Salvage (2006) User Reviews

Intellectual horror film?

[lastliberal · 6/10 · 6 July 2007]

I thought I was watching Groundhog Day. Lauren Currie Lewis was fantastic as the girl who was reliving her murder over and over.

This is like a thinking man's horror film. You really don't know what is happening for a while. Is she crazy? It is obvious that it is not real, but what is going on?

There were some bloody parts, and one really gory scene, but most of it was like a thriller.

This was the real thing without all the special effects - except for the gory part.

Check this one out.

Lauren Currie Lewis is going to be a star (fingers crossed)

[PureedMonkeyBrains · 5/10 · 27 January 2006]

This is a pretty cool, low-budget film I just saw at Sundance. I have to say that Lauren Currie Lewis is terrific. And sexy-cute. I hate to make make comparisons between actors, but she looks like Alicia Silverstone, but with gobs more talent. The movie itself is pretty entertaining, but I doubt it will find distribution (I hope I'm wrong). Chris Ferry is great as a villain. He totally nails it and I loved hearing him keep calling Claire - it was funny. And the music was great too, evoking a lot of themes you'd typically find in a suspense / horror film. Again, Lauren is totally adorable and sexy. I can't help but feel she's going to become much in demand after this.

It's like a doughnut. There's a big hole in the middle.

[MBunge · 5/10 · 16 April 2010]

The first 10 minutes of this movie are okay. The last minute of this film is very good. I'm not sure that's enough, however, to redeem the middle 69 minutes that monotonously meander across the screen.

Claire (Lauren Carrie Lewis) is having one hell of day and she's having it over and over and over. No matter what she does, she keeps getting brutally murdered by a man named Duke Desmond (Christopher Ferry). Her boyfriend Jimmy (Cody Darbe) can't help her. Her mom (Maureen Olander) can't help her. Even the local sheriff (John Miller) can't help her. No matter where Claire goes or what she does, it's the same pattern. She leaves her job at a convenience store, goes home and gets her face cut off. Why it's happening to her and what, if anything, Claire can do about it…you'll have to watch Salvage to find that out.

Before I get into the more substantive issues of the film, I should acknowledge that this is one of those really low budget flicks. I mean, REALLY low budget. This looks like one of those movies that gets filmed completely on weekends because the producers can't afford to pay anyone to take time off from their regular jobs. It has all the hallmarks of the cheapo movie. It not only reuses the same sets and locations again and again, it uses the exact same shots. They can't afford to take the time to move the camera or any of the equipment so multiple scenes at the same location are filmed from the same angle with the same lighting and same everything else. Just about everyone in the cast and crew also ends up doing double, triple and even quadruple duty. One of the lead actors was the production accountant and another was in charge of catering. The filmmakers also fall back on the old crutch of getting one deservedly obscure band to contribute a bunch of crappy songs to the soundtrack. I'd bet the band got paid in Cheez Whiz for their efforts.

Having mentioned all that, Salvage is about as visually appealing and well put together as anything this cheaply made ever is. Even when the film-making is forced down to rudimentary levels by budget constraints, it's pulled off with professional grace. You'll never stop noticing this is a very low budget movie, but you'll never be bothered or distracted by it.

As well made as it is, this would have been an outstanding 25 minute short film. By stretching it out for another 55 minutes, writer/directors Joshua and Jeffrey Crook create two significant problems for themselves.

Firstly, they establish early on that what's happening to Claire isn't reality. She's dead, then she's alive. She's one place and then suddenly another. Things happen, unhappen and happen again. What is happening might be magic, parallel dimensions or all in Claire's head, but it isn't real. After making that clear, though, the Crooks then spend over an hour hitting the audience with standard horror movie clichés. Claire's hiding from the killer, she's running from the killer, the killer is suddenly behind her, that sort of thing. But there's no dramatic tension, suspense or importance to any of it. Whether Claire gets caught, gets away or gets killed, none of it matters because the audience knows none of it is real. A good filmmaker can get away with that for 10 or 15 minutes. Nobody can get away with that for 80 minutes.

Secondly, while the Crooks have a superb ending, even the best conclusion needs a good build up. The body of the story has to set up and justify why the ending occurs when it does. With Salvage, this ending could have occurred after the first 24 minutes of the movie and it would have been just as good and made just as much sense. So in addition to the middle 69 minutes of this film not meaning anything to the audience, it also doesn't mean anything to the ending. That's what I mean by monotonously meandering across the screen. If the Crooks had explored or developed earlier in the movie any of the implications that flow out of their great ending, this might have been a tremendous film. For example, and without trying to give anything away, the ending to Salvage makes it the equivalent of a "suff film" for evangelical Christians. There's a lot the Crooks could have done with that instead of just relying on tired horror movie shtick to get from their beginning to their finish.

Salvage isn't a good film, but it is the work of good filmmakers. Joshua and Jeffrey Crook didn't succeed with this movie, but their failure is interesting enough that I'd like to see them try again.

Loved it, then hated it... but the ending made me love it.

[rooprect · 21 October 2019]

The first thing you should know about "Salvage" is that it's not a typical gore-heavy slasher flick. Although there's gore and at least one really heavy slash (you'll know the one I'm talking about when it happens), "Salvage" is more of a film for the mind along the lines of the quiet thrillers "The Sixth Sense", "The Others" or even going back to the 70s with the likes of "The Wicker Man" and "The Stepford Wives". All of these are films with a powerful, novel concept told without a whole lot of blood & guts but with a heavy punch at the end.

The minute I saw that this film was one of the films selected for the 2018 Sundance Film Festival, I knew to expect something different, and that's indeed what we get. Shot on a super low indie budget of $25,000 (compared to its more famous 2006 box office competitor "Silent Hill" which had a budget of $50 Million), "Salvage" doesn't give us many bells & whistles, no flashy cgi effects, no colossal sets or zombie makeup, and for that reason if you're looking for a mindless popcorn spiller, you might want to look elsewhere and save yourself 80 minutes. However, if you're prepared for a quieter, more thinking type of thriller flick, then this will be perfect.

When I say "thinking type of thriller flick", I don't mean you have to struggle to understand what's happening. Rather, the challenge is in trying to guess *why* it's happening. And I gotta say, the explanation totally surprised and impressed me. It's the kind of ending that makes you think for a long time afterwards.

The cons: Yes, in my title I mentioned that I hated it. This is because at times the film seemed to fight against itself. On one hand it presented itself as a deep, challenging mystery, but this was undermined by a lot of cheap horror flick clichés (the predictable fake scares, unnecessary schlock, and particularly some ridiculously overt sound effects and audio cues. For example there's a scene where a character finds a small trinket that is of significance, which 80% of the audience will recognize immediately, but the audio department decided to hammer it home with a silly "tinkerbell" sound effect as if to say "THIS IS SIGNIFICANT!" Moments like that are peppered throughout the film, and after a while it felt like the filmmakers were treating us like idiots who need tinkerbell sounds whenever something important happens. I suppose the horror genre isn't exactly meant for beard-stroking philosophers, but still, I think the film should have stuck with a subtle, challenging approach which would have been more fitting for the cryptic mystery that is unfolding.

But like I said, the ending really impressed me, and that along with the excellent acting by our main character Claire (Lauren Currie Lewis in her first headlining feature performance) makes this film a great watch. A note about Lauren's acting: she plays a very believable character, confused, terrified, and yet not a shrieking idiot like a lot of horror flick protagonists. She does utter a few great shrieks, especially her absolutely bone-chilling screams during the aforementioned "heavy slasher" scene, but for the most part the power of her acting came in her realistic portrayal of how a normal person would react to these extremely abnormal events happening around her.

I highly recommend this film to anyone who's looking for a mostly-quiet horror flick with a good, philosophical spin. Major props to the filmmakers who pulled this off on such a low budget. For what it aims to do it's truly in league with the best.

Not helping our suspension of disbelief.

[Opacus_Music · 3/10 · 18 September 2018]

The biggest problem with this movie isn't the bad acting nor its small budget. Its the complete lack of realism in the characters behavior. Even if the movie could use its concept as an excuse for the lack of realism, you can't surrender to it. The complete lack of consistency in the characters choices of actions and dialogs makes it impossible. Did I mention the acting? Its really not helping. Its not horrible but it isn't good eider and you simply can't believe in the characters. They come off as very one dimensional. I don't know about you but unless its the kind of movie that doesn't take itself seriously (which isn't the case here), I can't dumb myself down enough to allow myself to believe in a film that lacks so much in character depth, realism and consistency. Another film's big problem is its predictability. The concept is one we've seen so many times before and despite its very small personal twist, isn't used in a way that you can't see where the movie's going almost from the start. Its not unwatchable but it took some effort to pull through.

Very good low budget movie

[lkdb · 7/10 · 20 August 2006]

What can you say about this movie? I liked the plot and story very much and it was different to say the least and i didn't exactly know what was going on until the very end. I have read some of the other reader comments saying they didn't get it. Its not rocket science, you just have to pay attention to whats going on and you need to watch it until the end. Because if you didn't watch it until the end you won't understand it. I don't understand what there isn't to get? Anyway the acting was very good for such a low budget movie, the girl does a good job as the main character and i'd like to see her in other features as well but i doubt she'll get a lot of parts because she isn't Hollywood beautiful, but she is hot in her own way. The villain was good too he was believable. There wasn't a whole lot of gore in this one either, there were a couple of parts that made me squimish though. I'd say check it out, its a very solid rental to say the least.

GroundHORROR day

[Coventry · 5/10 · 9 April 2007]

I can't bring myself to write unnecessarily harsh and negative things about this film, but it's definitely a little too ambitious for its own good. With a title like "Gruesome" (at least, in Europe that's what it's called) and a plot summary that mentions a sadistic serial killer, the absolute last thing you expect to see is a psychological thriller that is reminiscent to "Groundhog Day" instead of to "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". I saw this film amidst a boisterous and enthusiast crowd at the Belgian Horror & Fantasy Festival and needless to say nobody expected to see a psychological mind-exercise that serves a complex network of clues, twists and red herrings that all lead to a supernatural type of denouement that requires quite a lot of puzzling skills. And yet nonetheless, Jeff and Josh Crook surely deserve some respect and admiration for their film, as it undoubtedly holds the potential to grow out and become a modest cult-sleeper hit within a handful of years. The atmosphere is often quite terrifying, the film's structure is engaging to say the least and the climax is more than inventive enough to raise debates & discussions among avid horror fans. The tagline already reveals the premise of the film and immediately clarifies the similarities with the aforementioned 90's classic "Groundhog Day". "What if every day you relived your own murder?". When college student Claire Parker finishes her night shift as a gas station employee and awaits to be picked up by her boyfriend Jimmy, she meets the sinister Duke Desmond, who offers her a ride home in Jimmy's truck. He then brutally attacks Claire and drags her down to the basement of her house. The next morning, she wakes up and the events simply appear to be a disturbingly realistic dream. But all the horrible things happen again and again, indicating Claire is trapped inside an inescapable nightmare. Vague help from people close to her, like a befriended police detective and her own mother, eventually lead Claire to discover the true nature of the nightmarish cycle she's trapped it. I can't tell you too much about the twist at the end, of course, but it's quite staggering. Even though the final revelation raises more questions than it answers and causes you to skeptically play the movie again in your head, it's a horrific and ingenious finale that sticks to you. The pacing is occasionally slow, however, and at some times the confusing plot isn't compelling enough to force you to remain attentive and/or open-minded for new clues. "Gruesome" may not be as gruesome as I initially hoped, but it still features some effective shocks and awry images, most notably the sequences in which the killer savagely beats up Claire and drags her to her final resting place. Lead actress Lauren Currie Lewis is a talented young actress, and even if she doesn't get successful, she can always consider a second career as Alicia Silverstone's stunt double. The facial expressions and voices of the two actresses are almost identical. Chris Ferry's menacing performance as the robust killer is terrific as well. All in all, recommended with caution.

Well done, a surprising and effective little shocker!

[stsinger · 7/10 · 8 March 2008]

Salvage is one of those wonderful surprises that you get when you're a fan of the genre. The film takes several familiar themes, moves along briskly and creepily, and winds up in a very surprising place, and low budget horror seldom surprises me anymore, so good job! It suffers from some typical slasher issues -- the heroine is attractive and likable but she is saddled with an obnoxious boyfriend, some "Hardy Boys Style" investigation that would never happen... but in general this film just plain works. Every time you think you've figured out what is happening and start to "settle in," there is a twist in the road, the leads actors Chris Ferry and Lauren Currie Lewis (who is as hot as the spicy dish that bears her name!) are fine, and overall, I can definitely recommend you check out "Salvage" if you get a chance.

Lost

[jayd2_574 · 2/10 · 26 June 2006]

This film just goes around in circles, and the viewer does not know where they are. At first I thought..mmmmm, could be kinda cool movie this, but it just drags on and on, and eventually you don't know what's going on. The lead female is a good actress and played her role well, and the psycho fella, is creepy, but after a bit you don't really care what happens, because this film just drags on. Shame really, this could have turned out a lot better.

Would say though that the lead female and psycho fella, will have a good career ahead of them , but will they remember this film, for making them known, or for being the film they regret they ever made.

Nice little movie. But you need to get it to appreciate it!

[mbalmer-1 · 7/10 · 21 October 2006]

Given the constraints of the budget, this was an excellent hour and a half's entertainment. The lead actors were excellent and the plot was imaginative and original.

It seems to me that those slagging off the film didn't actually understand the plot. Maybe they should stick to the big Hollywood movies that take pains to explain every twist so even the stupid can watch! The advantage of low budget indy films is that the viewer has to make some deductive leaps himself.

I, for one, spent some time in the movie working out exactly what was going on. Was she dead? What was the relationship to the killer? Why was the mother so creepy? But the ending, when it came, was still a surprise.

REALLY????

[teena_lee · 1/10 · 14 September 2020]

IF YOU WANT TO WASTE 1HR AND 20 MINUTES OF YOUR TIME GO AHEAD. TOTAL WASTE

Fascinating in its normality

[burglarbil · 8/10 · 6 September 2007]

I'm not usually that impressed by independent films because I like my movies glossy and slick but this one stands out because everything takes place against a background of mundane normality. No glamorous instantly recognisable stars or exotic locations in this movie. The cast all look like the guy/gal next door and the locations are authentic small town USA which in itself is like another world to us British viewers. Lauren Currie Lewis is completely believable as Claire the girl who dies again and again in her personal horror groundhog day and despite the clue earlier on I didn't see the twist coming at all. Didn't think much of the actors portraying the cops though, they let down the hard work done by the three main players and the scene in the service station was obviously inspired by Switchblade Romance but overall well done guys, great job - 8/10

Original?

[mabus101 · 6/10 · 12 May 2010]

This wasn't a bad film. It did have some moments that were obviously low-budget or otherwise ill-contrived. (For instance, the implausibly fast decay rate--even with the face removed, a covered head won't be reduced to a skull in under a week.) It did manage to deliver the shudders, and I don't scare easily.

That said, the film is clearly *not* the original idea that some people have suggested. It's extremely similar to "Dark Corners", the one with Thora Birch. It's less confusing than that movie, but mostly because the "this is someone's afterlife in hell" message is drummed into your skull. I found myself hoping that something else was going on--perhaps a much uglier afterlife where Claire really does have to relive her own death repeatedly--just so it would be something new.

Groundhog Day meets the Christian Coalition

[juliankennedy23 · 4/10 · 20 October 2006]

Salvage: 4 out of 10. Groundhog Day meets a Christian Coalition horror film. Okay maybe it's not that bad. But it is close.

Claire (played by Alicia Silverstonesque Lauren Currie Lewis) is stalked and possibly killed by a serial killer (Chris Ferry who is quite menacing and brutal). I say possibly because she wakes up and it was all a dream….. Or was it? (Cue music)

The basic problem with the film is that these fifteen minutes of plot (Done quite well the first time) is repeated over and over again. And since Claire wakes up every time and every scene is clearly a dream or alternate reality I just stopped caring what happened to Claire and started wondering what lame twist at the end was going to pull this together.

I was rooting for a séance (which honestly would have made more sense) but instead got one of those too obvious by half surprise endings (Think the Village or Below) Yup the film collapses faster than Donnie Darko's directors cut. All the great twist endings in horror movies The Sixth Sense, the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Happy Birthday to Me worked because the audience wasn't expecting a left field explanation. (Heck even the canoe ending in the original Friday the 13th was worth a jolt)

Salvage on the other hand screams twist ending with every scene change. Other nagging faults is the one note piano soundtrack (Though the featured songs were decent) the obvious time padding (Claire doing the dishes, Claire's mother's subplots), the way Claire says "hello is anyone there" every time she thinks there is a serial killer around.

Also some of the secondary acting roles (In particular Claire's mother played by Maureen Olander who resembles a Mary Kay zombie) shows the first time actor low budget roots.

Both too clever by half and not nearly clever enough Salvage keeps your interest if only to see how they are going to fix this mess. Problem is they really don't.

But there was nothing to salvage...

[paul_haakonsen · 2/10 · 30 December 2016]

I must admit that I was more than intrigued by the synopsis for this movie, especially since it sounded like a horror take on the "Groundhog Day" thing.

However, I just gave up on "Salvage" not even 30 minutes into the movie. Why? Because nothing, and I do mean nothing had happened by then. It was a snoozefest of epic proportions. And I had no desire to keep wasting my time on the movie. If a movie doesn't sink its hooks in pretty early on, then there is just no sense is keep watching it.

From what I saw, that "Salvage" didn't really offer anything worthwhile or interesting to the horror / thriller genre. And the acting that I witnessed wasn't particularly outstanding either.

As for the special effects, well I saw none. So I can't really tell you how they are in the movie. I guess you will just have to suffer through more than I managed to in order to experience the special effects.

I have no intentions of returning to finish "Salvage" because there was nothing that appealed to me here at all.

I am rating "Salvage" two out of ten stars, solely because it did have some adequate production value to it. Kind of an ironic movie title, when there was nothing to salvage here in terms of entertainment value or storyline.

Psycho-horror puzzle

[mario_c · 7/10 · 4 April 2007]

This movie is a low budget film with little resources but with a great idea. It's a psycho-horror movie that explores the depths of the Human mind, at its most morbid thoughts. Unlike I was expecting the movie is not very gory (it just has some blood scenes, but nothing special) but is, on the other side, much more complex to understand, at least at the first sight, than I initially thought! The plot is puzzling, confusing, and even in its ending we don't know for sure what really happened… There is no conclusive disclosure. However, I bend it to the supernatural side. I don't know if it is the director's intention or not, but I was induced to think that it all was some kind of "limbo", where the killer, Duke (played by Chris Ferry), is suffering "eternally" the pain which he inflicted to his victim Claire (Lauren Currie Lewis), living her last and painfully life moments… It's a supernatural and "good moral" explanation to the plot, but that's the most logic one I could find! Well, for a low budget, that's actually a pretty good movie!

Should rename it to Claire's Derriere.

[stephepps-1 · 4/10 · 25 December 2009]

After reading all of the rave reviews about this film and a few that give it a so-so. I finally decided to throw in my no cents worth. I agree with most on the point that if it hadn't been for Lauren Lewis and Chris Ferry it would have been a disaster. Filmed in Mariette OH. just north of Dogpatch where all the real talent fled south down I-77 years ago, at least as far as a tank of gas would allow. I did get a chuckle from reviewers who subtly claim that they cerebrate a little better than most by claiming they followed the plot without an inkling of confusion. This wee tale by the Brothers Crook is like an old record with a skip in it. As an American I understand the difficulties Ind film artists have to face. A trip to Romania would have wiped out the budget for sure. Lets face it this whole film was a loop de loop of Claire in the gas station, Claire on the side of the road, Claire under the bleachers, Claire in the house, Claire in the cornfield, Claire at school. Claire here and Claire there. It almost became monotonous and would have if she had not been the best actor in the cast. Josh and Jeff have to make a living but don't write a two page script and turn it into an hour,twenty flick. Before writing another screenplay about dreaming ghosts watch an episode or two of Ghost Whisperer or something and get a little background. All of the cast except the above mentioned and a couple of others were engaged in their first and last film. Also, there is an appearance by co-director Jeff as he is in all his films. Just like Alfred Hitchcock, eh? One thing the film had going for it is that the cameraman seemed to have a fixation on Lauren Lewis' derrière. Well, with all sarcasm now satisfied I still recommend the film for the horror buff just to see this young actress in the formative time of her career (I hope)and that Chris Ferry has established himself as a villain worth watching.

Fine performance by a talented lead actress. Interesting plot and ending.

[guitarcarl · 7/10 · 16 July 2006]

This movie depicts what should happen to every serial killer. They should be condemned to relive the horrors they perpetrated on their victims. Perhaps that is hell.

The movie was well crafted even though it suffered from a low budget. The disconnected plot divulged its secrets in a very interesting way that made it all come together in the end. I was engaged and curious up until the last minute.

I'm not sure too much can be said about Lauren Currie Lewis' performance. She should have a fine future. She could excel in many rolls and has the kind of girl next door beauty that would lend creditability to many rolls the Hollywood glamor queens are just too much to pull off. Engaging and vulnerable, she brought just enough humanity to the scream queen role to convince me there was something more to the underlying story.

I was reminded of Bill Paxton in Frailty when ever Chris Ferry hit the screen. He did a very good job in this part. I hope to see him in more interesting roles where he gets the chance to develop his character more.

The ending turned like an M. Night Shyamalan film. I saw the foreshadowing, knew something was coming but was surprised at the way it resolved.

There were plot flaws and the low budget was obvious. The plot was confusing at times and some of the actors were stiff. Editors could have cut out a good 15 minutes, there were spots that dragged and the pace was wrong here and there. The music was good but seemed misplaced at times. The title seems wrong as well. I was most annoyed that Claire wore the same clothes the entire film. I realize it was the shirt and jeans she died in but it didn't work for me artistically. It seemed like low budget silliness and a wardrobe change could have given me a bit more of the illusion of a tormented relationship evolving over time. The movie had so much to redeem it and I believe a better budget could eliminate most of the minor problems.

A Waste

[greek_priestess · 1/10 · 16 August 2010]

I am a rather large fan of horror films and picked this one up as a 'hmmmm, looks interesting'. Boy, was I wrong. Because of the way the film keeps going. The film was very very slow, and also lacked the 'horror' factor that people like me and my friend crave to see. I was also rather unsatisfied with the ending, it didn't give me enough. The acting was less than what I would consider a decent even for a b list film.

I have a friend, whom we get together and watch horror and thriller films every weekend with, and this one will definitely go on our "will never watch again" shelf. It did however come in a 4 pack, and we actually enjoyed the other three compared to this one. In fact, when I asked my friend what part did he like, he replied, "The credits."

Gruesome

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 5 May 2007]

There's more to this little horror picture than can be seen in the first few minutes! And here's the big spoiler in the next paragraph, so stop reading, if you haven't's seen the movie! Go watch it, it really is good!

The real summary line for this could be: "Horror Groundhog Day". At first you think this is just your usual slasher movie, until you realise, you're in for more than that. Much more, because you (the characters) are trapped in this circle of death ... and there seems to be nowhere to go. The idea is really great and you have more than a few funny little things happening here, that keep you on your toes. I was more than pleasantly surprised, but then I didn't expect anything, so .. ;o) It has it's flaws (you've seen it, you know), but still it's refreshing to see something even a little bit new and different once in awhile! :o)

gruesome rubbish

[tedzonk · 1/10 · 4 August 2008]

One of the worst films I have ever seen. Got so bored that I switched it off midway through to watch the news. When I switched it back on, I fell asleep. The film starts with a dream, continues with a dream, and ends with a dream. Then there are a few more dreams in between. Come on, what is supposed to keep me interested in that? A film needs to have a reason to be interesting. The minute you felt the film was only a dream is when any sensible film-goer switches off. Ever had someone insist on telling you their dreams and what it means to them? This is it!!!

Absolutely awful.

Damnnnn, this film is EERIE!

[mike631163 · 10/10 · 2 November 2006]

When a film truly concentrates on story, story, and oh yeah, story, you don't mind that it isn't big budget. And this film delivers. And don't get me wrong; there IS some gore, and really weird special effects, but never done gratuitously. The tension and the unraveling is what gets you; all in an hour and twenty minutes! But, it is the ending that really delivers. The film keeps delivering these ominous, nightmare-like sequences, always turning back in on itself, until the heinous ending when all the strings are tied up. And you with it. It's literally like someone throws a glass of cold water in your face.

Be prepared to be haunted for a while by a truly great horror classic that is destined to be remembered and spread by word-of-mouth.

Kudos to the Crook brothers; they are gonna deliver some really great films along the way.

Not bad

[paskawyk · 7/10 · 29 September 2006]

I watched this film at a film festival recently, and I have to say I was actually rather impressed. The idea was somewhat original, and while it may have not been pulled off in the best way, the film was still nicely done compared to many other slasher/thriller movies that are all cheap thrills and excessive gore, of which this film has little. Another thing I love about this picture is that its a horror/thriller movie... filmed almost entirely in daylight. I know of many slasher movies that make it a point to make the setting dark, and they can't pull off what this film managed to accomplish, if only a percentage of the time. This film, for the budget it was filmed on, and the fact that most of the actors were non-professionals, impresses me deeply

As far as the acting goes, I feel that the leads, outside of the boyfriend have great potential. Ashley Curry-Lewis was fun to watch through most of the film, and Chris Ferry, despite having his voice played with.. was interesting as Duke. Of the three main characters, only the actor who played Jimmy failed to make an impact on me.

Overall, for what it is, Salvage is a nice little film if you are a fan of the genre.. Yes, it has its plot holes, and its rough spots, but I feel overall, this is a gem of a film in its own right.

Too bad to be true

[bwdude · 1/10 · 8 November 2006]

First of all, I don't get it how this movie could get a rating of 5.6 or something.

It's got:

*) A total bullshit story *) Absolute pitiful acting (or trying to act) *) The worst photography I have ever seen *) A soundtrack like it was meant for a total different movie

Oh, and did I mention already that the acting was pitiful??

I thought, after Jeppers Creepers it could not get any worse. I was wrong.

Avoid this one at any cost, you will regret it if you don't !!

Good effort but keep trying

[rebelphilos · 5/10 · 29 June 2006]

First let me say that overall for a low-budget movie the outcome has merit. The plot was catching but it fails to deliver a coherent conclusion.

The story develops in small-city Appalachia. It starts with a very commonplace situation that could be the preamble to a very lame movie, or a promise that better things are coming to justify the beginning. Fortunately, it is the latest.

In this first fragment, Claire -student at day, night gas station mini-market cashier at night- leaves her job and walks to the road to wait for her boyfriend to pick up her -she hasn't a driver's license-. Her boyfriend's truck arrives but driven by an unknown man, despite what, she accepts the ride. As you are already imaging he harassed her all the way until they arrive to Claire's home, and after some suspense -yes you are right again- the stranger kills her. However, wait, right here the plot starts looking interesting. Immediately after the supposed murder the story goes back to the point in time where it started -Claire leaving her job and walking to the road to wait for her ride- except that some details change.

At this point I said "well, this is going to be interesting", and began to guess which was main concept behind the plot. It looked good for some sort of time shifting and/or parallel or alternative realities. The following sequences reaffirmed that idea but at some point they stopped being consistent with any of the ideas I mentioned before. I made an effort to think of a new one that made better sense but couldn't find anyone except the some kind of no so exciting ghosts-spirits limbo, which didn't convince me completely neither.

Lauren Currie Lewis as Claire delivers a very good performance. She has a placid kind of beauty somewhere between Alicia Silverston and a female version of Jake Gyllenhaal (she could be a female "Donnie Darko" too if the film didn't drift into massive confusion) with evident talent for drama.

Sound and music were outstanding with powerful songs by the rather unknown "Devola".

As said before, keep trying.