शैलो ग्रेव

Danny Boyle seemed like he was destined for directorial greatness before the surprise success of "Trainspotting" got to his head. His first two pictures, however, are wonderful. "Shallow Grave" is one of the best modern thrillers I have seen in a long time.

The story centers around three British roommates who are trying to rent the empty room in their flat out to another person. When they finally do find a man to rent the flat out to, he dies in his sleep, leaving behind a briefcase full of a whole lot of money. What to do?

Much like "Trainspotting" of a few years later, "Shallow Grave" has very dark comical undertones to it. Unlike "Trainspotting" however, it is a much more serious film. Like Sam Raimi's "A Simple Plan" of four years later, it explores a moral dilemma between three friends on what to in a situation when you find a lot of money that does not belong to you. Do you compromise your morals for the money or do you do the right thing? One is never quite sure how the story will turn out and as you approach the ending of the film, you are never quite sure which one of the three friends is more sinister than the next, which makes the twists in the last part of the film such a darkly hilarious and chilling delight.

Films like "Shallow Grave" are exactly what independent filmmaking is all about. It's a smart, sleek and stylish film made on a small budget, driven by a cleaver story and interesting characters. Ewan McGregor and Christopher Eccleston both give great performances in this film. `Shallow Grave' is miles better than any thriller Hollywood has come up with in the last 10-15 years (if not longer). I give it an 8 out of 10.

Juliet Miller (Kerry Fox), David Stephens (Christopher Eccleston), and Alex Law (Ewan McGregor) are three flatmates looking for someone to rent the fourth room. They are all sarcastic, sharp-tongued, and generally mean-spirited. They agree on the charismatic Hugo (Keith Allen) but don't know his criminal activities. When they discover his dead body, they also find a suitcase full of money.

Before Danny Boyle's breakthrough movie 'Trainspotting', this is his first big screen debut. The leads are not likable. They are all unlikeable selfish untrustworthy jerks. It's dark. It has three amazing performances. And it has a great Hitchcockian style. It is sharp and brilliant. It has some funny moments especially as they skewer the roommate interviews. It builds up to great tension. It's just good dark fun.

It's well performed with actors who would go onto greater things. The plot is pretty thin, insomuch as it has one. The most interesting and fascinating elements come through post viewing reflection, to consider what you would have done under these circumstances. The director is asking you to accept and believe the events that took place are plausible - are they? Or are they so implausible that the story becomes fantasy? If it's fantasy it's valueless, passing ninety minutes of your time and soon to be forgotten. If you can connect on a real world level then maybe you'll learn something about yourself you didn't know already - or at least choose to seldom acknowledge. Cinema is there to make you think and connect with the world in a different way and this film does just that for the most part.

Alex, David and Juliet share a flat together and are looking for a new flat mate to help fill the flat out. They see various applicants who don't fit until they meet the mysterious Hugo who is `interesting' and takes the room. Almost a week goes by and he doesn't come out of his room once, so they break down Hugo's door to find him dead with a suitcase full of money. To keep the money, they agree to destroy Hugo's body and draw straws to see who does the cutting. David ends up doing the deed but it affects him badly and he becomes increasingly erratic and paranoid. Meanwhile two criminals are dredging the underworld looking for the money.

Any film that can pose a moral question that stays with the audience is off to a good start and needs to build on it. That is the case here with the `would you keep the money' question - the answer being `yes' in terms of the characters here. The plot then sees the greed do what greed do best - feed paranoia and divisions between the characters. It's a theme that has been done before but is still well done here. The plot has weaknesses in logic and flow - David's paranoia doesn't totally go the way that seems most likely, rather the way that the film requires. Also the film doesn't build good characters. However what it does do well is turn up tension and drama very well - as the net closes and the characters start to turn on each other.

This is where the comparatively short running time helps - it keeps the whole thing from being onscreen too long to be analysed to death while you are watching it. I didn't question the weaknesses because I was caught up in the story. It has a good pace on it although it can't keep up the speed it set with it's stylish opening credits (which have been impersonated so often since). The final act is a fitting denouncement and, like I said, even if some of it doesn't totally scan the film moves along fast enough to cover it.

Despite the lack of really developed characters, the cast do really good jobs on the whole. McGregor is great - this and Trainspotting show how great it can be, just makes it harder to see him looking miserable in the Star Wars films. Fox is also very good, although she is a lot subtler than McGregor. However it is Eccleston who steals the film, even if he is required to go further than he should have in his downward spiral; contrast his character at the start and the end of the film, he did very well to gradually go from one to the other convincingly. The support cast is made up of familiar faces who don't really do that much - McCredie, Stott, Allen and Mullan.

Overall this is not without it's flaws but it works as a tight little moral thriller that is really enjoyable while watching it. And the ending will have you in the pub or on the message boards talking about it (in a good way).

This film opens with three hip, cynical young Scottish professionals, David, Juliet and Alex (Christopher Eccleston, Kerry Fox and Ewan McGregor)who are looking for a fourth to share their spacious flat. That they aren't very nice people is clear in the opening scenes. when they taunt and mock the hapless applicants with insults and absurd questions, it is a foreshadowing of future nastiness and some of the choices they make. Finally an older man who seems to be their match takes the room, then immediately up and dies on them--and leaves a suitcase full of money. Did the guy commit suicide? And if so, why? More than likely the money came from some ill-gotten source, so why not keep it? But first, his corpse, which is, as Alex puts it, starting to "go off and smell" must be dealt with, hence the title. Scotland is such a great setting for a horror thriller, it's a shame more of them aren't set there. These are the people who gave us Burke and Hare after all. Add to that all the stereotypes about Scottish people and money and it's a perfect set-up for this plot. The sexual tension among the three also adds a suspenseful twist. Ewan McGregor was even more heartbreakingly handsome in those days, long before he was a Jedi knight, but in spite of that, he does an amazing job playing a lout.

It may be my imagination, but Danny Boyle seems given to "Clockwork Orange" references here as he was in "Trainspotting" (Watch for the scene at the charity ball with Ewan McGregor on the floor with Fox's foot on his face. There are others.) Nothing wrong with that. And as with "Trainspotting", there are some flights of pure fantasy, though none as protracted as the toilet scene.

Though not heavy handedly, I think that this film, perhaps even more so than "Trainspotting" makes a pointed comment on the spiritual condition(empty) of young people in the nineties. These are very much films of their time--they could not have been made in an earlier time, and not just because of explicit drug and violence scenes.