Voodoo Academy

And a few more "no"s on top of that. Voodoo Academy is, without a doubt, the least ambitious film of all time. What exactly is it trying to do? Tell a story? Obviously not; as has been pointed out, most of it's just barely-legal guys rubbing themselves. Could it, then, be an attempt at subversive homoeroticism? Well, maybe, if not for the fact it never ever ever goes beyond the most innocuous and nonthreatening forms of male contact. (Which is, to the delight of none, repeated about eighty thousand times.) Well, it is sort of a horror movie; is it trying to scare us? Not unless the director meant to do so through the utter tedium and vacuousness of his "work."

Never in my life have I enjoyed a movie less. This is the most boring and unnecessary thing I've ever seen. It's like Voodoo Academy takes the genres of horror, zombie, and gay movies, puts them in a grinder, then runs them through a coffee filter--only instead of it being the kind of coffee filter that filters out coffee beans, it's the kind that takes out everything vital, edgy, or in any way interesting. The result is 74 minutes of film every bit as exciting as a glass of warm water--only without the ability to rehydrate you after the 10-day gin binge that will inevitably befall you if you watch this abomination of human effort.

High school teacher and her assistant at a private boarding school use half naked boys as their prey in helping to raise an army of the dead. No plot what so ever, just an extended series of boys wearing designer underwear touching and rubbing themselves in bed, walking around the school in there underwear only, and taking baths together. No camp value or laughs at all. This feels like gay porn, instead of an actual film. Disappointing effort from Full Moon Entertainment.

Unrated (90 mins.) or R-Rated (74 mins.); Strong Sexual Content.

You can't hold too much against this knowing that it was made in four days, and I had expected it to be campy anyway. (It's not all that campy in reality. With the exception of Kevin Kalisher and Huntley Ritter, who don't take themselves seriously, the rest of the cast plays it halfway straight; Riley Smith is exceptionally bad.) The ridiculous story is actually paid attention to, which kind of shocked me; I assumed the whole purpose with these ultra-low-budget horror movies was to cater to the basest sexual fantasies and not give a damn about the story, but they use lots of words like "technological" and "physicality" in the script to get their point across. (Although it's possible that the story is important only to explain why there's so few cast members.) Nobody cares about this stupid storyline, and the only things that are interesting in the film are the mocking of cults and the soft-core homoeroticisms (which aren't all that edgy). I would have enjoyed it more if there were just some random killings for no reason. The film is grainy, with a TV-quality look and acting level. There are a few "sexy" scenes that are alright -- the boys writhing in bed in their boxers, feeling themselves up; or being tied down and making orgasmic faces while wine is poured on them -- and some of them are kinda funny. And I liked the digs at L. Ron Hubbard and the intended irony of a story about religious cultists told with intense gay overtones, but it still isn't any good. 3/10

In reviews and user comments I've read online about these films,

the writers will say things like `It's almost as if it's gay.' and `It

seems sort of gay.' The equivocal reactions are understandable.

Allow me to be more bluntly clear: This is a horror film which,

unlike Hollywood films, is more intent on pleasing a gay male

audience than a straight one (though technically none of the

characters are gay.)

In `Voodoo Academy,' along with his film `The Brotherhood,'

director DeCoteau has created what might be called `the non-gay

gay film.' These are films which are clearly designed to appeal to

a gay audience, yet nevertheless stop short of being overtly gay.

On the surface, they seem intended for a straight audience. The

characters are not gay and they don't engage in any romantic

activities together. (And certainly the marketing makes no

indication of a gay angle.)

Yet at the same time, it's clear that something is going on here.

There are lots of gratuitous shots of young men in designer

underwear. There's no straight romantic subplots and hardly any

women. Unlike Hollywood films, which bend over backwards to

please a straight audience (and avoid any possible hint of gay

subtext), these films are clearly more interested in pleasing a gay

male audience than straight ones.

As for the film itself, it's not very good. A bland young man enrolls

in a small (6 students) college, where something strange is going

on. Long stretches of the film are given to providing expository

information which ultimately proves irrelevant. Scenes lack

tension. And the overall story is fairly dumb and ends abruptly.

The technical stuff is good, but the acting is wooden and the

scenes just drag.

This is one of those movies that should have been way better than it turned out to be. I dread to think what the Blockbuster-approved edit must have looked like, because the director's cut on DVD was a bore of the epic proportions. Naturally, you don't expect it to be "The Godfather", but an acting class or two might have come in handy.

Also, there were so many cute guys in this movie, but they were woefully under-exploited. I like watching a bevy of hotties writhe around in their BVDs as much as the next guy, but even I have a right to expect a little more. It wasn't a total loss, though; at least we got a peek a Drew Fuller's (covered) junk and truly upsetting haircut. And there's Huntley Ritter looking even cuter than he did in "Bring It On" (and acting about as well). There's always a silver lining, kids. You just have to look really hard for it. And occasionally, you have to make use of your pause button.