Savage Island

Julia Young and Steven Harris are having marital troubles, but on a weekend trip to visit Julia's family on the remote Savage Island, marital problems quickly become the least of their worries.

I believe in low budget films. Heck, I believe in no budget films. But you have to have standards, and this film seems to ignore them. The acting is below average, but worst of all is this video. Bad enough that it appears to be a digital video recorder bought at Wal-Mart for $15, much of the film is grainy and looks like a 30-year old VHS tape. The only really good thing about the film is the score.

I suppose the plot is alright, and the effects are decent. Heck, even the editing is pretty darn good. But editing alone does not a good movie make.

Savage Island (2003) is a lame movie. It's more like a home video shot with very minimal lighting and horrid acting. Not only that the storyline and script was wretched. I don't know why this movie was made. I have seen a lot of flicks in my time and the ones I really hate are movies that make me angry. This one made my blood boil. The situations were inane at best. If I made a movie like this it would have been a short. Really because those backwood "idjits" wouldn't have been in the picture.

Don't be fooled by the cover on the D.V.D. I am an avid watcher of bad cinema. But this movie is virtually unwatchable. I don't mind movies being shot on D.V. but if you're going to do that make the movie enjoyable, not some tired retread of superior horror films (sans Wrong Turn).

I have to not recommend this waste of disk. If you come across this one in the rental store pass on by.

Movies that make yours truly angry get an automatic 1.

I couldn't get past the horrible production quality. People can film better things with consumer video cams.

I finally got around to seeing this after hearing great things about it. It actually exceeded my expectations. Considering the budget involved this was a surprisingly competent and well-made film. The lack of finances actually helped this film in several ways, especially given the plot. Just like The Blair Witch Project, this film was all the better for being shot on video instead of film. Another bonus: Whereas most low-budget horror films (even the best of the best) suffer from mediocre-to-unintentionally hysterical acting, this film actually had a talented cast (save one or two characters), particularly the two leads. The only thing missing from the film was an original storyline. It borrows heavily from better-known films like "Deliverance" and "Wrong Turn" but if you're like me, films of this nature never cease to be terrifying. Plus, the director keeps things interesting throughout. I'd be very interested to see what the director would do with a bigger budget and I have a feeling it will only be a matter of time before we find out...

This is a good film for 99% of the duration. I feel that the ending has occluded this film from higher acclaim.

It is shot in a rather naive fashion. This is clearly done to create a more chilling feel to the film - a feeling of isolation becomes apparent very soon on due to this filming technique.

The gruesome characters are very well acted and presented especially the 'nutcase' called Joe. However, the wholesome (normal) characters are a little too pathetic for my liking - granted, they are supposed to come across as pathetic but this is done a little OTT.

The film starts slowly (and the naive camera work smacks of 'B' movie to start with) and very normally but you soon get a feel of the impending brutality that is about to occur. This is one of the most 'twisted' movies with respect to cold-hearted violence.

After the abrupt and unbelievably lazy ending I was left feeling disappointed. I would have given the film a 9 if the ending was in keeping with the rest of the film but as it is it gets only a 7 on the strength of the 'eeriness' and nail-biting scenes earlier on in the film.

Give it a watch and excuse the ending!