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.

This was a good mockumentary, I was a little bored during a good portion. I liked the way it was presented, but it could have been a lot more effective if more of the film dealt with a broader scope of events. Something like this would have had much more of an effect on the surrounding areas, if going by the way the film portrays they happened. Still good though. Just a little slow paced.

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.

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.

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.