What Lies Beneath Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
He was the prefect husband until his one mistake followed them home.
He was the perfect husband until his one mistake followed them home.
Some men cheat and get caught. Some men pay a higher price.
They have the perfect marriage and the perfect house, until she found out what was wrong.
Norman Spencer, a university research scientist, is growing more and more concerned about his wife, Claire, a retired concert cellist who a year ago was involved in a serious auto accident, and who has just sent off her daughter Caitlin (Norman's stepdaughter) to college. Now, Claire reports hearing voices and witnessing eerie occurrences in and around their lakeside Vermont home, including seeing the face of a young woman reflected in water. An increasingly frightened Claire thinks the phenomena have something to do with the couple living next door, especially since the wife has disappeared without apparent explanation. At her husband's urging, Claire starts to see a therapist; she tells him she thinks the house is being haunted by a ghost. His advice? Try to make contact. Enlisting the help of her best friend, Jody, and a ouija board, Claire seeks to find out the truth of What Lies Beneath.
| Michelle Pfeiffer | Claire Spencer |
| James Remar | Warren Feur |
| Joe Morton | Dr. Drayton |
| Diana Scarwid | Jody |
| Miranda Otto | Mary Feur |
| Amber Valletta | Madison Elizabeth Frank |
| Katharine Towne | Caitlin Spencer |
| Harrison Ford | Dr. Norman Spencer |
| Victoria Bidewell | Beatrice |
| Eliott Goretsky | Teddy |
| Ray Baker | Dr. Stan Powell |
| Wendy Crewson | Elena |
| Sloane Shelton | Mrs. Templeton |
| Tom Dahlgren | Dean Templeton |
| Jayson Argento | Cafe Customer |
| Robert Zemeckis |
6.50 out of 10 (28989 votes)
Visitor Reviews
there's a ghost in my house....
posted on 31 Aug 2009Norman Spencer, a university research scientist, is growing more and more concerned about his wife, Claire, a retired concert cellist who a year ago was involved in a serious accident, and who has just sent off her daughter Caitlin to college. Now, Claire reports hearing voices and witnessing eerie occurrences in and around their lakeside Vermont home, including seeing the face of a young woman reflected in water. An increasingly frightened Claire thinks the phenomena have something to do with the couple living next door, especially since the wife has disappeared without apparent explanation. At her husband's urging, Claire starts to see a therapist; she tells him she thinks the house is being haunted by a ghost. His advice? Try to make contact. Enlisting the help of her best friend, Jody, and a Ouija board, Claire seeks to find out the truth...the film Zemeckis made while Hanks was losing weight, is much better, and solid story than Castaway and is easily one of the best thrillers of 2000.relying heavily on Hitchcock, the director has made a spooky, un-nerving psychological horror, which actually does scare, and for once, it's adult orientated without trying to be clever (ala' Scream) or using internet hype (the Blair witch).the success is in the story and the performances from the two leads, especially Ford who puts in an utterly convincing as a man with a secret. Pfeiffer is also very good and the pair have great chemistry together, but the main reason to see this movie is for the stunning camera work and subtle CGI scares that you may miss the first time around. it's not in your face scary, and Zemeckis proves that even though he uses CGI, he doesn't use it over the top and destroy the films.the final act is pure Hitchcock, right down to the score, and the film is slightly let down by a seemingly rushed ending, but for a film that was made because Hanks needed to lose a few pounds, it's certainly not 'lightweight' material.a great solid thriller.
Garbage!!
posted on 29 Aug 2009Spoilers included, and you can thank me.What can you say about a movie that had a little of "Fatal Attraction", "Rebecca","Six Sense", "Basic Instinct", and "Gaslight"? Put it into a "Plot" and stir, and you get garbage. The beginning was not bad at all, so i thought it could only get better...but it didn't. Oh yes, I forgot another movie with the above..THe Terminator". Give yourselves a moment and visual each movie and see if you can see some similarities. A 99% percent dying human being, left on the floor of his home, only to appear in the back of the pickup truck that his wife is driving. Just when you thought he was dead. "Terminator? Anyone? How did he have the strength to do so? I just laughed and laughed the entire scene that I got disgusted for wasting 3 hours of my time watching on TV with an hour of commercials. There just was nothing else on TV that night.
Not worth the $2.95 rental fee
posted on 23 Aug 2009This movie was a complete and utter waste of my time. The movie was twice as long as it needed to be, the silence that some speak of as a plus was actually sleep-inducing. Some characters were totally unnecessary. Jody for example, wasn't needed at all, except to spew cliches and slang terms that were about 20 years outside of her expected vocabulary. A middle aged woman should not attempt to sound like a teenager. it was nice to see Christina from Mommie Dearest acting again. Way to space out the movies there, think maybe there's a reason she hasn't been in a hit movie since Extremities?Outside of that, the movie was totally predictable, and the plot was un-original, copied from about 100 other "ghost" movies.I hope Harrison Ford doesn't need a job this bad. I would like to think he misread the script when he agreed to do it.
If Michelle Pfeiffer really is going to stop acting, this is a great way to leave the movie business
posted on 19 Aug 2009"What Lies Beneath" is one of the best movies I've seen this year. A lot of people say it's very Hitchcock-ian, but I've never seen a Hitchcock movie, so I can't judge.It's terrifying, jumpy, intriguing and well-acted. Oh, I forgot the "keeps-you-on-the-edge-of-your-seat-'til-you-feel-as-though-you're-in-her-shoes" element which is...quite important.Although it gets a little silly towards the end, ignore the critics, watch this movie in the dark, buy it, and watch it over and over. That's what I'm going to do, anyway.
A decent thriller
posted on 09 Aug 2009Classic thrillers are not one of the most popular genres these days. Especially not ones like this one where the element of the thrill is quite pronounced. It's a genre that i appreciate though, even though i wasn't expecting very much from director Robert Zemeckis. A man i feel is more skilled at wasting high budgets on sappy over-emotional movies than actually directing something enjoyable.This is a nice-looking movie. Still it's hard to see where the whopping 100 million dollar budget went. Because this is not a spectacular effect filled thriller, rather it's quite sublime, which i very much enjoyed. The story of the couple living their quiet life until a mistake from the past comes to haunt them is maybe nothing unique, but it's well executed. Michelle Pfeiffer was decent enough in the female lead, while Harrison Ford seemed to be on Valium. Most of the time his lines come out garbled and he looks distant, how he is supposed to play Indiana Jones once again is beyond me.I found this to be an enjoyable movie. With suspense building effectively early on, and with a nice twist toward the end. The stylish look is somewhat overdone in some scenes, but mostly it works fine. Zemeckis has created an entertaining classic thriller. I rate it 6/10.
Has elements of a good horror thriller, but lacks crafty structure. **1/2 (out of four)
posted on 05 Aug 2009WHAT LIES BENEATH / (2000) **1/2 (out of four)"What Lies Beneath" has all the elements of a good horror thriller: the moody atmosphere, proper character and setting introduction, and a mysterious premise that keeps the audience on edge. Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer are perfectly cast as a couple who experience surreal psychological terror that is both involving and suspenseful. Both leading performers deliver superb performances; Ford is flawless in another calm, cold, collected character, and Pfeiffer is astonishing with a vivid, taut performance. With all these positive variables going for the film, it should have been something very special…but it isn't. "What Lies Beneath" stars Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer as Norman and Claire Spencer, happy couple who just sent their only daughter, Caitlin (Katharine Towne), to college. The two live on a beautiful New England lake inherited by Norman's late father, in which gardening and making love are regular occurrences. Norman in a busy person as a scientist conducting research on an antidote that makes a living specimen paralyzed for a short period of time. Claire's homemaker lifestyle is pretty relaxed, although the past leaves her deeply emotional. The Spencer's new neighbors, Warren (James Remar) and Mary Feur (Miranda Otto), are seemingly having marital problems. Although Claire and Norman haven't properly introduced themselves to the Feurs, they witness several events that disturb the harmony in their neighborhood. After several incidences that give Claire the impression that Warren may have murdered his spouse, she digs deeper into the situation and uncovers what may include a closet full of skeletons that induce supernatural occurrences within her home. The script, by Sarah Kernochan and Clack Gregg, varies a great deal in quality. On one account the film's story is revealing and tension-filled because we bond with the Claire character as she unravels the circumstances and learns information as we do. We are involved and intrigued because neither the audience nor Claire knows what will transpire. There are a few elements left unexamined, but the production has an engrossing atmosphere to keep us on the edge of our seats. On another note, structurally the film fails. We receive an opening detailing Claire's investigation of her neighbor's murder mystery. The movie spends a minimum of forty-five minutes dealing with this issue, but half-way in, the movie completely drops the subject and reveals (spoiler) the subplot had no significant purpose whatsoever in the overall story. Instead of going somewhere with the earlier plot (which is capable of carrying the movie on its own), the plot opens a brand new series of events almost entirely unconnected to the previous. This structure is a false first act (always a pleasure to analyze). Although well styled, the structure clearly exemplifies the sloppiness of the script, as does the conclusion, which is lunacy in itself even if you willingly suspend your disbelief. Director Robert Zemickis has made some very good movies, several that have earned slots on my top ten lists. I am, of course, speaking of such superior pictures like "Contact," and best picture winner of 1994, "Forrest Gump." In addition to those films, he has also lent his expertise to unworthy productions like "The Frighteners," starring Michael J. Fox, several of the "Tales from the Crypt" installments, and now "What Lies Beneath." Here, what really could have been a successful thriller turns from precarious to pathetic simply because it tries to cover way too much material for a single movie.
Hitchcock spirit makes it worthwhile
posted on 03 Aug 2009A moviegoer with average intelligence should be able to figure out how this one is going to end just from watching the trailer. However, director Robert Zemeckis must have used his Ouija board to contact the ghost of Alfred Hitchcock to complete "What Lies Beneath" because a Hitchcock-ian spirit is definitely present. Clever camera angles, a shower/bathroom scene, a subplot alluding to "Rear Window" and Harrison Ford as "Norman" all recall Hitchcock's famous films. Even the musical score sounds like Hitchcock composer Bernard Hermann may have been conjured up from the dead as well. A predictable plot with some geniune scares and a tip of the hat to Alfred makes "What Lies Beneath" worth seeing.
What a waste!
posted on 03 Aug 2009Talent like Ford and Pfieffer are supposed to give you something to talk about. This film does not. They sold this film because of the actors names. If any unknown tried to make a run for the money with this scenario he'd never get any money for funding it and nobody would pay to see it. The film is 60% in the dark, as if they deliberately tried to hide it from the viewers. The music and sound effects play more then the content of the film. Hitchcock that lies beneath must be asking himself as anybody been paying attention. It's not the type of performance that you would expect from these talented actors. It just goes to prove, fans will go see anything that there favorite stars play in. So Michelle and Harrison next time get a good script or just read the phonebook in front of the camera...and leave a light on!
MAYBE TRITE,,BUT WONDERFUL SUSPENSE,,DON'T MISS IT!
posted on 01 Aug 2009As always before going to see a film I check the reviews just so i won't waste my money on a stinker. I am extremely glad i ignored the reviews on this one and went anyway.It maybe trite and have very few surprises but this movie is worth seeing and will still have you on the edge of your seat if not in the next lap. Michele Pheiffer and Harrison Ford do wonderful jobs portraying a couple facing major changes in their life with some surprising revelations. my only complaint would be that the director or editors left out a more detailed explaination about the accident that is referred to in the film.The twists and turns are there and surprisingly not as obvious as some would have you think. This film would please any suspense nut,,i can't understand the hoopla,,no it is not art,,but its definitely entertainment! go see it!
Scary, suspenseful, and very entertaining.
posted on 01 Aug 2009*** out of ****What Lies Beneath is an effective entry into the horror genre (though it's basis lies more in the roots of Hitchcock and suspense/thrillers in general), which has been collapsing under the strain of terrible teen-based films. This time, we have Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer, two fine middle-aged performers who are both in top form here. So is Robert Zemeckis, whose 3 year hiatus has grown a build-up for his fans-including me-out there expecting some quality cinema, and while this film isn't the classic his previous 2 were (Forrest Gump and Contact), it's far better than what a lot of critics have given it credit for.Norman and Claire Spencer (Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer, respectively) are a happily married New England couple whose grown-up daughter just left home for college. Claire is getting adjusted to that fact, at the same time trying to get adjusted to the new house they've just moved into.To get her mind off her troubles, Claire decides to meet their neighbors, another married couple, James and Mary Feur. But Claire begins to suspect there's something wrong in the Feur household. First, she notices Mary sobbing uncontrollably and trying to hide from her husband when he returns home from work. Then, one night she sees the husband put in a giant bag into the car, large enough to fit a person. Her observations for the next few days lead her to believe that the husband has killed his wife, and her beliefs are only heightened when she believes there's ghost inside her house trying to tell her something. I'm trying to be a little vague about the film, simply because it's a lot better not to know the plot twists and turns. The trailers gave too much away, and thus led me to correctly predict the film's big plot twist even before I actually went to see the movie. But that isn't the movie's flaw, and I'm sure that the twist would be surprising for the uninitiated.This is Robert Zemeckis' first foray in this genre, and he does a superb job. Even though the jump scenes-of which there are a huge amount of-may seem a little obvious, it's only Zemeckis paying homage to films of the past. And when they're as well-executed as it was in this film, those scenes can be very effective (lots of people actually screaming in the theater). Zemeckis also creates one magnificent set piece involving a bathtub (you'll know when you see it). This is the sort of sequence that reminds me of Brian De Palma, in which camerawork, the acting, and the situation itself-little to no special effects-are all that's used to create suspense. I've noticed a lot of complaints about the finale, which some found interfered with the tone and pacing of the previous 110 minutes. The film was derided for switching from a ghost story to something similar in Fatal Attractions. There is some truth in that, but the finale is also thrilling and suspenseful, thus lessening any sort of true negative impact it might have had if the scenes were less competently executed.The only 2 performers who are given a substantial amount of screen time are Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer, and both are terrific. Ford as the loving husband is always convincing and Pfeiffer as the woman who thinks she could either be going out of her mind or actually witnessing a supernatural phenomena is equally good. The film is really hers, though, since she's the one that does the investigation while the others have doubts about what she's saying. The supporting performances are from Joe Morton as a pyschiatrist and Diana Scarlid as Claire's best friend are decent, though neither are given a lot of screen time. James Remar as the husband who may or may not have killed his wife is chilling in the scenes he does appear in.
The amount of critical bashing What Lies Beneath received leads me to believe that some people view this movie with too much of a harsh eye and need to believe that every film of this sort absolutely has to be unpredictable. To some respect, I can agree with the critics who say the first 2/5 of the movie is perfunctory, but only to a certain point. This is a far too enjoyable thriller for me to criticize substantially.To be honest, Clark Gregg's script doesn't have an ounce of originality in it. The storyline is quite reminiscent of last year's Stir of Echoes. But originality really doesn't matter that much in comparison to how well it's executed. And in the case of What Lies Beneath, you have a very well-crafted thriller that was easily one of the best films of summer 2000 in a season of weak entries.
Disappointment coming from Zemeckis
posted on 01 Aug 2009Not that Bob Zemeckis was in the pantheon of Great Directors, but everything he did up until this movie was original and well above average. This is just run-of-the-mill stuff you've already seen hundreds of times, and reaks of a Hollywood sell-out by Mr. Z. Overlong and predictable, nothing special. I'm being a little on the generous side in giving this one a 5 out of 10. How useful the IMDb has been as a guide: quite consistently, I haven't come to expect much from anything rated much above a 6.5, so I figure that I should have expected that this would be an ill-spent 2 hours.
Two thumbs up for the IMDb, and lesson gratefully learned. (BTW, I thought that Zemeckis' follow-up, -Cast Away-, was a welcome return of the Zemeckis we'd all come to know and like.)
A GREAT SUSPENSE FILM!
posted on 24 Jul 2009` What lies beneath ' is a thriller worth watching again and again. It holds on the Hitchcockian tradition, providing misleading elements, interesting characters, an atmosphere of mystery and an unexpected ending. The film is about a happily married couple - maybe too happy – which lives with their daughter in a beautiful manor by the sea. He, Norman Spencer is a successful scientist who holds Dupont Genetic Chair as well as the perfect husband and father. She, Claire Spencer is an attractive wife and a caring mother who is very close to her friend Jody. It all seems too perfect… But underneath the still surface lies a sinister secret that waits to be discovered.It's only when daughter Caitlin moves out for college that strange things start to happen. The door keeps opening by itself, the computer is switched on by an invisible hand, the bathtub fills constantly with hot water and a photograph showing Claire and Norman falls down again and again. Claire hears strange whispers and sees a ghostly woman face in the water of the bathtub and the lake. Claire starts to suspect that the neighbor has murdered his wife and is determined to prove it. But then, many turns in the plot follow and the audience feels both surprised and shocked.As for the acting, the performances of the whole cast and especially of the leading trio, are brilliant. Diana Scarwid is very effective and innovative as Jody providing the film with an amusing and refreshing air. Harrison Ford, a veteran in acting, is absolutely convincing as Norman, following with amazing accuracy every turn of the plot. However, the most outstanding performance in the film is that of Michelle Pfeiffer. She plays a physically and emotionally demanding part with admirable genuineness and devotion.The music completes the film in every way by being chilling, mysterious, dreamy or threatening, sometimes tense and sometimes gentle. Along with the realistic and haunting sound effects creates the perfect atmosphere. As for the visual effects, although quite conventional, they still have the power to shock. Throughout the film, images become darker and darker as the camera follows the development of the story.Director Robert Zemeckis set out to create the perfect thriller about the idea of the surface under which nothing is quite as it seems to be. He brought it off with incredible precision and dedication, by revealing the true nature of people. As the reflective surfaces bring truth to light, we realize that "What lies beneath" is not only an excellent thriller but a brilliant social satire too.Rating:5/5
The title says it all...
posted on 18 Jul 2009The title says it all. WHAT LIES BENEATH is entirely based on the exploitation of the nagging suspicion, common among contemporary women, that all men, no matter how reassuring the appearances, are potentially threatening - and very dangerous.Is that to say that guys will hate it? Not really, because this is enough of a good movie to sustain the interest from the beginning till (almost) the end. The best scenes are those that make up the first hour or so. They reminded me of the opening sequences of THE EXORCIST where, through an adroit blend of perfectly natural occurrences and (possibly) supernatural manifestations, the audience is progressively manipulated into a state of heightening apprehension. Nothing happens, truly, but your nerves are set on edge and, soon, you start feeling the shivers. The means to achieve that end are efficient, if often trite and rarely original.The Çturning pointÈ is usually fatal to stories which start as mysteries, but do not have enough of the truly mysterious in them not to turn into something else (usually a conventional thriller) after an hour or so. This production is no exception, but, nonetheless, it still has enough pseudo-supernatural elements in it to remain afloat (more or less) for yet another half an hour. However, in the end, the doomed ship cannot escape its destiny and, after a while, it sinks in deep implausibility. The ending itself is high camp, although chances are that, by then, part of the audience will be so much Çinto itÈ that they will not even notice how cheap the conclusion is. Depending on their Çbelief systemÈ, they may even buy it!After screening WHAT LIES BENEATH, I heard someone saying that ÇHarrison Ford has taken a big risk in making this flickÈ. I beg to disagree. As
numerous Hollywood precedents show, a well-established actor, even a natural one like Ford, can easily afford to make exactly that move, hardly more than a trial balloon, with little or no consequence for the rest of his career. But there, precisely, is the rub : Ford, pushing on 60, currently needs a new lease on life for his career, an important film - as important as the RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, or WITNESS or even PATRIOT GAMES in his earlier days - that would enable him to bring his cinematic persona up to his current biological age bracket. Unfortunately, as WHAT LIES BENEATH clearly indicates, he is both too much of a natural and not enough of a character actor to successfully redefine himself through a dramatic break with the past. Somehow, the avuncular Harrison Ford of the years to come will have to evolve out of Indiana Jones. Michelle Pfeiffer, on the other hand, gives one of her best performances in this film, playing her role with so little affectation that one comes to forget that she is... a big name. For a much more satisfactory treatment of the same concept (but with a different ending), see Alfred HitchcockÕs SUSPICION, with Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine. For a more positive view of the relations between men and women in a context of violence threatening to a woman, but dealt with in a comedy mode, see FOUL PLAY, with Chevy Chase and Goldie Hawn.
Unexpectedly perfect!
posted on 18 Jul 2009To cut through the details, this is the best horror film I've ever seen. At least the best one I've first seen in a movie theater. I've seen "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Omen" on TV but I guess their reputation had already caught up with me so I was more or less expecting what to see. This one has you on the tip of your seat from moment one and never lets you go. The music, the cinematography, the editing, the acting, little things tossed here and there in the film to make you... wonder, are all combined in the most excellent way! Michelle Pfeiffer gives the best freaking performance of her career (and I didn't even think too much of her before this film!). As hard as it may be for me to give a horror film such a high rating... 10/10!
The movie that would put the world off Hollywood
posted on 12 Jul 2009This movie was actually painful to watch. I am serious. I had stomach pains because of how bad the movie was. The plot was awful, the acting was horrid, the scripting was worse, the rip-offs were obvious, and the scares predictable. The whole movie should have been banned in the United States because of how bad it is. And what is movie-making coming to when people think that mediocre movie-making is excellent? That is if the movie even qualifies as mediocre.First, the acting was just the worst acting I have seen in a while from a Hollywood movie. Worse than Mission To Mars because the acting wasn't campy, and wasn't good either. Harrison Ford sleeps his way through this picture, and barely shows any emotions throughout the movie, even when he is mad. It's like watching somebody say "Darn" as they pound their fist on a table. And Michelle Pfeiffer is the latest scream queen. Her acting abilities are lower than Linnea Quigley's. At least Linnea Quigley does nudity. (Check "Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers" for her acting abilities.)
Pfeiffer is the most over-the-top, and over-paid, actress out there. At least she matched the movie "Scarface" for excessiveness.Second, the plot. **Spoilers****spoilers**The first act of the plot is one major red herring that takes way too much time. It is a condensed version of "Rear Window" minus the broken leg. And, if nobody saw the changed ending, then my screen name isn't "Cofemug." However, one can hope, and I hoped because that would mean that the movie would have been blessedly short. The rest of the movie has been given away by previews, with the revelation of the affair and the article behind the picture. The best part is the computer. The ghost is a techno geek. And it knows cards so well.
The initials should have been m.i.l.f. (Apologies to "American Pie") Third, the scripting. With awful dialogue, scenes out of nowhere that do not enhance the plot or the characters, and a pacing that is even slower than that of "Eyes Wide Shut," "Spartucus," or "Lawrence of Arabia," this movie's writer should be fired and banned from ever scripting again. 9 1/2 weeks at least had nothing much to do, and had decent sex scenes. This movie needed a cattle prod to get moving. And the line, "I think she suspects something." Come on.Last, the direction. With framing that is awful, and that does not make me feel uncomfortable, and shots ripped off from other movies, Zemeckis has reached a new low. **Spoilers** He steals looks from his own movie, "Death Becomes Her," steals the first act's look from "Rear Window," steals two shots from the shower scene of "Psycho," stelas the end shot from "Vertigo," steals the drug idea from "Notorious," the list goes on and on.
I have seen this movie before, done so much better. Luckily my money was not wasted on this drivel.In the end, skip this movie, and burn all of the prints of it. It is more boring than "Titanic," more irritating than "The Blair Witch Project" (and less scary), less scary than "Rosemary's Baby," and less funny than "Mission to Mars." Run away from this movie as fast as you can. Go find "Cecil B. Demented" which is anti-Hollywood. Go see "Scary Movie" or something else.
Just stay away from this one.(negative infinity)/101/10
Great
posted on 08 Jul 2009"What Lies Beneath" was a great movie, with great actors, mostly Harrison Ford.Also the movie had me in suspense not knowing what was going to happen next. Over all it was a great movie and I think people who like a good suspense movie would want to watch "What Lies Beneath".
One of the most intelligent horror movies in years...
posted on 06 Jul 2009*****out of*****Robert Zemeckis has always been one of my favorite film directors just for one reason... he seems to know what he`s doing... Even as a writer, he knows how to have fun with his movies. It`s not only a job for him, he enjoys doing it and the audience can sense it... He`s been able to cover almost every genre: The back to the Future Trilogy, was a science fiction teenage comedy for all ages with a western part on it. Who Framed Roger Rabbit, was a technology marvel. Death Becomes Her, was a delightful black comedy (as we, in Mexico, call those kind of movies that make you laugh at things you`re not supposed to, like Pulp Fiction and Fargo), Forrest Gump, is an excellent lesson as how things can be done easily with just an innocent point of view. The innocent part of America portrayed in Forrest and its darker side seen on the persona of Jenny. Contact was, more than a simple alien or third encounter story, it was a philosophical treatment on human kind and humanity, how would we really react before a world event of this magnitude... Didn`t you feel as if you were in front of a mirror? And now, What Lies Beneath, the latest approach by Zemeckis at cinema perfection. A horror thriller with a supernatural approach that can make your skin tickle and your body jump from your seat. And it is even a great homage to director Alfred Hitchcock. We can see clear references to Psycho and Rear Window in little details as names, story ideas and even Alan Silvestri`s music has a bit of music that clearly reminds to Bernard Herrman`s Psycho opening credits one. I have to say that the Story is great and that the cinematography is the technical element that gives the mood for the entire film.Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer are superb!
I can`t imagine why some people don`t seem to like this movie... I think maybe we just try to compare every movie we see with movies we`ve seen before and try to find some similarities between them. This movie doesn`t have the frantic editing of Teen Slasher movies like Scream or I Know What You Did Last Summer, instead, this is a movie that takes its time for the audience to take it seriously and the pace may be a little slow for some, but I do like a movie that does not rush itself to get to the climax scenes as a showdown resource... The Blair Witch Project, was this kind of movie and that`s why I think they work so well... They surround you with the ambiance, with the feeling and the mood they want and then they get you trapped and don`t let go until the end... Watch it carefully and observe all the details that you could usually miss. If you`ve already seen it, go watch it again... I`ve seen it three times and that`s one thing I love about this kind of movies... You can watch them 100 times and always found new tiny details you`ve missed the first 99. At least this REALLY IS some kind of MATURE horror movie... or supernatural thriller...call the way it suits you the most... BUT PLEASE DON`T DARE MISS IT! You`ll beg for another scare, or maybe for the next one to be the last!
I would like to dare you and find the almost impossible camera movements and (at least for me) great editing technics in this movie and in Contact...It`s almost impossible, but if you can do it, you`ll enjoy them the most!
Pretty Good Thriller
posted on 26 Jun 2009I had actually wanted to see this film, since its summer release last year. I didn't get around to seeing it, till it came on video. I found this movie to be pretty good, not the best thriller however. There were some scenes, however where I did jump.I thought Pfeiffer's character was good, but I personally think Ford's part wasn't all that good. Overall the movie in my opinion fares well. Good to watch in the dark though.
Not bad, but too long!
posted on 20 Jun 2009Harrison Ford & Michelle Pfeiffer were very attractive and believable as a married couple. The first hour or so is interesting, but everything takes SO long. And I would have liked it more, I think, if the supernatural stuff was more hinted at, leaving you to wonder if it was just all coincidence or a true haunting. James Remar does a nice but too-short turn as a menacing-looking professor to whom Michelle gives the REAR WINDOW treatment.
Forgettable Hitchcock homage
posted on 31 Aug 2009Those who know their Hitchcock, particularly "Rear Window" and "Psycho" can spend their time pointing out the homages (ripoffs?) during the slow stretches of this thriller. Harrison Ford, in great shape but looking his 58 years, costars with Michelle Pfeiffer as a Vermont couple who, well, start to have problems in their beautiful lakeside home. You see, Michelle, perhaps suffering from empty-nest syndrome (she's just packed off their only child to college), is starting to hear things...and becoming suspicious of the new neighbors...and Harrison's a hard-working research scientist who never seems to be around when the creepy things happen. Is she losing her mind...?There's a lot (I do mean a lot) of cheap scares in this movie, along with some genuinely tense moments. You do have to sit through some long stretches until the last couple of reels when things rev up considerably. The ending, however, isn't too surprising. Plus the music and sound effects are way too loud - does every sound (even a drawer closing) have to boom? Soundtrack composer Alan Silvestri, one of the lesser talents of the major film composers, tries to do Bernard Herrmann Jr. and it's obvious. He's listened to that "Psycho" music one too many times.All in all, a throwaway summer movie, competently directed by Robert Zemeckis, OK if you like the genre but far from its best example. For that, watch the Hitchcock movies on AMC on Sunday nights.