I remember as a youngster, the very idea of voodoo was terribly creepy. Zombies and dark sweaty bodies, insane eyes glaring out from behind skull-like make-up. The strange wildness of the night, fire, jungle, rendered into the human world, in a sort of similar terror to the alien nightmare of the serial killer. The werewolf maybe. The sensual madness lurking just below our thin veil of civilisation.
Sadly, London Voodoo doesn't even come close. I was hoping for something which would help me revisit all those delicious old fears, but unfortunately the film entirely missed the mark.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think this is a good film. Well written, well acted, unusual subject matter for the horror genre of the moment, so in its way original. But I think it suffered unfairly from cheap production values, and an inattention to detail which gave it more of the feel of a made-for-TV drama than a horror film.
Some horror film makers succeed in getting out there and making something really scary, moody, atmospheric, for very little money. Blair Witch, Raimi's early films, etc. In those films, the low budgets actually prove a boon, as bad lighting etc can add an extraordinary atmosphere. London Voodoo, however, looks as though it's been shot on betacam (although it's probably Digital Vid), and the whole film is stark, ordinary. Looks like an episode of Neighbours or Eastenders.
As to horror. The scary voodoo practitioners, the terrifying voodoo priest with his top hat and snake? Well, nowhere to be found. We're instead, I think, meant to be frightened by the ordinary family falling apart, to imagine the horror in the unseen, the collapse of the ordinary. However the lack of shadows, of darker spaces, in the very look of the film make that very hard to do.
I will say, however, that although I emphasise this, it was really a single problem, and otherwise the film was very well done. The performances were excellent, the writing was very good (except the annoying nanny character who was really just a cliché and a distraction), and the direction was fairly good. A brave effort, I think, but one which doesn't really succeed in what it set out to achieve.
Oh, and although the acting was good, the American accents were disgraceful. I mean, if you're not going to get actual Americans, why bother?
Sadly, London Voodoo doesn't even come close. I was hoping for something which would help me revisit all those delicious old fears, but unfortunately the film entirely missed the mark.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think this is a good film. Well written, well acted, unusual subject matter for the horror genre of the moment, so in its way original. But I think it suffered unfairly from cheap production values, and an inattention to detail which gave it more of the feel of a made-for-TV drama than a horror film.
Some horror film makers succeed in getting out there and making something really scary, moody, atmospheric, for very little money. Blair Witch, Raimi's early films, etc. In those films, the low budgets actually prove a boon, as bad lighting etc can add an extraordinary atmosphere. London Voodoo, however, looks as though it's been shot on betacam (although it's probably Digital Vid), and the whole film is stark, ordinary. Looks like an episode of Neighbours or Eastenders.
As to horror. The scary voodoo practitioners, the terrifying voodoo priest with his top hat and snake? Well, nowhere to be found. We're instead, I think, meant to be frightened by the ordinary family falling apart, to imagine the horror in the unseen, the collapse of the ordinary. However the lack of shadows, of darker spaces, in the very look of the film make that very hard to do.
I will say, however, that although I emphasise this, it was really a single problem, and otherwise the film was very well done. The performances were excellent, the writing was very good (except the annoying nanny character who was really just a cliché and a distraction), and the direction was fairly good. A brave effort, I think, but one which doesn't really succeed in what it set out to achieve.
Oh, and although the acting was good, the American accents were disgraceful. I mean, if you're not going to get actual Americans, why bother?