandra Bullock’s 2000 mind-numbing-zombie-like-inducing 28 Days). In this flick, a virus turns people into violent and swift flesh eaters… but they’re still alive! This story is almost copied in another, more recent British release, The Devil’s Playground (2010), which actually inspired this column.

Slow zombies

Films like 28 Days Later... ignited a familiar question asked of horror fans recently, “Do you favour slow zombies or fast zombies?” An example of this is the documentary, The Walking Dead Girls! In fact, if you search the Web with this question, you will get many links on the topic. But I have an issue with this. First, let me admit that I like the viral running around fast eating people films; in some ways they are more exciting, though sometimes the editing and shaky camera used by seemingly everyone who does a story like this can be annoying, even if it doesn’t produce motion sickness. At least with a slow creature (or horde, as sometimes happens), you get to see the people get ripped to pieces (a nod to Tom Savini here), rather than a quick shot in edits, often in shadows or the corner of the frame for shock value. Give me a full-on, non-CGI appliance so we can to see some action, rather than shake it (apologies to the Flamin’ Groovies).

Essentially, the definition of a zombie, as is stated in part by Wikipedia, is “an animated corpse brought back to life…” In other words, from the voodoo to the flesh eating kind, a zombie is basically the dead arisen. However, in the later, faster versions, the attackers are not dead, merely infected, making them – er – hungry. We need a different word for this situation.

Fast zombies

My idea is to call them ghouls. Yeah, it’s an antiquated term that brings up memories of the likes of Eerie and Creepy comic magazines from the ‘60s and ‘70s mostly (where they seemed to be always in conflict with vampires, but I digress…). Again, Wikipedia describes ghouls, in part, as “…consuming human flesh, often classified as but not necessarily undead…Ghouls are perceived to be unintelligent and are primarily driven by their instinct to feed.”  Where my idea of using this definition falls short, is that in literature ghouls usually feast on dead flesh, while our infected humans (and zombies, apparently) prefer their tidbits still squirming.

Surely we can come up with a term that can differentiate between the classic risen dead chompers and those living foodies fond of animated flesh, or at least yet uninfected. 

Certainly, I don’t have all the answers. “Cannibals” seem to fall short as well, because in culture, with many of them it’s a matter of choice. Living people infected by a disease that makes them need to feed (there’s a tee-shirt slogan for ya) is not a option. “Biters” seems too mild, and “Flesheaters,” while a great band, also doesn’t give enough information.

The term zombies will always bring ‘em in to the theaters, or the television screen in the case of The Walking Dead series, so the odds that the appellation of zombie (or its alternative of zombi) is here to stay. Follow the fan base and surely the wallet will follow.

And look, no mention of braaaaains. Oh…never mind.