6.6/10
107,717
679 user 191 critic

What Lies Beneath (2000)

Trailer
0:31 | Trailer

Watch Now

From $2.99 (SD) on Prime Video

ON DISC
The wife of a university research scientist believes that her lakeside Vermont home is haunted by a ghost - or that she is losing her mind.

Director:

Robert Zemeckis

Writers:

Clark Gregg (screenplay), Sarah Kernochan (story) | 1 more credit »
Reviews
Popularity
1,681 ( 891)
5 wins & 5 nominations. See more awards »

Videos

Photos

Learn more

More Like This 

Horror | Mystery | Thriller
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7/10 X  

After being hypnotized by his sister-in-law, a man begins seeing haunting visions of a girl's ghost and a mystery begins to unfold around him.

Director: David Koepp
Stars: Kevin Bacon, Zachary David Cope, Kathryn Erbe
Action | Adventure | Comedy
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5.8/10 X  

Robin Monroe, a New York magazine editor, and the gruff pilot Quinn Harris must put aside their mutual dislike if they are to survive after crash landing on a deserted South Seas island.

Director: Ivan Reitman
Stars: Harrison Ford, Anne Heche, David Schwimmer
Biography | Drama
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6.4/10 X  

An ex-Marine turned teacher struggles to connect with her students in an inner city school.

Director: John N. Smith
Stars: Michelle Pfeiffer, George Dzundza, Courtney B. Vance
Witness (1985)
Crime | Drama | Romance
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7.4/10 X  

A young Amish boy is sole witness to a murder; policeman John Book goes into hiding in Amish country to protect him until the trial.

Director: Peter Weir
Stars: Harrison Ford, Kelly McGillis, Lukas Haas
One Fine Day (1996)
Comedy | Drama | Romance
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6.5/10 X  

The lives of two strangers and their young children unexpectedly intersect on one hectic, stressful day in New York City.

Director: Michael Hoffman
Stars: Michelle Pfeiffer, George Clooney, Mae Whitman
Edit

Cast

Cast overview, first billed only:
Michelle Pfeiffer ... Claire Spencer
Katharine Towne ... Caitlin Spencer
Miranda Otto ... Mary Feur
James Remar ... Warren Feur
Harrison Ford ... Norman Spencer
Victoria Bidewell ... Beatrice
Diana Scarwid ... Jody
Dennison Samaroo ... PhD Student #1
Jennifer Tung ... PhD Student #2
Eliott Goretsky Eliott Goretsky ... Teddy
Rachel Singer ... PhD Student #3
Daniel Zelman ... PhD Student #4
Ray Baker ... Dr. Stan Powell
Wendy Crewson ... Elena
Amber Valletta ... Madison Elizabeth Frank
Edit

Storyline

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. Written by Eugene Kim <genekim@concentric.net>

Plot Summary | Plot Synopsis

Taglines:

He was the perfect husband until his one mistake followed them home. See more »


Motion Picture Rating (MPAA)

Rated PG-13 for terror/violence, sensuality and brief language | See all certifications »

Parents Guide:

View content advisory »
Edit

Details

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Release Date:

21 July 2000 (USA) See more »

Also Known As:

Revelaciones See more »

Filming Locations:

Burlington, Vermont, USA See more »

Edit

Box Office

Budget:

$100,000,000 (estimated)

Opening Weekend USA:

$29,702,959, 23 July 2000, Wide Release

Gross USA:

$155,464,351

Cumulative Worldwide Gross:

$291,420,351
See more on IMDbPro »

Company Credits

Show more on IMDbPro »

Technical Specs

Runtime:

Sound Mix:

DTS | Dolby Digital | SDDS

Color:

Color (Technicolor)

Aspect Ratio:

2.39 : 1
See full technical specs »
Edit

Did You Know?

Trivia

The date of birth on Madison Frank's missing persons' report is the birthday of Amber Valletta. See more »

Goofs

When Claire's friend visits her early in the movie, she brings her a pouch of "Kombucha mushroom tea". Kombucha has been used in Europe for centuries, and gained popularity in the U.S. in the 1980s. It's black tea semi-fermented by the kibosh fungus, which floats on the top of the tea, growing thicker as it eats the tannins in the tea and the sugar that you add, producing the distinct "zingy" taste of kibosh after 2 to 4 weeks. In the movie, it's portrayed as a simple dry tea, not a disc-shaped commensal colony of bacteria and yeast. that must be kept alive. See more »

Quotes

[first lines]
Claire Spencer: Good morning, Beauty. Let's go or we'll never leave on time.
Caitlin Spencer: I'm totally ready.
Claire Spencer: Come on. I'll make you some waffles.
See more »

Crazy Credits

When the movie title first appears on screen, the word 'Lies' appears just before the rest of the title. See more »


Soundtracks

Gymnopedie No.1
Written by Erik Satie
Performed by Rowena Hammill
See more »

Frequently Asked Questions

See more »

User Reviews

 
Ebert and Roeper are sorely misguided with their dislike for this film...
7 August 2004 | by Sandcat2004See all my reviews

It is interesting to revisit the archived reviews available at EbertandRoeper.tv and listen to their comments regarding this film and their perception of its ability to frighten, its technical construction, and its characters' success in aiding the narrative. Each of the respective critics dislike What Lies Beneath in both its construction (camerawork and plot development) and its effectiveness in creating suspense. While this movie is enjoyable regardless of whether it was viewed on opening weekend or whether it is the third or fourth viewing on television, it is more understandable that Ebert and Roeper had some issues with the film during its theatrical release (whether they have altered their views upon its DVD release, I do not know). The true beauty of this film is the manner in which it holds up over time and how it DOES splice all of the great filmmaking techniques together into a nice homage to classic suspense films.

The plot, including the incremental revelations of paranormal activities within the newly gone-off-to-college childless home of Pfeiffer and Ford, is not really what drives this movie. Ebert and Roeper complained in their critiques that there are too many red herrings that serve no purpose but to mislead the audience; thus, when they are exposed as mere ruses, much of their existence within the film is superfluous. But that is the fun of the movie. That is the fun of many classic suspense films, even numerous Hitchcock films. There are situations that are added because they lend a hand in the build-up fear, not the characters' fears, but the viewers' fears. In Psycho, the image of the cop's face outside Leigh's car window, masked by sunglasses, expressionless, and looming over the camera is scary to viewers. Yes it fits into the script because she is frightened as a result of her thievery. But ultimately, it is the viewers' own fear of cops' intimidation tactics that makes the scene effective. In What Lies Beneath, hearing cries of distress through a fence that offers no real visibility of the cause of such pangs is very similar. Who cares if it is mainly a device to build uneasiness?

To be fair, Ebert and Roeper really seemed more irritated that too much of the plot and its elements of mystery were revealed in the marketing of the film . The true cause of the haunting that Pfeiffer's characters is terrorized by was apparently revealed rather blatantly in the trailers and television spots used to promote the film. Therefore, Ebert and Roeper seemed more angry that they were not even given the chance to enjoy the unfolding of the plot and the subsequent suspense. However, it is only know that their argument seems to be more fallacious in its use of logic. I understand that each person has a reaction to a film based on the uniqueness of their own likes, dislikes, and inclinations to genre, but there is an established set of framing techniques, camera movements, and lighting designs that reliably cause an emotional reaction by the viewers. It is very hard to find Ebert and Roeper's critiques impervious to default when this film does not tend to lose much of its emotional effects upon repeat viewings.

To elaborate, the unknown ghost, its motivation, and its history and relevance to Claire (Pfieffer) are plot points for the basic construction of a three act narrative; and, a three act narrative is a contrivance proved to be effective for the assimilation of information by means of tapping into the inherent way humans use logic to invent concepts from raw data (if a, then b, and if b, then c: therefore if a, then c). Subsequently, the artist now has a template on which to attach the expressions of humanity that create the emotional impact of the film (or play, etc.). In a sense, the structure of What Lies Beneath is very simple and only attempts to create a large enough template to succeed in allowing the viewer to follow the basic arc of the narrative. The strength of the film exists in the the technical construction and how precisely orchestrated it is to get the most emotional impact from the various moments in the film. Watching the film for the third or fourth time, the plot isn't new or exciting, the characters aren't complex, yet the film is still suspenseful. It is not the unfolding of the story creating all the suspense; rather, it is Zemeckis's camera use, his choices for sound and light design, and his ability to precisely coordinate a myriad of elements that enables the film to work as a whole. This is not a film that would survive on its script. This is not a film that would survive by its stars alone. This film succeeds because of the choices in direction.

Finally, to counter Ebert and Roeper's unsound critiques of this film, attention should be paid to their mention of films that they found parallel to What Lies Beneath, whether thematic or visually reminiscent in some way. Roeper states that the movie has too many cliches and that the ending is reminiscent of Carrie, Cape Fear, and even Gone with the Wind. On the other side of the aisle, Ebert compares the film to Ghostbusters because of moments he found comedic that were not intended to be so (although I don't find any scene unintentionally comedic). The odd aspect of their critiques is the absence of any mention of the numerous shots Zemeckis directly lifted from several of Welles' films and a litany of shot selections that pay homage to Hitchcock. While this movie isn't groundbreaking, it is a great exercise in technique that results in a fun, effective film.


93 of 125 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you? | Report this
Review this title | See all 679 user reviews »

Contribute to This Page



Recently Viewed