MovieChat Forums > Shallow Ground (2005) Discussion > My issues with this prretty good movie

My issues with this prretty good movie


Let me start by saying, I liked the movie and am not just bashing it, however there were a few things I didn't like.

1. Why is Helen so damn strong apparently? she knocks out Laura with a tap from the shotgun, and even though it's shown how she attacked everyone, it still doesn't really work, they show her beating a few character much larger and stronger looking then her when she was disguised.

2. I know it'a movie, but why didn't the boy just go straight for Helen? it's purpose was far to convoluted for the sake of dragging out the plot.

3. Anyone else noticed the bad soundaffects every so often? I only noticed one at first, the aforementioned shotgun strike, it sounded like Laura was hit with cheap plastic (also, apparantly movies still think we don't know jack about guns, because there was absolutely no recoil on the shotgun... I'm not even a gun person and I know that makes no sense).

4. Lastly, and this is a personal gripe maybe, but to me, I didn't have any trouble following everything, and it still felt kind of convoluted. Too many things occuring for drama in the latter half. The greiving father is apparently crazy enough to kidnap a cop, the guy who the director oviously wants us to suspect is the murderer gets killed (who honestly, I think was unnecissary. even without him I wouldn't have thought of the Helen). It just seems like there were too many things happening at once that subtracted from the horror.

5. They were *beep* cops... all this stuff giong down in their forest and not one thinks maybe they should go try to find or warn the hunter? they all just seem to completely forget about his existence whenever he's not on screen.

6. Why did Helen wait so long to kill the paramedic? they obviously saw a lot of eachother, were friendly, and were even alone in a scene... seems like a wasted opportunity to me...

Appart from these I loved the premise, and the twists were great. The ending was intentionally confusing, but I like that (though I don't like the idiots who seem to think they've figured it out and everyone else just doesn't get it because to me, even after rewatching there is no clue or explaination given as to what it was. Don't get me wrong though, I like people theorizing about it, just don't pretend your smart because you think one thing and ignore everyone elses ideas. I only see fit to add this because I see a lot of this around here...)

Anyway, 7/10. Could have been an 8.5 easy if not for those flaws, and for a low budget flick it was actually great (especially the makup and dummies, very creepy).

That's all, just throwing in my 2 cents.

reply


This whole movie needed to be re-cut and edited. The opening part for instance.
Why did we go to the police station, see the guy in the truck, then randomly flash back to a couple years before? Why not make the couple years before start the film and then move on to a quaint "3 years later" scene.
Also, my biggest complaint, and its actually the ONE FREAKING REASON why i could not finish watching this movie.. The sound... The horrible, horrible horrible sound.

First there needed to be more of a variety of atmosphere music.

Second, we dont need to try to blow tweeters with that atmosphere music.

Third, lets not play it allllll the damn time. The whole point of suspenseful music is to catch your attention and draw you into a scene. If its playing non-stop, then the viewer eventually wants nothing to do with it.

I actually just shut this movie off no more than 5 minutes ago. And i must say if i was not for the horrific ear piercing music i would have been able to finish and probably enjoyed it a bit.
Had the music been fix AND it been re-edited.... even slightly, i think i could have really gotten into it.
Its a shame. I actually hope this is this groups first shot at a movie because if these are the only mistakes, they could do something special eventually.


".... Now i have become death, the destroyer of worlds" - Robert Oppenheimer

reply