I admit I'm not a Robert Zemeckis fan - I've found most of his films to be based on interesting ideas, but taken to the cheesiest and most awkward places. This had little bearing on my overall opinion of this movie though, because I didn't even know he was responsible for it until the first credit hit the screen at the very end. But it made sense.

What Lies Beneath is a traditional thriller - a little too traditional. It supposedly 'pays homage' to the classic horror filmmakers, mainly Alfred Hitchcock, by constantly using their well-known plot devices and cinematography. This didn't bother me, because it was actually when Zemekis used tried and true methods of getting your blood going that it actually worked.

My main annoyance was that I thought the film dragged ever so slowly and painfully on. I guess it doesn't help that all of the films advertising, from the cinema and television trailors to the tag-line on the actual movie posters, give away the mystery that the entire movie works to build up and intends to surprise you with. So if your like most, and at the very least saw the movie poster on your way into the theater (or the box when you went out to rent it), you knew where it was all going, and the red herrings spred throughout the first half are even more unbearable (even though they are so obviously misleading and it is the oldest device in suspense!).

Aside from that, the film wasn't a total washout, but it was disappointing. There are some genuinely suspenseful moments, and Michelle Pfiefer plays the role of Claire Spencer well. But it never satisfies, and the suspense is lined with an overally adequate amount of cheese.

The movie is about Pfiefer's Claire Spencer character, who has just recently sent her daughter off to college and now she and her husband Norman (Harrison Ford), a succesful scientist, are adjusting to life alone in their lakeside Vermont home. Unfortunatelty, their marriage isn't going so smoothly - when Norman is at work during the day, she's alone in their house being haunted. He doesn't believe her, and the idea is that she might be feeling the psychological after-effects of a serious car accident she suffered from about a year earlier. But she knows the things she is seeing, hearing and feeling aren't manifested in her head (though she occassionally has doubts), and begins to realize this presence around her is pointing her towards something.

I'm going to stop there because unlike the film studio's marketing department, I don't feel like spoiling the ending in case you want to see the movie. But as you can see from my synopsis, it's a classic setup. And a lot of it is done effectively. Except Zemekis is far too wound up on trying to surprise the viewer, and seems to have put the main focus on misldeading us! Not only about the plot in general, but the actual 'hauntings' themselves - there are many false starts (twice it turns out to be the family dog who startles Claire when we begin to think it's a supernatutal happening on the rise) and a hell of a lot of meandering. Zemeckis wants to make a standard, classic thriller, but wants to appeal to the cynical modern filmgoer who has seen it all. This just doesn't work, it merely makes the film feel longer than it is and needlessly puts off the inevitable. Despite admirable performances, Pfiefer and Ford are going through the same motions over and over again, and it does get tiring.

That said, there were some nice thrilling scenes. You have a traditional home by an eerie lake (complete with your classic long dock that leads out into the fog), and some convincing actors. It's nothing new, but it's very effective.

The ending, though, stinks. A lot of the film requires you to suspend disbelief, but the ending is just too much. I'm not going to go too into detail, but let's just say theres way more 'right place at the right time' and 'idiotic villian chatter' than most people will be able to stomach. And when the ending is this lousy, it makes you feel cheated. So cheated that you might go on the internet and write a review and to warn others not to waste their time on it.

~ 0000 ~

Now that my proper review is over, heres a little gripe that I didn't feel fit in but I think is worth mentioning:

Computer-generated CGI effects are a pretty good thing, and they can succesfully fill in margins that a filmmaker had no way of doing before. But I feel we are not at a place where they are 100% convincing & still look a tad superficial, so when they are used where they aren't really necessary or in places where the old effects worked quite well, it detracts from the overall viewing experience. This film indulges in CGI a little too much, in extremely unnessecary parts. For instance, theres one scene where somebody is laid out on a floor, and the producers saw it necessary to remove the floor from the shot using computer effects in one of the most awkward shots in any movie I've ever seen. Other incidents are minor, like a really cartoonish-looking snowfall. Old-fashioned suspense movies benefit from normalicy, that helps it feel more real and therefore more frightening. Stuff like this only reminds the audience that it is a film - that's trying way too hard.


Recommended:
No

Viewing Format: VHS
Video Occasion: None of the Above
Suitability For Children: Not suitable for Children of any age