Yes, I have seen the original movie this one is based on but it was ages ago and I actually remember very little about it. For some reason I also always mix it up with the 1972 Wes Craven movie "The Last House on the Left". I therefore also can't tell you how the two of them compare to each other but I can only assume that the original did a far better job with its concept and was a better and more effective movie, since I actually quite liked it, which I can't really say for this movie.

The truth is that older genre movies were always capable of getting away with far more stuff than any of the more recent genre movies. It was OK for older sorts of genre movies to be very simplistic and straightforward ones, as long as they were doing something special, which either could be something totally outrageous and crazy, gore, violence or sex-wise or something so stupid that it would actually work out as something entertaining and original to watch. Nowaways, people are not only more demanding but it's also really hard to stand out. Pretty much everything has been done in movies already, so how are you going to stand out with anything, nowadays? Well. this movie was clearly struggling with this as well and it in fact also stands out in absolutely no way at all!

That was the thing about the original 1978 version; It had a, at the time, greatly original concept, in which things got turned around and the victim became the tough, coldblooded, killer. Plus added to that; it was a woman! In a way it was a real female empowering movie. Can the same be said about this movie as well? Well, not really. It's just nothing more but another average 'torture porn' horror flick. That the characters who's inflicting most of the pain and causing the most death and destructing is a female, who's on a revenge streak, doesn't add all that much in this case and I believe there are multiple reasons for this.

One is the main lead itself, played by Sarah Butler. Now, I'm not saying she is a terrible actress but her character is a far too poorly developed one. It's hard to get behind her because of this and thing that also incredibly annoyed me was the fact that she was always wearing perfect looking makeup and had wonderful, clean looking, hair, even in the scenes she was supposed to look dirty and beaten. Things like this always distract me and take me out of a movie.

Another thing is that here you have a movie, in which the interesting- and standout moments should be the torture/gory scenes. Seriously, other than that the story has absolutely nothing to offer. It's a very simplistic, straightforward movie that's relying heavily on all of the gore and violence. Now, here's the problem with it; the gore and violence really isn't anything all that special or graphic to watch. A lot gets implied but very little is actually shown. So now that is taken away from this movie, what is left in it? Just some very average, run of the mill, type of genre stuff. The movie constantly tries very hard to shock you but it never really hits. Instead of feeling raw and realistic, things in this movie feel far too polished, making the gore and violence appear more tame and less effective as well.

Now, to be fair; as far as these type of movies go, this really isn't the worst one you could watch. It remains good looking, never gets boring and never gets offensively bad with anything. It's perfectly watchable actually, though you obviously are still far better off watching the 1978 original, that's also known under the title "Day of the Woman", that was doing far more interesting and effective things with its concept.

6/10

Watch trailer

My biggest fear was that this movie would be a very dry and serious type of drama. However now, after finishing watching it, I actually wish I could say it was too dry and serious one and that was being the movie its only problem.

It's hard to say what this movie was trying to achieve. Was it one supposed to be about the friendship and bond between Ward Allen (Jim Caviezel) and freed slave Christmas Moultrie (Chiwetel Ejiofor)? Or was it supposed to be more of a love-story? Or perhaps one that was all about the Jim Caviezel character and his many 'adventures'. The movie is trying to feature a bit of everything in it, which however is making the movie a very unbalanced and messy one with its storytelling.

You can definitely say that this movie is suffering from a lack of focus. Rather than following one clear main plot line, it instead feels like its weaving a bunch of different subplots together, each featuring different characters as its main focus, in an attempt to turn it into one main plot line. It just doesn't work that way. It makes the movie feel disjointed and there is just never a really good or pleasant flow to its storytelling.

It's also hard to ever feel involved with any of the movie its drama or characters. Even though it's a movie that's all about its characters, it's its actual character development that's terribly lacking in this movie. I guess that the Jim Caviezel was supposed to be one of those bigger than life, free spirited, type of characters but his actions and motivations are actually hard to follow at times. He isn't even all that very likable, due to some of his actions. In other words, this movie gave me little to no reasons to even ever care about him! I definitely felt emotionally detached from this movie, which also made me loose interest in it after a while. It even turned the movie into a somewhat boring one, despite the fact that there is always plenty happening in its story.

The movie also constantly seemed to be struggling with finding its right tone. At times it was going for a more lighthearted approach, while at others it was expecting you to feel touched and genuinely affected by something. The movie however is very inconsistent with this. For instance, at times you when you would think that the movie is going to turn into a more serious drama and, it's suddenly taking a more comical or lighthearted approach to things, causing the drama and some of the story developments to fall flat.

Not sure if this truly was the case but it seemed to me that this movie originally got written with the Chiwetel Ejiofor character as its main one. It also would have made more sense for this movie to completely get told from the perspective of the Chiwetel Ejiofor character and this actually would have worked in the advantage of the Jim Caviezel character as well. He that way could have remained a more mysterious and quiet type of character, which seems like something that would have been more appropriate for this particular character, since they were trying to turn him into an almost legendary type of man. Now, it never feels like his character is being- or ever doing anything all that special. Certainly nothing that justifies why there would be a movie made about his life, for apparently this story is based on a real one and all of its characters truly lived as well.

On a more positive note, it's a technically good looking movie, with also some good acting in it. It's a period piece, set in the late 19th century and it's a rather good looking one, especially when considering its budget. I really liked the cinematography and the overall feel of the movie!

However, this overall just isn't a very well balanced and constructed movie. It definitely showed potential, especially during its first minutes and really, this so easily could have been an award winning type of movie but in the end the movie is a too shallow, uneven and uninteresting one for me to even ever recommended it to anyone.

5/10

Watch trailer

SAVANNAH is the true story of Ward Allen, a romantic and bombastic character who rejects his plantation heritage for the freedom of life on a river. Ward navigates the change of early 20th century America on the wrong side of the law and society, his loyal friend, a freed slave named Christmas Moultrie, at his side. Master of Shakespeare, and the shotgun that provides Savannah's markets with fowl, Ward fights for his rights as a hunter. His charisma and eloquent rhetoric win the heart of a society woman who defies her father to marry him. An elderly Moultrie tells the story of life on the river with his friend to a little boy, who passes the legendary Ward Allen down to the next generation. From: IMDb.com