I guess that's too many genres for one movie, but I think they're all accurate. The story revolves around an apparent spree-killing in a tiny, destitute Arizona border town near Nogales, Mx. The main suspect is also an amatuer photog and though not initially found, when a roll of film that he had taken during the entire night of the killings is developed, the story takes on a much darker tone. I have a soft spot in my heart for low budget horror films, but this one really is pretty high quality. Only one or two of the actors couldn't pull off the doc/reality part (the sherriff being the most annoying of them). There is a bit of a twist at the end, when one of the characters' book is published, and a "cover-up" is potentially revealed, but for the most part this fizzles at the end unfortunately. Over all, it's really well done for the resources they had, and the photo vs video aspect of the found "footage" was unique and really something I hadn't seen before. If you like "The Bay" but weren't really into the heavy-handedness and lack of "fright" you may just like this a lot.

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.

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.

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

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.

Here's the theory, the scariest yet beautiful place in this whole universe is our imagination., and this movie will help us to prove this theory. Found footage/documentary, since blair witch project and paranormal activity was dominated horror genre in recent year, but it was hard to mention a good one , either it was too cliche, repetitive, meaningless or as simply as didn't scary at all. With all my disappointed, then, i decided to give it a go with this movie. i was expecting a few teenager, using their camera, drone, google glass, will make a stupid trip into a haunted land, and they got eaten or killed one by one by a ghost, which is recorded on camera. But, this movie didn't deliver this. it was just series of interview about what happened in some little town which lost all of its resident in one night. there's no ghost. monsters, serial killer caught on cams, really... if there's no explanation, that it was a movie, maybe some of us would believe it was a real events. without no well-known actor, i felt that i watched some real interview. but, the best part was not about the concept. but how this movie played our imagination, what really happened in those town is reveals by the series of chronological interview, and that made me imagine the tragedy that killed 52 persons. there's no explanation about what's really happened, but it was just happens. i didn't think i ever watched similar movie. it has no jump scare moment, cheap CGI, disturbing score, or even a protagonist, but i didn't need it to enjoy a movie as a whole package. kudos!!

This film started out well and I'll have to say it looks close to a usual documentary. However the story lags and leaves too many unanswered questions to be as good as it could have been. An average film.

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.

The synopsis for 'Savageland' is great. It's hard to read that and not want to immediately watch the film. The film treats itself as documentary (or a mockumentary if you will) and yet it quite strangely does some things that a documentary would never do, like have its interviewees swear for example. It also fails to really drive home just what we are looking at in these photos. I assume they wanted the audience's imagination to run wild, but to not have any character speculation is just bizarre. I did enjoy this film but some little things like that held me back from entirely loving it.

I liked the way the photos were created. Some were especially creepy. Because the story is a retelling of past events it is never able to be scary, and so the only real horror element is can provide is the eerie photos it offers. It was imperative that they did these well and got them right, otherwise the film would have nothing to offer. Luckily they did.

This is a short film at a scratch over 80 minutes. I think that was a good thing because by the end it is getting a little repetitive and running out of ideas. I had a good time with 'Savageland' and would say it is worth a look, but just don't get your expectations too high.

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.

Call me what you want but I love the found footage horror genre. I can't get enough of it. So imagine my delight when I stumbled across this little beauty on a Facebook horror group. Made in a documentary type of way. Yesss you'll get so many horror and movie fans saying the genre has been done to death but then so has every genre of the horror world. What we need now are just better films of the genres to watch. Anyway back to the film. Its hard to give a review for this without spoilers. A man is arrested for the mass grizzly murders of a town and we see the case of what he's supposed to have done and what evidence they have etc etc. It had the wow factor for me and I can't recommend it enough. Go see it.

There was absolutely nothing horrific in this horror movie except a couple pictures with some smudged zombie looking faces. You get lost wondering if it's a documentary about racism or the worst movie ever about zombies and I have no idea how people are giving this movie eights and nines for their rating

I went into this movie with low expectations and by the end of it I was genuinely surprised at how good it was. I was on the edge of my seat the entire movie which is funny in retrospect considering there wasn't a single action scene. The director really knew how to keep the entire movie in a state of suspense.

Diluted pseudo-doc that leans heavily on ominous music and blurry photography to hint at awful activities on the Arizona/Mexico border. It tries to present itself as a hard hitting expose doc, complete with iconoclastic investigative reporter, but it's flat and lame because we know it's all phony and there isn't much success at suspending the sense of disbelief. When we finally get glimpses of what really happened it all looks very high school play, and you will roll your eyes in disappointment.

The pic also tries to be a statement about US discrimination against Mexican immigrants but the analogy is a bit heavy handed and not very thoughtfully presented.

All that aside, and that's a lot to try to put aside, this amateurish production commits the cardinal offense for a horror movie: it's not in the least bit scary and is deeply boring.

My sense from the IMDb rating that suckered me into renting this is that it was logrolled by people involved in the production. I'm sure as more people see it and roll their eyes the rating will come down but in the meantime, don't make my mistake.

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.

After spending half an hour looking for a decent horror movie to watch on Prime, I came across this little gem. Started a little slow but the story and very good acting keeps you interested and wanting more. Very creepy concept, using photos as opposed to a shakey cam, made it more tolerable to watch. Recommended.

The murders happened in a fictitious small Arizona border town called Sangre de Cristo, or Blood of Christ. The local Americans called in Savageland, the movie's title.

The movie seemed to think if they hyped the racism against Mexican illegals meme, that would drive the movie and paper over mistakes in the writing. Sure, the suspect looked like he was involved in the mass murder of 57 people in small AZ desert town IN ONE NIGHT. But no sane person could ever believe he was the only one involved. Spoilers (pack of zombies, hinted in the first 1/4 hour) did it. But we are supposed to believe that the sheriff and the DA would just say he was the only perp. Yes, the perp was covered in blood and offered no defense. But since this movie was purported to be a documentary, it should be grounded in realism. And in real life, the State Police, the FBI and a dozen other law enforcement groups including Mexican ones where the ghouls were supposed to have come from, would have been involved. And all their forensic analysts would have quickly concluded that the perp could have never killed all or most of the victims. Not even the most racist person would be happy that so many unknown perpetrators got away, even if he was convicted. Also, the international media would have swarmed on this case. The state government would have taken over the trial and most likely moved the trial to the capital. The defendant would have had much better lawyers. Yet they never stopped the " white guys who want to blame the one Mexican" meme. They even had a black journalist whose role was to remind us the KKK was big in Arizona (WHY?) and these white guys are just racists. He reminds us that no one in Sangre de Cristo called the police because illegals NEVER call the police, even though it was established that there were whites and US citizens of Mexican descent living there as well as illegals. And a pack of ravenous bloody ghouls would force even the most careful illegal to call for help.

There was found footage, excuse me old chemical photos. In this movie, Francisco Salazar, our hapless Mexican convict, was an avid photographer. But for some dumb reason the photos were banned as evidence, even though chemical photos are impossible to alter w/o leaving clear traces. That would never have happened in real life. Some major media outlets would have gotten copies and the pictures would have gone viral. The movie chose to ground itself in realism, so I am just holding it to its standards.

They had a re-enactment of sorts, consisting of one of the investigators walking through the now empty town. But most of the action was centered around Salazar's blurry surreal night time surreal photos and clearer day time crime scene photos, with voice-overs by expert witnesses. Some of the witnesses were interesting and not bad actors, like the war photographer and the border patrol agent who investigated the crime. But it had no real scares and just plodded along slowly to the end, without even the obligatory twist near the end. But even Ross, our intrepid black reporter, was shown to be an idiot like the white hicks with his "the evil government racists did it because ....." theory.

Horror, tension, gore, mystery. Really enjoyed this film. An excellent faux- documentary with a very genuine cast. Clearly a lot of thought went into it, and a lot of love for genre filmmaking. Would love to see more films out there like this. From start to finish, it doesn't let you go, with plenty of ups and downs along the way. Definitely will watch again, and hope to see more from these filmmakers in the future. Would be great to see more.

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 was recommended this movie by someone who loved Lake Mungo as much as I do, so I came in with above-average expectations. Well, I can say that the structure of this "documentary" didn't work well with the found-footage elements, although it came close. What I wanted was a story almost entirely grounded in reality, but with subtle hints of inexplicable things that built over time. This movie is structured to remove much of the mystery from the very beginning, so there's no subtle horror as I expected.

SAVAGELAND is a dead-on "mockumentary"-horror film. It's strength lies in the natural, realistic way it is presented. Those being interviewed actually come across as everyday people.

The plot: A small, Arizona border town is wiped out. All 57 of its inhabitants have either been brutally murdered, or have simply disappeared. One man, a Mexican immigrant, remains alive, and is the only suspect in the massacre.

This is not only a fantastic horror film, it's also a subtle satire about racism, immigration, corruption, and ineptitude. By the end it's absurdly obvious that something altogether different from the accepted narrative has happened.

Highly recommended...