Savageland

This story is a fictional documentary. Very creepy in the way the story builds, but then when it's time to explain what happened, there's nothing. Do these events make sense? We'll never know. How disappointing.

Like the podcast "Serial," this film attempts to uncover what really happened one night when the residents of a small town in Arizona on the Mixican border are massacred, mutilated, and disappeared. It focuses on determining the involvement--guilty or innocent--of the lone survivor, arrested for the apparent crimes and railroaded toward a death sentence.

Not really a mockumentary--it's not making fun of documentaries--but a documentary style of storytelling to recount a fake event. Not really found footage but found photos. The content, documentary style, is mainly interviews with law enforcement, journalists, and photography experts. The discussion is illustrated with clips from a jail house confession and photos taken of the event as it unfolded. A 3-D drawing of the town shows what occurred when and where. The photos are unclear, adding to the mystery of what happened. Likewise, the survivor is alternatingly uncommunicative and incoherent, open to interpretation of what really happened and how he was involved.

For this style of storytelling--where you're told what happened, not shown--the film is pretty good. Tension builds as everyone interprets the vague evidence according to their own biases. As the documentary tries to unravel what really happened, each revelation is even more horrific. I kept thinking, "I can't wait to find out what really caused this!" Unfortunately, I never did. My rating is 8 for most of the film but 2 for the ending.

It seems like whenever I'm about to call it quits and give up on the whole tired deluge of mediocre "found footage"/"fake documentary" movies that have flooded the horror genre in recent years, one will come along and win me back by effectively using that narrative platform in clever and inventive ways that help better reveal their stories and characters.

As easy as it is to find dozens of bad examples of these kind of movies over the past few years, there have also been a few gems like THE CONSPIRACY and AFFLICTED that stand head and shoulders over the others and serve to demonstrate how much potential these kind of movies can have if they're done correctly.

I caught SAVAGELAND tonight as part of the New Orleans Horror Film Festival and, I'm happy to report, that it is definitely counts as another one of these "found-footage"/"fake documentary" gems that has, at least temporarily, restored my faith in that overplayed genre.

Told in news-footage/documentary style with the use of interviews, stock footage, etc., SAVAGELAND tells the story of the fictional massacre of an entire small Arizona border town and the one man, an illegal immigrant, arrested for the crime. But as more information and evidence comes to light, the audience is forced to delve deeper into the mystery of what really happened that night.

While I found the movie to be a little too long and repetitive in places, it is generally gripping and very intense. I also think the filmmakers may have given the answers away to the audience a little too easily and a little too soon in the movie, but as a whole, SAVAGELAND succeeds at using its' documentary format to draw you into the story and identify with the characters.

If you're like me and are constantly looking for a beacon of light at the end of the long tunnel of mediocre found-footage horror movies, I recommend checking out SAVAGELAND.

If you have been on the Internet for a while, you may have seen or come across creepy or out-of-context photos that become disturbing when you learn the context behind them. It's either moments before disaster or the last moments of someone's life. Or how about ¹creepy and disturbing-looking photos that you don't know the context behind but are still horrifying? A single frame of horror forever captured.

Savageland is all about that. Taking place in the Bordertown of Sangre De Cristo, Arizona, which holds over 58 residents, but in one night, all 57 residents are killed, except for one man, a Mexican photographer named Francisco Salazar, who, in the eyes of the white man law, is quickly believed to be responsible for the killings of 57 people (yeah seriously), and he is on death row. Throughout his time in police custody and in court, he remains silent. The public response towards him is no better. Everyone is in a rage and wants his blood. All those innocent people, children including, were killed brutally and savagely in the hands of one monster. However, you know there is something that doesn't make sense about all of this. How could one man kill 57 people with a machete and pitchfork in one night? A single man managed to wipe out an entire town. You don't need to be a detective to know something is wrong.

But then they discovered his camera, which may tell a different story of what happened that night. The photos are a series of black and white photographs of the townspeople going mad and killing each other with extreme motion blur that makes them appear monstrous and deformed creatures from hell. They did a fantastic job with the photographs because they look terrifying, and you wonder what is happening. Some are hard to tell what you are looking at, and that alone is unnerving.

But did any of this happen, or is this a setup? Are the photos real or fake? Is Salazar lying or telling the truth? You will have to watch the movie to find out the answer.

The movie is a mockumentary, which uses fake interviews to give it some authenticity, making it appear that these are real people providing authentic interviews.

You know, after seeing many horror movies that reuse the same genre tropes, but when a movie comes along and does something different with the formula and does it well, its effect will stay with you long after it's over.

I didn't expect nearly as much as I got, particularly with such a low budget, but it delivered. The film actually doesn't spend much time with the man charged in the murder of an entire town, but instead we get to see what he saw that night using a set of blurry, yet unsettling photos depicting the carnage that went on as he made his way through town. There is no shortage of plot holes that can't be so easily filled in with the racism theme the movie is going for, but the creep factor is dialed to 11. You catch on to what is happening fairly early into the movie, but the most interesting thing is the way it makes an old trope feel new. You'll have a much better experience with it if you avoid any and all spoilers.

Unlike the fake 9 and 10/10 reviews, I'll keep it honest and give it a 6. Interesting story and the images are indeed creepy. The problem is, at about 30 minutes in, it's like alright cool, we get the point..now what? What's the twist or turning point gonna be? Well, there's not one. It just continues the same formula..talk, interview, show a couple more scary photos, reinforcing what we already know, and repeat. Over and over. The best way I could describe this is as a one trick pony. You could turn it off after 30 minutes and you'd have gotten the story, minus a few other creepy pics.

I love found footage movies so I'll throw it a 6/10. I can't see traditional viewers enjoying it. **The best part of the movie is an enlightening statement made by a photographer they're interviewing. He talks about the false sense of security you get when looking at scary events through a lens as it makes you feel detached and safe. A great point..logic that should apply to found footage films..kill that whole "why is he still filming complaint