SnoReptilePlenty
Memorable, crazy movie
Jacomedi
A Surprisingly Unforgettable Movie!
Gary
The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.
insomniac_rod
What happened to Full Moon Pictures? I mean, this is their worst movie. I'm a big fan of their movies but this time they went too far. The execs. made a dirty move because they know that the fans would buy almost anything, even if it's crap. "Voodoo Academy" is a lame excuse for making a movie. There's no interesting plot. A sexy, very sexy teacher enlists metro sexual males in her academy in order to fill an army from the other world.There are no women except for the super hot Debra Mayer, that, is the best thing in this "flick". She's very sexy and is Full Moon's favorite mistress.The whole gay insinuations are lame and made me almost puke. I'm mad because I feel cheated; next time I will think twice before buying a Full Moon direct to video release.1/10. Debra Mayer saves this trash from the cero rating even though that she has little screen time.BOOT THIS ONE TO THE TRASH CAN, NO MERCY.
johnnysugar
As a director, David DeCoteau has an extensive resume ranging from laughably cheap horror films ("Creepozoids"), late-night Cinemax adult "entertainment" ("Beach Babes From Beyond"), gay-film-fest favorites ("Leather Jacket Love Story"), and lame horror films ("Curse Of The Puppet Master"). That he uses about five aliases while directing should be a sign, but there is something indescribably alluring about watching a movie that is, simply, 100% pure trash. DeCoteau does not disappoint in this respect with the supernatural film "Voodoo Academy."The plot centers around Carmichael Bible College, which apparently only enrolls six students each term. The college is run by the odd Mrs. Bouvier (Debra Mayer) and classes are taught by Hollis CarMichael (Chad Burris), an ex-Catholic priest who espouses a religion resembling a bizarre and clunky hybrid of Christianity and Scientology (check out the electro-charged confessional). However, as we learn before the opening credits even roll, Bouvier is in reality a wicked voodoo priestess and Hollis her nefarious assistant. When one of their rituals results in the death of a student, the duo recruit wholesome, clean-cut Christopher (Riley Smith) to fill his place. From the beginning, Christopher suspects something is amiss, and he soon begins to find out that dark and sinister forces are at work.The film itself is an unabashed ode to trashy, campy dialogue as well as young men in designer underwear. Indeed, most of the film consists of scenes where at least one of the students is topless, working out, bathing, or simply skulking through the shadows in Ralph Lauren boxer briefs. That these students look quite good without their clothes on is an added bonus and is in fact the main reason anybody should even begin to rent or buy this film. Even Hollis -- a priest! -- has a topless scene. The plot, as little as there is, is telegraphed in the opening sequence, the actors by and large are wooden, and the special effects are imminently laughable. Never mind the lack of dramatic tension, the often grainy and washed out look of the film, and the absurdity of the premise, which features several scenes that exist only to present footage of the students touching themselves.Still, this film has much to offer. As mentioned before, the film is pure trash in the best sense of the word. Few movies offer this degree of ridiculousness and remain watchable. The boys are all quite attractive and fit, and it's nice to see male flesh on display in horror films for once. And as horrible as the acting and dialogue can be, it's still better than sitting through another showing of "Star Wars Episode II." It's also nice to realize that filming this picture prepared Drew Fuller (who plays Paul St. Clair) for his role on the equally trashy but beyond redemption TV series "Charmed."A note to viewers: This film should only be watched in its unedited form (the DVD is labeled "Lunar Edition" and "Director's Cut"). There is a massive amount of homoeroticism in this film, and the edited version removes most of it. And if you cut out the shirtless young men, you lose most of the reason the watch this film.5 out of 10.
dr_foxy
i know you've read that before, on countless other films no doubt if you're reading the comments here, but voodoo academy still stands as the absolute worst film i've been able to track down. no doubt the really bad ones aren't even available to buy or watch on tv, but even so i feel it's fair to qualify that i'm not just some dumb renter who picked badly.i've seen two thirds of the bottom 100 ranked films here on the imdb, and i'm ticking of the remaining ones with every chance. most of those stand head and shoulders above this... excersize in absolute monotony.i like to rate truly bad films (as in ones with no humour even in how bad they are) by how many people you need to watch it with to make it all the way through. if you can watch it by yourself, it isn't that bad. if you can watch it with one single friend... it's bad but could be a lot worse.it took 5 of us to make it all the way through voodoo academy. and not even the usually fun moments of watching bad films (spotting the boom mic for example, 3 times in this one if i'm not mistaken) could take away the dry taste in my mouth. yes i'd watched it, but i'd also forced 4 of my friends to watch it with me to achieve that end.i hope and pray we saw the directors cut... to think that there could be a version with 20 more minutes of big eyebrowed lugs with baby oil glands rubbing their torsos just scares the hell out of me. so much of the film centers around this.i do applaud david decoteau for managing to lens this film in two days on a short budget, just as i applaud him for convincing people to pay him to make what is no doubt a celluloid version of some of his fetishes. but it isn't a good film. the original shop of horrors was shot in the same length of time for a comparitive amount of money (considering inflation) and was an utter gem. it's not an excuse for how bad this baby is.spoilers ahead...it's not even worth picking apart the plot holes or cliched know it all hero characters... the pacing of the film... is insane... nothing... is interesting for the length of time decoteau dedicates to the pectoral self massaging. no matter what your alignment or sex... rubbing just cannot sustain that kind of screen time.the acting is cheese... but not overly amatuer... i've seen a lot worse in better films... but somehow it's the semi competent delivery of some of the worst lines you'll ever hear in a film, that really grates.rent this if, like me, you have a fascination with the worst of the worst, and only if you're going to watch it with a group of people who are prepared to work to get through it. this is no ha ha ha the set wobbled affair. it's an endurance test you probably want to skip.i'm sure there is worse... but i wouldn't be surprised if it has decoteau's name on it.
Kevin-94
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 `Itseems 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 maleaudience than a straight one (though technically none of thecharacters are gay.)In `Voodoo Academy,' along with his film `The Brotherhood,'director DeCoteau has created what might be called `the non-gaygay film.' These are films which are clearly designed to appeal toa gay audience, yet nevertheless stop short of being overtly gay. On the surface, they seem intended for a straight audience. Thecharacters are not gay and they don't engage in any romanticactivities together. (And certainly the marketing makes noindication 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 designerunderwear. There's no straight romantic subplots and hardly anywomen. Unlike Hollywood films, which bend over backwards toplease a straight audience (and avoid any possible hint of gaysubtext), these films are clearly more interested in pleasing a gaymale audience than straight ones. As for the film itself, it's not very good. A bland young man enrollsin a small (6 students) college, where something strange is goingon. Long stretches of the film are given to providing expositoryinformation which ultimately proves irrelevant. Scenes lacktension. And the overall story is fairly dumb and ends abruptly. The technical stuff is good, but the acting is wooden and thescenes just drag.
