What Lies Beneath

Zemeckis approaches a Hitchcockian style in 'What Lies Beneath'. The film itself is a sort of horror-chiller film. The story certainly is not original but while there is a ghost in the movie, Zemeckis also creates a very tense atmosphere relying purely on silence and simplistic sounds (like the wind blowing the door open etc) and cinematography. The camera-work is stupendous as it follows Michelle Pfeiffer (who is very much in every single shot). I particularly liked the shots in the house when the camera would move slowly (as though tiptoeing) with Pfeiffer's suspicious character.

Of course there are jump moments and twists which are usual in this genre but they're far from ridiculous. Some seem to be bothered with the Miranda Otto track arguing that it had little relevance to the main plot. However, this didn't bother me as much and it actually does make sense that Claire would believe her neighbour to be in trouble...(I'll refrain from giving out more spoilers).

Another high point of 'What Lies Beneath' is indeed Michelle Pfeiffer. I think this was her comeback film after she took a short break to take care of her children. From being a vulnerable housewife, who had been through an accident and is now lonely in the house since her daughter (with whom she was very close) moved to college campus and her husband works long hours, to a stronger woman who follows her instincts and discovers dark secrets that bring her to make difficult decisions, Pfeiffer's understated portrayal is amazing to say the least. I can't say much about Harrison Ford's role without hinting spoilers but he does a commendable job.

I enjoyed 'What Lies Beneath' much more during my second viewing than the first time (which was more than five years ago) but I think the main reason was that I was able to pay more attention to other parts of the movie other than just the story, such as the technical aspects (like camera-work and sound effects), and also see and enjoy the homage to so many classics (mostly Hitchcock's films). That is not to say that the story itself doesn't work. Quite the contrary because even though it's not exactly original, it is suspenseful and the events are well put together. 'What Lies Beneath' is an enjoyable chiller thriller with supernatural elements.

I sat down to watch this film with basically no pre-conceived notions concerning its plotline (or quality, for that matter.) A little over two hours later, I was still shivering and shaking. Robert Zemeckis has taken what is undoubtedly a good (though maybe somewhat predictable) screenplay, and has lifted it to the level of Hitchcockian genius. My eyes bugged out, my skin crawled, my breath got short, and I couldn't have torn myself away even if the Publisher's Clearing House Prize Patrol was at my door.

Along with a great story and masterful directing, this movie features the superb performance of Michelle Pfeiffer. Ambivalent about her acting skills in the past, I am now a full-fledged Pfeiffer fan. Harrison Ford is certainly adequate, and this role is a refreshing change for him, but Michelle steals the show.

Good ghost stories are few and far between. Even "Stir Of Echoes" and "The Sixth Sense", fine films that they are, don't compare to the perfect blend of soundtrack, plot twists, camerawork and performance that make up "What Lies Beneath". If goosebumps are your thing, don't miss this one.

Claire and Norman Spencer's marriage starts to fall apart when she believes there is a ghost in the house. Things gather apace when Claire is convinced that the spirit is trying to tell her something. Something that could be too close to home for comfort.

Robert Zemeckis does Hitchcock? Well yes, the influence is obvious, unashamedly so. But the trouble with that, is having the maestro as a benchmark renders all other modern day attempts as folly. However, casting aside that gargantuan issue, What Lies Beneath is an effective creeper come thriller that boasts star credentials.

Directed by Zemeckis, formed from an idea by Steven Spielberg (from the story by Sarah Kernochan) and starring Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer as the fragmenting Spencer's. That's a pretty tidy bunch from which to launch your movie. What follows is a mixture of genuine unease and mystery, red herrings and standard boo jump moments, all of which almost gets lost on a saggy middle section as Zemeckis plays Hitchcock one too many times and loses sight of the supernatural heart of the piece, not helped by Clark Gregg's meandering script I might add. None the less, the picture gets pulled around for the finale as the spooky combines with thriller to produce some quality edge of the seat stuff. But it's only then that you totally realise that the makers here have tried to cram too much in to one film. In eagerness to manipulate the audience for the fine ending (though you probably will have it worked out at the half way point) the film just ends up as being confused as to what it mostly wanted to be.

Pfeiffer is excellent and looks stunning and Ford gives it gusto when the script allows. Support comes from Diana Scarwid, Joe Morton, Miranda Otto and James Remar. The house is suitably eerie with its waterside setting and Alan Silvestri's score is perfectly in tune with the creepy elements of the piece. It's a fine enough film in its own right, regardless of the Hitchcockian homages. It's just that it should have been a far better horror picture than it turned out to be. 7/10

A good old-fashioned scary movie, avoiding irony and self-referentialism at every turn, this film relies on a nice premise and some well-executed creepy atmosphere for its impact. Pfeiffer and Ford work well together as a middle-aged couple, with Pfeiffer particularly effective as the homey (though obviously ridiculously beautiful) mother left alone when her daughter heads off to college, working herself up into a panic at various, vaguely spooky goings-on around the place. The film plays its cards close to its chest throughout, working the old game of keeping the audience guessing for a good while ? is there really something supernatural going on, is it some kind of creepy but human plot, or is it all in her head? Of course it's all revealed in the end, in a solidly scary, thrilling and well-executed finale. A classic it ain't, but it has a kind of workmanlike, reliable quality oozing out of every scene.

Oh man!! What a fun movie! Without giving too much away, it's a ghost movie. The plot wasn't anything to write home about, it's been done about 100 times before, but it was just done better than it has been in recent memory. Seems that movies try to over-do everything lately with special effects, gore, music and violence. Not here... I kept thinking that they had taken a step back and returned to what makes movies spooky. It's not a computer generated demon, or a high intensity soundtrack; it's a creaky door, it's a reflection in the glass, it's that feeling when you know you just pushed that chair in a minute ago and now it's away from the table again. That's what makes people uneasy, that's what makes them check their closets and sleep with the hall light on when they go home.

The most notable difference in the movie was the silence. I'd guess that about 50% of the movie was completely silent except for breathing, footsteps, creaking doors... wonderful. Seems that lately the powers-that-be just have to fit every second of the soundtrack into the movie (seems they should since now-a-days there's commercials for the soundtrack separate from the movie in many cases) in order to boost the spooky level... it rarely works. The silence in the movie just added to that tension in your shoulders and made you slowly edge up on your seat.

If I had to pick anything to complain about, it'd be the weak foreshadowing of two events, I don't want to give anything away, but you'll know when you see it. It's like they gave up on trying to write them into the plot. They may as well have put a subtitle on the screen (or a "Pop Up Video" bubble) that told you that what they were saying was important. For my wife and I, it gave a bit away about how the movie was likely to end.

Michelle Pfeiffer was really good, I'd guess she was in almost every single shot in the film, so anything but a great performance would have shown. I'm not normally one to judge actors performances, but there's some credit to be given to someone who can act that scared using only her eyes. I wouldn't be surprised if she gets a nod at the academy for this one.