What Lies Beneath (2000) User Reviews

Scary, spooky, in a way that reminds me of days gone by.

[bob.lindell · 7/10 · 2 August 2000]

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.

Solidly creepy chiller

[thehumanduvet · 7/10 · 18 June 2001]

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.

Claire And Present Danger

[ferbs54 · 8/10 · 22 October 2012]

Robert Zemeckis, by dint of such phenomenally popular films as "Romancing the Stone," "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?," the "Back to the Future" trilogy, "Death Becomes Her," "Forrest Gump" and "Contact," was already a highly successful Hollywood director when, along with producers Steve Starkey and Jack Rapke, he formed the ImageMovers production company in 1998. As the company's first project, Zemeckis chose screenwriter Clark Gregg's "What Lies Beneath," a modern-day ghost story that, the director told his crew, he wished to bring to the screen as Alfred Hitchcock might have done, IF the Master of Suspense had had access to modern FX technology and computer graphics. (Never mind that none of Hitchcock's 54 films dealt with ghosts or the supernatural per se.) Filmed largely in the Lake Champlain region of Vermont, near Addison, during a hiatus from shooting "Cast Away," the resultant picture, released in July 2000, was still another significant feather in Zemeckis' already crowded hat, and, like those other films named, features impressive yet subtly integrated FX to complement a highly intriguing story. As both a horror film and an exercise in suspense, "What Lies Beneath" must be deemed a complete success.

In the picture, we meet an attractive, middle-aged couple, Norman and Claire Spencer, and indeed, as portrayed by Hollywood icons Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer, the Spencers might be one of the handsomest couples in the history of the horror film! Living as they do in a beautiful home overlooking a Vermont lake, the professional couple (Norman is a renowned geneticist; Claire, a retired cellist), although their only daughter has just left for college, would seem to have an enviable marriage. But before very long, weird occurrences begin in the newly "empty nest." Strange noises and whisperings, a broken picture frame, spectral reflections in the surface of the lake and (in perhaps the film's single scariest scene) bathtub water, all serve to convince Claire that the ghost of a young woman is haunting her abode...possibly the ghost of her new next-door neighbor, who Claire believes has been killed by her husband. But, as it turns out, the truth is considerably more complex, and the unraveling of this truth will go very far in unraveling the Spencers' marriage, too....

So, DOES "What Lies Beneath" strike the viewer as a Hitchcockian exercise, abetted by 21st century computer wizardry? I would have to say yes. There are any number of scenes that are undeniably scary or suspenseful, the most agonizing of which is the wonderful scene in which Claire lies paralyzed in a bathtub that is slowly being filled with water. Some of Alan Silvestri's score is reminiscent of Bernard Herrmann's classic music for "Psycho," while Claire's use of binoculars to spy on her neighbors at night cannot help but call to mind Jimmy Stewart in "Rear Window." Pfeiffer and Ford work well together and do have some screen chemistry; they make a credible couple, although Norman, as it turns out, might be one of the least sympathetic characters that Ford has ever essayed. For this viewer, however, the bulk of this picture's success must lie squarely with Pfeiffer, who appears in virtually every single scene and is simply terrific in all of them. Watching her in this film, in which she easily displays far more dramatic heft than her costar, and also reveals what an effective "scream queen" she can be, the viewer will most likely regret how few other horror vehicles Ms. Pfeiffer has appeared in. And really, besides 1994's "Wolf," I can think of no others, unless we stretch the point a bit and include 1987's "The Witches of Eastwick" and this past summer's horror comedy "Dark Shadows." One of the finest combinations of sensational looks and undeniable acting chops to this day (and Michelle is 54 as I write these words), she is quite simply one of the best we've got, and makes Claire Spencer and "What Lies Beneath" a character and a film to savor. The venerable "Leonard Maltin Movie Guide," apparently, does not concur in this assessment, concluding its lukewarm comments with the statement that the story "doesn't make sense." But the film DID make perfect sense to me...as long, that is, as one is willing to believe in spooks. And by the end of Zemeckis' highly effective film, most viewers, I have a feeling, will be uttering that famous line of the Cowardly Lion: "I DO believe in spooks, I DO believe in spooks, I do, I do, I do, I do, I DO believe in spooks...."

Enjoyed every minute

[elle-10 · 22 July 2000]

Not having been to the real movies for some time. Many of them were catered towards the younger group, this one had Harrison Ford (58) and Michele Pfeiffer (43) still young in our books, but much older than the Heather Locklear Group. Our movie theatre is quite new, and the screen is enormous, with the sound almost blasting your eardrums, so we were in the right setting for this mystery thriller. I read the good comments of the previous members, and have to agree with them. Part of the story is given away. Don't know why they do that. I prefer not knowing too much, but they want to rope us into the seats, I guess. So without giving too much away, it was exciting to watch Pfeiffer work her way through this mystery.

Harrison Ford is certainly in fantastic shape for a 58 year old, and with a nice tan, was very easy on the eye; mine anyway! While my husband enjoyed looking at Michelle Pfeiffer. We did jump in our seats quite a few times. Watching Michelle dive into the water would make you run and take diving lessons, if that was truly her!

Their acting made the story believable, and when the story's believable I always enjoy it. Harrison Ford can be a bit on the wooden side at times. My husband's impersonation of him is to turn his mouth up to one side keeping his mouth straight. Pretty good! As you look at the wonderful house they live in, in this movie, it makes you wish you had one just like it, without the ghost, of course! For those who like suspense, I don't think you'll be disappointed.

What lies beneath? A smarter movie struggling to get out...

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 6 December 2006]

Robert Zemeckis' homage to Hitchcock (funny how we always say 'homage' and not 'plagiarism') concerns a married couple, their spooky new house, a suspicious neighbor...and enough red herrings to weigh down any commercially-viable product. Still, I was hooked for about a third of the way (once the wife supernaturally took on the persona of a missing woman and seduced her husband with a little licking and biting, I began losing faith). By the finale, so many gimmicks are being thrown at the screen, it just becomes an upscale B-flick. All the inconsistencies aside, one has to applaud Michelle Pfeiffer for her gratifying performance; even though the entire subplot about Pfeiffer's neighbor leads nowhere, she is very appealing walking up to the man in public and calling him a "murdering son-of-a-b*tch". Harrison Ford is fairly solid as well, until the last act which leaves both he and Michelle completely rudderless. That's when the filmmakers go overboard and sink this suspense-thriller in a sea of slick desperation. **1/2 from ****

You're not yourself today are you?

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 1 October 2009]

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

Lie with me

[ninjaalexs · 7/10 · 28 December 2017]

A glossy tense thriller that introduces some horror elements that were popular at the time with films like The Others and The Ring. Harrison Ford puts in a decent performance and looks the part, but he isn't quite menacing enough, maybe because he's too likeable. Pfeiffer a class act as always, although I get echoes of Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct in this one. Well worth a watch.

Well worked ghost story.

[poolandrews · 7/10 · 31 December 2007]

What Lies Beneath is set in Vermont where Claire (Michelle Pfieffer) & Norman Spencer (Harrison Ford) live in a lakeside house, after their daughter Caitlin (Katharine Towne) goes to college & Norman becomes obsessed with his job Claire is left home alone. Claire becomes convinced that the woman next door has been murdered & that her spirit is haunting her house tyring to communicate with her, but the woman turns up safe & well. Claire continues to hear things & strange occurrence's happen which lead her to believe the house is haunted, but by who & what do they want...

Produced & directed by Robert Zemeckis this supernatural ghost story has a touch of psychological thriller about it too & is a well crafted old fashioned spooky tale of dark secrets from the past coming back to hunt the present. The script by Clark Gregg is apparently a remake of the Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode Mr. Blanchard's Secret (1956) & is a coolly effective supernatural thriller, it takes itself extremely seriously but as a whole it works & succeeds at what it sets out to do. At over two hours in length it is a long film but while watching it it didn't feel that long which is always a good sign, the story is absorbing & gripping as it starts off a lot like Rear Window (1954) but it turns out to be a huge red herring & it ends like some sort of horror themed Fatal Attraction (1987). This is the kind of film where every bit of seemingly useless exposition comes together at the end & is used, from the moment we know that the phones don't work on the bridge you just know it's going to be used somewhere & the explanation by the two scientists about the paralysing drug which stands out at the time as being extraneous is also put to good use before the film finishes. If you have the patience to stick with it, not be put off by a slightly sedate pace then What Lies Beneath is a really good supernatural thriller.

Director Zemeckis made What Lies Beneath while production on another one of his films Cast Away (2000) starring Tom Hanks was shut down so Hanks could lose weight, that in itself seems a bit odd really as I would have thought you needed to give a film all your attention rather than just making one to pass the time. Anyway it didn't do the film any harm in the long run as it's very good, the film is very stylish too with a muted colour scheme that gives everything a dark, eerie overcast look & feel about it. There are plenty of jump out of your seat moments, Zemeckis uses every trick & cliché in the horror film book with people & dogs leaping into the frame unexpectedly, loud music playing when you least expect it although it also has some nice modern CGI computer effects too. The main difference here compared to lots of other horror films is that Zemeckis knows how to make the clichés work & turns in a highly effective film. The one stand out sequence is when Pfieffer is paralysed in the bath as it slowly fills with water, it's one of the most tension filled & suspenseful scenes I can remember seeing in a modern horror flick.

With a supposed budget of about $90,000,000 one has to say that sounds like a hell of a lot of money for a film where not that much actually happens, it takes place almost entirely within one house with minimal effects & a small cast. Making near $30,000,000 on it's opening weekend alone I think I'm right in saying this was a big success & does prove modern audiences can sit & watch a two plus hour film which is mostly exposition based if it's done properly. The acting is very strong from the cast.

What Lies Beneath is a a old school slow moving but involving supernatural horror thriller ghost story that I enjoyed a lot, I can see a lot of people being bored by it but as far as I'm concerned it's their loss.

Ebert and Roeper are sorely misguided with their dislike for this film...

[Sandcat2004 · 9/10 · 7 August 2004]

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.

these damn phones...

[Mickey Knox · 7/10 · 28 November 2000]

(SPOILERS)

"It's him, i know it's him! It has to be him! Wait... what if he dialed some other number?" Claire thinks... She goes for the phone, presses Redial and..... "Dammit, dammit, dammit! These modern day phones again! If this movie would've been made in the 60s this scene would've been useless", Norman thinks... ehhh well let's start all over again.

What Lies Beneath is a very well done tensed thriller. And if you watch it at night, in complete darkness and very attentively, getting involved in the action, it's impossible not to become really scared at some points. I certainly did.

Claire and Norman form a happily married couple. Their daughter just left to college and now it's just them in a huge modern house. Well almost just them... The problems start when Claire starts hearing and seing things, and gets convinced that the house is haunted.

Robert Zemeckis does a very good job creating a well balanced tensed thriller. The plot is well contured and grows logically, the characters are powerful, the scenes are very tensed and sometimes spooky, the actors play great. Especially Michelle Pfeiffer - am i out of line if i think that after this performance Michelle would definetely deserve an Oscar? Well she does.

Well with so many good points, what's wrong with the movie? Why does it have an average of only 6,9? Why did i give it only a 7? Because of its lack of originality. During the whole film you have the feeling of seing a new Hitchcock movie. Well it's not Alfred Hitchcock, it's Robert Zemeckis, or more like... Al-bert Zemetchcock. The same tensed situations, of a rich guy living in a huge house, the same scenes with creaking doors and reflections in the mirror, the same many bathroom scenes, but this time the accent is not on the shower, but on the bath tub. This is related to Psycho. But it's not only this. The same haunted house story that we've seen many times. The same "revenging ghost", the same situations with woman seing things and his husband doesn't believe her, the same (many) situations in which you are extremely scared and it turns out to be the dog, the same "resurrection" of the bad guy, who wakes up a few times before totally dying.

In conclusion, a movie that's worth to be watched. Alone, in the dark. Just like Psycho. Otherwise you won't get scared. And without getting scared, it's no point in watching it.

ORIGINALITY: 4, PLOT: 6, CHARACTERS: 8, ACTORS: 10 (Michelle is fabulous), DIRECTOR: 8, OVERALL: 8. TOTAL: 7 out of 10.

This bugged me immensely

[KUAlum26 · 5/10 · 15 June 2008]

The cast is solid,the atmosphere seems right,the imagery equal parts erotic and chilling and yet...

There is about forty minutes out of this over two hour fest where there is a completely unnecessary red herring subplot(something that was explained away easily in the ads!)where the error-prone,gradually suspicious-but-loving wife(Michelle Pfeiffer)of a popular college professor(Harrison Ford in a role MANY will not be familiar or comfortable) is wrapped up in the death of a woman that lives next door to their palatial,rural estate. Besides the fact that it has little or no bearing on the true plot of the movie,but the amount of time devoted TO that MacGuffin is so tedious that it feels as if the director,producers and the advertising execs pushing this film weren't on the same page.

I seem to have been the only one(at least if you went by the comments I've skimmed so far on this site)to noticed.

Director Robert Zemekis wants(stress WANTS)to make a Hitchcock-like thriller:he half succeeds in that he creates good mood and tension,but he fails miserably in making a slow,long,tedious and aggravating film where the plot takes WAY too much time to establish and the action to get rolling.

More of a curiosity than a real chapter to any of the principles' careers. Not a total waste,but hardly the best work done by any involved.

Well-crafted, suspenseful movie with fine acting

[doug_burton · 8/10 · 3 August 2000]

This movie was a well-crafted thriller in the Hitchcock style; I really wish I had not seen any of the trailers prior to viewing this movie, because some of the suspense that would normally have built up during the first hour was spoiled by knowledge gained from the trailer. To be fair, the trailer doesn't spoil everything (thank goodness), but it spoils enough to make the first hour seem a little slow in the build-up.

Michelle Pfeiffer is terrific in her role of the housewife and mother now facing an empty nest, as her daughter heads off to college. Robert Zemeckis does a fine job of building suspense and keeping the audience just a little off-balance (in spite of the spoilers in the trailers); in combination with Pfeiffer's acting, one is never quite sure whether Claire Spencer is deranged, possessed, or calculating. While Harrison Ford does his usual fine job of acting, as the obsessive, genius husband living in the shadow of his super-genius father, it is Pfeiffer who, of the two, has the most screen time and who therefore carries the film.

My only other complaint (besides the spoilers in the trailers) has to do with a minor bit of casting. While I think Wendy Crewson is a fine actress, I have to question casting her as the wife of one of Dr. Spencer's colleagues, given that she so recently appeared as Harrison Ford's wife in Air Force One... seeing Ford and Crewson together on screen again was a distraction that brought me out of the film, at a point when I should have been getting more absorbed into the film. But it is a minor point.

Overall, the movie kept me in suspense virtually throughout it's entirety, and the final 30 minutes were gripping. At several points toward the end, I thought for sure I knew what was going to happen, only to be surprised by a sudden twist or unexpected turn. And, the film does have its humorous moments as well; Diane Scarwid helps to lighten things up as Claire's somewhat ditzy friend Jody, and Zemeckis has some fun with some of the backdrops in the quaint New England towns (a Vermont town named Adamant? And the name of the curio shop is "The Sleeping Dog", as in "Let sleeping dogs lie.")

Rating: 8 out of 10

a post-'Scream' 'straight' chiller (possible spoiler in last paragraph)

[the red duchess · 6/10 · 25 October 2000]

**SPOILERS** **SPOILERS** Is it possible, in the wake of 'Scream' and its inertia-veering ilk, to offer today's audience a 'straight' horror movie, especially if that horror movie is a ghost story, that most vulnerable of its sub-genres to falling on its face. You're inclined to think Robert Zemeckis believes so, because, despite a few humorous moments firmly rooted in character, he offers an admirably solemn chiller aimed at tensing you to maddening point, preying on those fears you'd rather repress, those things that lie beneath.

For about 100 minutes. The first thing to be wary about in this movie - and this is the sort of movie where you need to be manically vigilant or you needn't bother - is the title. It's too easy, almost mocking. After all, the whole point of a horror movie is to reveal what lies beneath. You may as well call a crime film 'Cops and Robbers' or a period effort 'Frills and Flounces'.

By a canny Zemickian paradox, however, the opposite may be actually true. For this is a movie that wears its Hitchcockian subtext defiantly on its surface. It plays with at least three different 'classic' horror-thriller staples. At first you might think you're watching 'Rear Window', as Claire believes the mysteriously uncivil man next door has done away with his wife. As in Hitchcock's film, there is the ambiguous night scene, where the husband appears to be bundling off a corpse. There is the voyeurism, culminating in a brilliant, hilarious, shocking shot, where Claire's prying eye is met by the eye she was spying on through the fence. You figure Hitchcock would approve. She spies on the husband with binoculars and he catches her doing it. Her lover, in this case her husband, doesn't believe her. L.B. Jeffries was a cameraman, photographs play a big part in this movie. While her husband is out making all the money, she is alone and vulnerable. Like the two couples in 'Rear Window', Claire finds uncomfortable affinities with the victim.

But just when you're patting yourself on the back and asking how gender transforms the classic Hitchcockian set-up, the whole thing is revealed as a damp squib, and you have to begin again (although you do get an excellent joke when she meets the suspect and his victim at a party).

The other two options are similarly 'traditional'. There is the psychological deterioration model. Zemeckis pushes this for all it is worth, making Claire a mother who has just lost her only child to college, who's recovering from an horrific car crash only a year ago, whose husband neglects her for his work, and most importanly, who has given up her music career to raise her daughter and support a family. There's enough in there to frazzle the hardiest kook. Add an isolated house with a dodgy front door, and is it any wonder she's having visions?

This model brings horror close to its roots in melodrama, where the horrors become a displacement of the frustration and repressions of a woman limited in her life choices - the home serves as a metaphor for both her entrapment and her deteriorating mind. The first image, over the credits, is seen as an hallucination of Claire's, and we are properly on our guard throughout. This breakdown is catered for by the whole gamut of classic Freudian paraphernalia - repeated scenes (the bath), submergence in water, keys, rings, bracelets, hair, doors, glass, mirrors, Oedipal problems etc, all leading us to suspect a sexually based trauma. This is linked to the third model, the family secret, where a past horror is locked away, and is slowly eating away at the family and its individuals. Relief will not come until it is expelled.

As I say, for about 100 minutes Zemickis plays on all three models with surface seriousness and covert playfulness (which is what really lies beneath). This is fine by me, the repertoire of haunted house cliches is generally amusing, especially when done with such intelligence, visual (all that white with its sparse splashes of red; the ghostly message on the mirror, 'You Know', cracking over Claire's fogged reflecton), formal (loved those scenes with the psychiatrist) beauty, and rich characterisation of the female lead. This method achieves some excellent jerks, and an atmosphere almost as chilling in its potential as 'Final Destination'.

But a state of tense suspension cannot be held indefinitely (in Hollywood anyway), and plot must out. This shift can be accurately traced at the moment when Claire's point of view, which has, without interruption, dominated and filtered the film for 100 minutes. For the film to achieve resoluton, it has to move from female time, which is repetitive, fluid, elliptical, enigmatic, open into male time, which is straight-ahead, no-nonsense, progresive, explanatory, closed. This is a gross stereotype, but it's true here, and as Norman takes over, the film collapses into daft 'Fatal Attraction' territory. Or it appears to, until you wonder whether Zemeckis's joke is finally paying off, as he asks how we could possibly have taken this seriously, with the 'Psycho' quotes in the film and on the soundtrack virtually giving it away. The way Claire gets out of the death-bath and her final supernatural rescue are so ridiculous they have to be a joke. And so a subtle portrait of marriage and female loneliness becomes another post-modern joke. Oh well.

Was the ghost a new version of "The Riddler"?!

[jcdugger · 4/10 · 21 July 2008]

I'm getting really tired of movies that portray a Ghost as a modern-day "The Riddler" from the Batman TV series! Like The Riddler, the Ghost in "What Lies Beneath" has all the answers that you're looking for -- but you're only going to get pieces to the puzzle one incoherent piece at a time.

Let's all get on the same page here for a minute. We know, having watched the movie in full, that the ghost has these powers/abilities: 1) Can TYPE ON A COMPUTER KEYBOARD (or, at the very least, get words to appear on a computer screen)!! 2) Can write easy-to-read English on a fogged-up mirror, as if you were using your finger. 3) Can appear to numerous people (as the ghost appeared, in one way or another, to both the main stars in the movie). 4) Can open closed doors. 5) I'm not entirely sure about this one, but it seemed as if the ghost "took over" Claire's body and/or mind at one point (and mysteriously began acting sexually towards her murderer of all people, Mr. Ford).

Why would a ghost, with the abilities outlined above, give you vague clues in pieces and not simply tell you what the hell is going on?! As a Ghost, if you can get words to appear on a computer screen, WHY IN THE HELL wouldn't you just write "Your husband is a murderer, you can find my body at the end of your dock, my name is...". Why would you simply type your initials hundreds of times over and over?! Again, are we dealing with The Riddler here?! If that wouldn't work, how about just writing to Claire on the mirror after every shower each day?? If you were a Ghost, and all you COULD DO is leave messy clues to somebody you hope will help solve your murder, would you, upon getting screamed at from the top of your helper's lungs "What do you want?!?!" -- really write back a simple "You Know!"???? Obviously she didn't know yet, she was still gathering clues and thought she was going insane!! Wouldn't you have used that moment to write something just a bit more profound?! Like, maybe, "I need your help!". Wow.

And at one point the Ghost "took over" Claire's body and/or mind -- don't even get me started on how she could have easily killed her murderer -- so shouldn't she have tried killing Harrison Ford's character, her murderer, instead of just getting him horny?! I could go on and on, but at this point, I'm fatigued over this plot-hole-filled tripe. I just want to emphasize -- I hate when Ghosts are portrayed as The Riddler's character in the Batman series - as simple clue-givers.

:)

JD

A classic thriller

[thomsoj9 · 25 June 2001]

Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer star in this chilling film full of twists, suspense and deceit. Directed by award-winning Robert Zemeckis, What Lies Beneath tells the terrifying story of a husband's dreadful secret that should have remained in the past.

Set in a modern day country town, during autumn, sets the very eerie scene for where the apparently, happily married couple Claire Spencer (Pfeiffer) and Norman Spencer (Ford) encounter paranormal illusions and the truth about Norman's affair with a younger woman whom he murdered.

Zemeckis has done very well in making the movie a classic thriller, as well as keeping the audience in suspense. He has done this with the use of the very many clichés of a thriller. He heightens the tensions throughout the movie by gradually lowering the camera, creating a very claustrophobic atmosphere which works in harmony with the terrifying, jumpy music.

The acting in the movie is of the highest quality and Pfeiffer is admired for her superb performance, which creates a strong sense of vulnerability to the role and entices the audience. The casting of Michelle Pfeiffer and Harrison Ford as a married couple is very convincing and genuinely believable.

What Lies Beneath is a very frightening and scary movie with all the traits of a classic thriller. With the excellent casting of Pfeiffer and Ford, along with Zemeckis's excellent techniques of terrifying the audience, it is truly a great film.

A slow and easy fright fest. First rate terror!

[michaelRokeefe · 7/10 · 26 August 2000]

A professor's wife believes that her neighbor is a murderer; but her personal terror is trying to cope with a spirit haunting her new home. Harrison Ford is what we think is a mild mannered genius. His neurotic wife is played by the ever classy Michelle Pfeiffer. We see a very different side of Ford and Miss Pfeiffer at one point has only her eyes to relay her torment.

What I really liked best about the movie is the sound effects. It reminds me of days gone by when the sounds of the wind, a rainy night, footsteps and a squeaking door speak volumes.

This movie is not necessarily too long, it just moves slowly getting to the energy packed finale. Your palms will sweat and you will inch to the edge of your seat. The terror filled twisting climax is well worth the ride.

An almost first class thriller, but not quite there

[coastin_on_a_dream · 7/10 · 10 July 2006]

"What Lies Beneath" has an excellent premise, and starts off as a rather spooky ghost story that will guarantee the viewer bone chilling scares within the first hour. But the story, the scares, everything seems to fall apart midway through.

A-list celebrity Michelle Pfeiffer (one of my favorite actresses, I might add) plays Claire Spencer, a house wife married to Norman Spencer (the legendary Harrison Ford). Their daughter has just gone away to college, and with Norman gone at work all day long, Claire is pretty much left all alone at her home until night. Claire is a little depressed, but keeps herself busy gardening. One day, however, she encounters a wildly sobbing neighbor. She's hysterical, and Claire, being her nosy, middle-aged self, attempts to comfort her and asks what's wrong. She ignores her, of course, crying hysterically in her own little world. Claire, worried, tells her husband Norman later that night, but he tells her to mind her own business. Claire ignores him, and she and her friends spy on their neighbors house throughout the day. When they see the husband carrying an implied life bag with her body in in, putting it the back seat of his car, she is convinces that her husband murdered his wife.

But the story doesn't end there. Her lights sometimes randomly go out. The door swings open every now and then. And then a frightening message appears on the mirror. Claire is convinced that her house is haunted by the spirit of her murdered neighbor. What will she do? How will she put the spirit to rest? The first hour of the movie is extremely scary, suspenseful, and has a genuinely creep atmosphere. But then there comes a twist about midway through. A bad twist, and the whole hour of the movie goes to waste, and doesn't seem to relate at all to the movie's original plot. The first hour just seemed like a scapegoat. I'm not going to give it away, but it was a disappointing turn in the movie.

The movie runs 130 minutes long, where it could have been cut down to a mere 100 minutes. The twist is where it started going downhill. There are still a few more scares throughout and a few more "Oh get out of there! Wait! Don't do that! Get your butt out of there!!" moments, but the first hour easily swallows the second hour and eats it for supper. After the twist, the movie seems to drag on. Suddenly, we don't seem to care about the story, what happens next, and it becomes somewhat boring.

The first half of the movie is thrilling, while the second half has it's moments, but the movie as a whole fails to live up to expectations thanks to the ending.

However, the movie has gotten some great reviews so maybe it's ll down to taste. The acting is top notch (what else would you expect from Michelle Pfeiffer and Harrison Ford?) and it's overall a good, ghost story to watch on a Saturday night. Definitely recommended.

A Spooky Blend of Suspense and Supernatural

[john-collie-1 · 7/10 · 11 July 2023]

Robert Zemeckis's "What Lies Beneath," released in 2000, is a compelling blend of supernatural horror and suspenseful thriller. Anchored by stellar performances from Michelle Pfeiffer and Harrison Ford, the film delivers an atmospheric, spine-chilling experience despite a few plot contrivances.

"What Lies Beneath" centers on Claire Spencer (Michelle Pfeiffer), who starts experiencing strange occurrences in her Vermont home after her daughter leaves for college. Her husband, Norman (Harrison Ford), dismisses her fears as empty nest syndrome. But as the ghostly encounters escalate, Claire is pulled into a terrifying mystery that reveals shocking secrets about her life and marriage.

Michelle Pfeiffer's performance is the beating heart of the movie. As Claire, she expertly conveys a wide spectrum of emotions - from initial unease to sheer terror, and finally, desperate resolve. Pfeiffer's nuanced portrayal of a woman grappling with inexplicable supernatural events while also questioning her sanity keeps the viewers rooted in the narrative. Harrison Ford, diverging from his typical heroic roles, delivers a surprisingly subdued yet effective performance as the aloof and somewhat dismissive husband.

The film's strengths lie in its masterful build-up of suspense. Zemeckis, known for his work on films like "Back to the Future" and "Forrest Gump," shows a flair for creating an atmosphere of mounting dread. The use of slow, tension-filled sequences, chilling music score, and artful cinematography makes the most of the spooky New England setting, resulting in numerous effective jump scares.

However, "What Lies Beneath" does have its weaknesses. The plot relies heavily on some genre tropes and contrivances, with a few twists that may feel predictable for avid thriller or horror viewers. The pacing is uneven at times, with the film taking a while to get going, and some plot points feel somewhat rushed or underdeveloped.

The supernatural elements and the focus on character-driven tension give "What Lies Beneath" a Hitchcockian feel. However, the narrative doesn't always maintain this subtlety, occasionally veering into more conventional horror territory, especially towards the end.

In conclusion, "What Lies Beneath" is an engaging supernatural thriller that benefits from strong performances and a creepy, suspense-filled atmosphere. Despite some plot and pacing issues, it offers a gripping and occasionally terrifying viewing experience that will appeal to fans of the genre.

More of psychological thriller gets spoils by the slow speed of film

[sauravjoshi85 · 6/10 · 1 June 2022]

What Lies Beneath is a 2000 supernatural horror thriller film directed by Robert Zemeckis and starring Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer.

A women start witnessing disturbing supernatural activities after moving to the old house of her husband, soon she discovers a shocking past about her husband.

Calling this film a horror film will not be correct as this film is more of a psychological thriller with a hint of horror and apart from few jump scares there is nothing in the film that can define this film as horror film.

We have seen such plots in the past and execution of the film also gets predictable. The film doesn't excites much and the super slow speed of the film might irritate few viewers. The film also lacks the depth and intensity.

Acting is superb and probably the only highlight of the film. Climax of the film is also predictable and doesn't excites much.

Overall the film could've been a decent film but the super slow speed and predictable execution spoils the show and the film turns out to be another average film.

Surprisingly good and creepy horror/mystery.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 9/10 · 8 November 2000]

When I went to the cinema to watch this movie,I expected it to be another big-budget Hollywood garbage.After the seance I was pleasantly surprised.I saw "Scream 3" some days ago and that movie wasn't nowhere near as scary as "What Lies Beneath".Great performances by Michelle Pfeiffer(she looks really gorgeous in this one)and Harrison Ford.The climax is absolutely terrifying(especially the bathtub sequence).Plenty of suspense and shocks,wonderful atmosphere of dread and fear.Finally after never-ending strain of lame slasher flicks a truly suspenseful movie.Check it out if you dare.Highly recommended.

Goes like this

[shiva14 · 7/10 · 4 December 2011]

• Turns on the TV, this movie is playing: "Michelle and Harrison in a horror flick? wow, good stuff"

• Some minutes pass: "Wow, nice seeing Harrison not doing his "side smile" and man, Michelle never ages" - Some time later "Well, this movie isn't scary at all, I mean... Come on, is this supposed to be scary"

• Even more time later: "HOLY F@CKIN S!HT!!! WHAT THE F@CK JUST HAPPENED!! OH MY F@CK!NG GOD, I NEED NEW PANTS"

In short, this is what to expect from What Lies Beneath. Its a very slow moving film, 99% of it is not scary... But when it hits you, it hits you. This movie has the biggest shocker I've ever seen in my life, and for me, this is the merit of it.

It's slow enough to catch you with your pants down and give you the scare of a lifetime.

The Big Cheesy

[char treuse · 1/10 · 18 May 2006]

This is an example of a cheesy, low-budget idea gone Big-Budget, High-Concept Hollywood. The sole screenplay to date by actor Clark Gregg is an uneasy mix of supernatural thriller, suspense film and psycho-killer-horror with a clumsy exposition. The secondary characters are throw-aways, as the story suffocatingly focuses on a professor and his wife. Harrison Ford plays his role with all the passion of a cigar-store Indian, while Michelle ("Don't hate me because I'm beautiful") Pfeiffer does her boilerplate pained-and-tormented turn, complete with pinched cheeks and crocodile tears. Robert Zemeckis' direction is banal at best. The over-the-top CGI work is largely superfluous and overblown, particularly during the climactic scenes. Some reviewers described this as "Hitchcock-like" but Hitchcock would never have touched such a sub-par script nor depended so heavily on f/x. In fact, "What Lies Beneath" is rather short on suspense. There are, admittedly, a couple of scares but, shamelessly over 2 hours long, this "thriller" is largely inflated and anemic, and more closely resembles bottom-of-the-barrel DePalma.

Possibly One Of The Top 10 Scariest Movies I Have Ever Seen...

[flickjunkie-3 · 8/10 · 15 December 2000]

*Warning: Some Major Spoilers*

What Lies Beneath had a brief trailer and I hadn't heard much about it, so, when I went to see it, I was a bit unsure about what I was about to see. Fortunately, I largely enjoyed myself in this mysterious horror film.

The film opens with Norman and Claire Spencer (played to perfection by Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfieffer) sending Claire's daughter away to college. Claire fears being alone in the house, but soon grows to the idea because she feels she will have her life back again. One day, while sitting on her terrace, she hears a woman crying next door, and upon investigation of the events of her new neighbors, she begins to wonder if the husband has killed his wife. Meanwhile, in her own house, strange occurrences, such as breaking pictures, opening doors and whispering voices lead her to believe that a ghost, possibly her "dead" neighbor, is trying to contact her. Claire soon discovers that all she thinks has happened is not at all true, with her neighbour very much alive and happy again. But the apparitions still permeate throughout the house, filling bathtubs and turning off lights. As Claire begins to dig into "who" is trying to contact her, she discovers that her husband had an affair with a young woman. Claire confronts Norman about the woman, and he tells her that the girl committed suicide when he tried breaking off the relationship. But that is not the end of Claire's journey, for she will soon discover that even the perfect husband has flaws.

The acting is near perfection, Michelle Pfeiffer deserves an Academy Award for her brilliant and masterful performance, but Harrison Ford surprisingly takes a back seat for most of the film, until the last 30 minutes, where his character really breaks out into something evil, Claire discovers why Norman has been trying to keep his secret for so long. The direction is very satisfying, Zemeckis builds up so much tension, What Lies Beneath is one of the only films I have ever screamed in. Two really scary parts are the binocular scene and the horrifying bath-tub sequence.

A film not to be missed, What Lies Beneath is possibly one of the scariest movies of our time. And a cracker mystery...

I rate What Lies Beneath 8 out of 10.

One of the scariest movies ever!

[movie_maniac_mike · 7/10 · 19 October 2000]

WHAT LIES BENEATH

***** See this now! **** Great! *** Quite Good! ** Not Horrible, Nor Good. * Big Mistake!

I had heard What Lies Beneath was horrible from local reviewers, but I actually really enjoyed this film. It had a well thought-out screenplay and impressive directing effort from Robert Zemeckis. The only then I could complain about was the finale, which seemed rushed and quite silly.

Norman Spencer (Harrison Ford) is growing more and more concerned about his lovely wife, Claire (Michelle Pfeiffier). Norman and Claire have just sent their daughter, Catalin (Katharine Towne) away to university, and Claire has no sooner started hearing voices and seeing a dead woman's face in the bath. When Claire starts investigating further, she discovers bizarre and simply horrifying secrets about the locked up secrets of the past, and it grows into life-threatening danger.

While Ford seems horribly miscast, Pfeiffier, as usual, pulls off a brilliant performance. She was Oscar-worthy as Claire. What Lies Beneath is one of the scariest movies I have seen to date, and I was so horrified I was almost too afraid to watch anymore of it! In my book, that is quite some achievement.

****

Unmotivated and un'spirit'ed

[Joshy-3 · 1/10 · 7 December 2000]

*Waring contains spoiler* well, to say this for the filmmaker, it started out promising, a quirky beginning to the plot entails with an exit of a family member to college and the entrance of a spooky entity who throughout the whole movie and even after, you question why was there in the first place. This is the first horror movie where the horror wasn't the integral plot point. Strange you ask? uh-huh. I'm confused too. Lets say leave out the spooky ghost stuff (At the beginning) re work some scenes and you have a perfectly serviceable Tom Clancy (Patriot Games)style mystery complete with the REAL villain in the original film. Or say this, take out human villain, leave spooky stuff, minus half hearted mystery, dump the superfluous neighbor plot add some more spooky and special effects and there you have yourself a true thriller.

Personally when I go to see a supernatural thriller I want to see supernatural stuff and have it all make sense, in this film we never know why the girl is haunting them (well we kinda do) but you go back to the old Hollywood cliche "where's your motivation?" it was just kinda there and wasn't only to come in until the plot dulled, it gives me the shivers now, not cause its scary, but because its so whacked and stupid. Imagine this: Say you're watching the Generals Daughter, and every once in a while the girl reappears to scare the hell out of John Travolta or whomever the director feels needs to see the presence. Or even if Mel Gibsons slain wife in Braveheart came back to exact revenge on the king. You'd say "that was unnecessary" as it is here.

Also some major plot points are thrown in so quick and obscurely that I heard people in the theater whisper "what did that mean?" sure you may be in a time frame but lets rewrite some scenes so they flow. Its sloppy to confuse the audience right away.

Maybe next time Mr. Zemeckis, you've wowed us with House on Haunted Hill, Contact, Roger Rabbit, Back to the Future and Gump, (heck I was fully expecting to see a Frighteners style experience) don't let Cast Away fall by the way side with talking monkeys or helicopters made from bamboo and coconuts, if it doesn't fit leave it out, movies will make so much more sense without ten thousand contrasting plot elements in a movie. But hey you've done so much good, we forgive you for what lies beneath.

I'm sorry if any of this did not make sense, see the movie and read this again, you'll understand that there's so much to be said for the movie that it cannot be expressed in words, just an utter sense of confusion