Shadow of Fear - L'engrenage

I'm surprised this movie has got such a high rating. It starts out very promising with some nice images in the rain. In fact, it is extremely fascinating about until the time when he gets back to his wife and they begin talking. After that the movie falls apart little by little, until it becomes so borderline non-sensible that I just had to turn it off. It is not a matter of "plot twists" as some viewer suggested. Obviously, it is a question of just not being able to put a decent plot together. I see an alarming trend in the new DVD-market where many movies are put out quicker and easier to DVD than it was possible in the good old video days. American horror has suffered in recent years, and did not improve with the pathetic remakes of brilliant Asian horror. Anyway, "Shadow of Fear" is not a horror-movie. It is hardly even a movie. If it had only lasted until he got back to his wife, and she then turned into a demon or something; then it would have been a good "Twilight Zone"-episode but when a movie-plot collapses like that in one superfluous scene after the other then it becomes irrelevant to watch. As one viewer suggested, we are never told what this "organisation" does. I think, this is a major problem. On the back of the DVD it said something about a secret "cult"-organisation with big power. It sounded promising but in the movie this organisation seems completely devoid of power, so what's the point?

They say that Hollywood always is looking for something new. So how come they decided to produce this film? There's nothing new in "Shadow of Fear". I mean: rainy night, a moment of inattention and the dead guy in the middle of the road. There rest is as unimaginative as the beginning.

Well, there were some positive moments. The concept of the secret society created by demonic William Ashbury is quite entertaining and relationship between main character and his father-in-law is somewhat original. But that's it. The main character is rather dull and Matthew Davis isn't the best actor for the part. What's more, Lexi Nikitas must really hate him, since his make-up was overdone. What's with the lipstick? Davis looked almost like a lazy drag who didn't remove the make-up after the show was over.

I felt quite at a loss after this movie. I wondered and wondered, remembering fine details that might contain some important clue for the story. There might be, but I found none. So I concluded either it may be a very intelligent mystery thriller, or it may be just pure crap. So when they showed the film again four days later I began to see it again and found it intolerable after 30 minutes.

I don't know just what the screenwriter was thinking. Same old premises, average locations, predictable camera angles and not-too-bad acting. You can't make a masterpiece out of this. Probably the director or screenwriter set a goal too high. Well, James Spader as an actor is always nice to watch and here's no exception. But the others were below average (especially Robin Tunney). Really, I expected the film not very good, but I didn't know I won't get the story at all.

I liked this movie. I even watched it a second time so that I could catch the little things I missed the first time around. I suppose it was a lame plot with lame actors (average B movie), but I liked it. James Spader plays his usual sleaze-ball rich guy and as usual, he does so quite well. I thought he was pretty tricky in the way he trapped society's best. I have to admit I was a bit confused the first time through as to the exact purpose of the Tuesday meetings--things became clearer as the movie progressed. Overall I thought the "secret Tuesday society" was a pretty cool (albeit sick) idea. The ending was very cool and worth the wait. I love murder mysteries and this was a good smooth-flowing storyline.

"Shadow of Fear" has some pretty good production values for a low budget direct to DVD movie. It also has some decent acting by the various participants on the screen. Unfortunately, it's hard to build any enthusiasm for the rest of the movie. The story elements and the characters are often so murky that it's hard to understand what is going on at times. It's like starting a novel at chapter 3, since a lot of the elements in the movie movie go are never explained at all. Some elements are (eventually) explained, but much of the movie remains confusing. What went wrong here? Since I find it hard to believe that production would go ahead on an incoherent screenplay, I suspect that the original cut of the movie ran a lot longer, and when the movie was subsequently cut down to run at a more reasonable length, a lot of explanation was removed. It's too bad, because there are signs that the original cut would have been engaging despite its length. You'd be better off waiting for a director's cut instead of watching the movie as it is right now.