Savageland

Whoever came up with the concept of this film is a genius or rather i would say "savage". This is not your conventional zombie apocalypse film it takes a whole new approach to narrate it.

Basically, it is a mockumentary where two parties have to decide whether a man named "Salazar" found guilty of mass murdering an entire town is really guilty or not because the photos that he clicked the night those murders took place, suggest something completely different and terrifying.

So this is basically the two parties discussing/debating the night of the deadly incident through those 36 photos that Salazar took. The narration is quite interesting and as you hear it out along with looking at the pictures, you have to imagine what happened.

The photos are enough to give you an insomnia attack if you watch it at night. However, the film as a whole might not terrify you exactly. Also, it is a very straightforward film with no twists and turns which i didn't like exactly. Nothing to talk about performances as there is not much acting only talking.

Overall, i would suggest you give it a try cuz it is a different kind of film that attempts to have a unique take on an old concept. Watch out for the photos i really felt black and white photos of demons were way more scary than actually seeing one in motion.

Sometimes the trailers lie...not this time. For some reason, this movie took some digging to find, a part from its trailers. As far as this sub-genre goes, this movie will be hard to top. I usually fast forward or pause a film, not this time. Not quite a mystery. More like a puzzle that someone keeps handing you pieces of, and even after you can see the basic shape, the pieces keep coming faster.

By my usual 3 categories; story, acting, effects. 1, The story was interest all round. From how it was told; using video interviews, photos, and lastly a clip of found video, and point of view. Pacing was near perfect as we are carried a long. Skillfully put together. 2, the acting was really well done, very believable, no over acting. 3, effects. How do I explain this without spoilers? There is a definite art to what is clearly shown and what is indistinct, hinted at, in a horror movie. This balance was masterfully achieved in this movie. There are no big budget effects. In truth only one small snippet of live action at the end. Mostly its done with B&W photographs taken by the main character. 30 some photos that will leave you very uncomfortable. This film has a great sense of realism. The movie ends, but the story goes on.

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

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.

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.