Neither Margaret Mead or Napoleon Chagnon probably would have served as advisors on this film, even if they were still alive. The indigenous tribe in question is scary and it eats people. Sure, their guide talks a good game regarding the modern world encroaching and on their habitat, blah, blah, blah. Cultural relativity sounds all well and good until someone tries to eat you. That will be a real possibility when the tourists take a wrong turn in Howard J. Ford’s River of Blood, which releases this Friday in theaters and on VOD.
Ritchie and Jasmine are vacationing with AJ and Maya, even though AJ is sleeping with Jasmine. Frankly, it is a mystery why Jasmine would agree to such an affair, since Ritchie is exponentially richer and surly AJ clearly resents his success. Cheating on Maya happens to be a really bad idea too, since he works for her father. So, that is the baggage they take on their kayaking excursion with Nick an expatriate guide.
Nick is the most reasonable, level-headed character of the lot of them. Nevertheless, he finds himself stuck in the same metaphorical boat as his clients, when Ritchie gets into a snit and wanders off into cannibal territory. Of course, he makes them promise to turn back as soon as they retrieve their wayward friend, but we all know that isn’t going to work, because we’ve seen the prologue.
River of Blood is no Cannibal Holocaust. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is up to you to decide. As you might guess, Ford’s film is much tamer. Yet, there is a throwback grunginess that some cult movie fans will find refreshing. Despite the lip service to green and multicultural values, there is no getting around the fact that the indigenous people are out to eat to modern interlopers. Indeed, Ford and screenwriter Tom Boyle seem to be daring critics to label their film—gasp—problematic. So you have to salute their truly independent spirit.