L'écorché

Picked this one up at the library, thus thankfully saving myself any expense, mostly because of the deceptive blurbs on the DVD case: "Refreshing and ambitious," (thoroughly wrong on the first count, debatable on the second) "Easily one of the most original horror films of the last year," (possibly, if you've never seen another horror film that year, or have extremely low standards) "Winner Best Picture, Dead by Dawn Film Festival 2004" (not a terribly glowing recommendation to attend any future DbD festivals, I can assure you), and several others that were mercifully covered with library stickers.

Others have already sufficiently commented on the weaknesses of this low-budget effort, including the choppy editing, the meandering, slapdash plot in hopeless search of focus (and intelligence), the forgettable acting, the serviceable but otherwise unremarkable camera-work, the competent but undistinguished score, and the effective but pointless gore effects.

Who greenlights crap like this? Who is dumb enough to put up the money for a project that only serves to prove Sturgeon's Law? Do no-name actors actually swell with pride at having a joke like this on their resumes? One can only scratch one's head and wonder.

Safe to say, a wreck like this makes films like "High Tension" or "Saw I/II" or even "Hostel" look like Oscar contenders.

Invest your time in this one only if you are really, really desperate for entertainment. Whatever promise its creators have or had was completely squandered on this turkey.

I had an epiphany after first submitting this comment, noticing as I did that one of the supporting actors is thanked in the credits, a guy who just happens to run an acting school. No doubt the school was in the vicinity of this film's shooting locations. No doubt the school provided a number of warm bodies for various roles. No doubt the school was counting on an influx of students and their cash via this movie. No doubt this school has failed to produce any recognizable talent since its inception, which is a shame, since it appears that the actor running this school works steadily, if only in television (and I say that facetiously, knowing that teeveeland offers far more and steadier work than film could ever hope to do). Which, if nothing else, once again goes to prove the truth of Sturgeon's Law.

A deeply flawed plot. I won't recapitulate them here, since many previous commenters have done this quite well. And I did not like the clichéd device of the music building to a (supposed) climax, but then nothing happening in the film. An interesting device the first time it was tried, but filmmakers need to leave that alone. The acting was uneven as well. But it did, surprisingly enough, hold my interest.So it isn't a complete failure. I liked Natalie Avital, and hope she gets more good roles in the future. (Okay I really mean better roles.) The same for Lindsey Stoddart. I suppose that horror film fans should see this movie, and that others should give it a pass.

Disturbing.

It is true that there are many issues in Shallow Ground that hamper its performance as a masterpiece and keep it from reaching classic status. The acting, for example, was far from excellent, there are too many easily perceived goofs and the characters fail to make any impression other than that of their physical presence on set and even that can almost be disregarded, at times.

Yet, there is a very fortunate combination of factors that rise this movie above the average, uninspired product with little or no value. First of all, the scenery. Not only are the woods chosen a very strong visual setting in which to unroll a horror story as it was explored almost to the fullest. Instead of the typical dark-hued and mostly shady forest environment for which most of these movies would go for, Shallow Ground opts to shoot sun dappled clearings and light flooded groves. And this green preponderance is shockingly effective when it becomes the background for the blood soaked boy whose silent performance may very be one of the most uncanny characters ever to haunt a horror movie.

Which is another strong feature in this movie, perhaps the most original one, the nameless creation whose identity is a mystery and whose purpose is never fully explained. Although many will claim this is a fault in the script, that plot-wise it is a muddle of never fully developed ideas, in a way that is exactly its allure. A horror movie must leave something to the imagination, there is not need to skin down motives and expose a very well define system of motivations for it to work as a nightmarish concoction of the not necessarily logic.

Although it does remind one of an X Files Episode, the gruesome and very often blood spattered approach that permeates the whole movie set it a few rungs above the toned down horror of our days.

At least, Shallow Ground is not afraid to be a pure horror movie, one that accepts the rules of the genre only to introduce fresh variations within a tradition that seemed to be dying off. Shallow Ground may the first movie of the 2000's to follow the Texas Chainsaw legacy.

And that is praise worthy.

Great idea for an opening - a naked teenage boy, covered in blood from head to foot, walks out of the forest holding a big butcher knife - and into the Sheriff's station which is packing up, making ready to leave.

Bad idea - a Sheriff with a heavy Irish brogue, corny dialogue, some truly 'WTF?!' editing, having all the 'good guys' in the film at least 5 minutes behind the audience (in a 'come on, it's obvious!' way), and a final shot that will have people leaving the cinema asking their friends "What on earth was that about?!" The director / DP knows how to do fish-eye shots, slo-mo, reverse-filming, all those bog-standard music-video things (and the lighting was fine) - even the SFX were fine - but the film really falls down on plot, script and editing. The plot, what it is, is revealed too slowly. I'm all for suspense, but not when you waste 45 minutes and leave only the last 45 or so to shoe-horn all the development in. Characters (and red-herrings) are suddenly forgotten / nobody reacts in a normal way / there's no real clue to events (and people) that are revealed later.. And - given the plot, which I'm trying not to reveal - there's way too little explanation of events which we're told are happening elsewhere (and would make what's going on more coherent).

As I say, the final shot - clearly designed to be a 'sting in the tail' (maybe even a hint at a sequel, or events continuing) will instead leave you walking out of the theatre trying to work out why?! / what?! / and, is there any way I can get my money back? (no).

Not be confused with Danny Boyle's A SHALLOW GRAVE, this low-budget horror flick centers around a series of murders in a small town. A sheriff's office is shutting down and preparing to relocate when a bloodied teen walks in the door. The revelation of his identity only makes things more confusing. It is hard to say more about this movie without giving it all away. Suffice it to say SHALLOW GROUND involves restless spirits and their thirst for revenge. The first half has some wonderfully unsettling and occasionally scary moments. The second half loses some momentum, although the killer's identity comes as a neat surprise and pays homage to Hitchcock in its own twisted way. The supernatural elements are kept to a minimum, which works in the movie's favor. Horror film fans will have seen the plot before, but may appreciate the clever way in which it is presented. The acting is hit or miss at best, and the movie is extremely bloody. It deals pretty graphically with torture-murders, so the little ones should be in bed before you watch this.