What Lies Beneath
What Lies Beneath
PG-13 | 21 July 2000 (USA)
What Lies Beneath Trailers

When Claire Spencer starts hearing ghostly voices and seeing spooky images, she wonders if an otherworldly spirit is trying to contact her. All the while, her husband tries to reassure her by telling her it's all in her head. But as Claire investigates, she discovers that the man she loves might know more than he's letting on.

Reviews
Protraph

Lack of good storyline.

... View More
Huievest

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

... View More
Taraparain

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

... View More
Fatma Suarez

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

... View More
petersonwilliam-45667

Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfieffer are a couple in a beautiful house haunted by a ghost. Bob Zemeckis is a great director but this is one of his lesser efforts. There is nothing really wrong with the film except looking at the marquee names one would have expected more. It has ghosts, jump scares and spooky music- even great locations but it is better suited as a film made by a first time director not the guy who made Back to the future or Contact. Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfieffer add allure to the star cast but you can clearly see by their motions they are pondering on when the cheque will clear.

... View More
FountainPen

Nothing truly special here. Pretty solid acting, though Harrison Ford's continual MUMBLING in hushed monotones became awfully tiring and annoying. I found I had to keep the subtitles on in order to catch everything he said. He was certainly playing the role very "low key". Clearly, this is a competent and expenisive (at US$20 million) Hollywood pic. The scenery is superb, sets wonderful, fine cinematography with remarkable attention to detail. Maybe too much screming ! This film should be at least 20 minutes shorter, imho. Many segments seemed to be purposely drawn-out, to the point pf irritation. "What Lies Beneath" qualifies easily as a good horror flick, with two top movie stars and an excellent supporting cast. The problem/s? The reason/s I couldn't give more than 6 stars? Primarily, the picture is too damn long, but also I felt there was a real lost opportunity to add more ingredients, a special "spark", in order to distinguish this effort from so many similar movies ~ to make it rise well above Exactly what these improvements might be, I cannot say, and obviously the producers, writers and director were unable to come up with ideas. Well worth seeing, especially if yo'ure a fan of the leads and of relatively "subtle", slow-moving horror pictures. 6/10.

... View More
Leofwine_draca

As the "haunted house" chiller seems to currently be in vogue, it comes as no surprise that all the big studios should jump on the bandwagon - after all, they're hoping for another SIXTH SENSE. This tale in particular is an old-fashioned ghost story free of the ludicrously poor CGI special effects which have ruined fare like THE HAUNTING remake. While it certainly passes the time and is well worth watching, be warned that this is no SIXTH SENSE. What it is, is a derivative thriller only worth watching due to the direction and actors involved.Firstly, the bad points. As is the case with a lot of films today, this film desperately needs some originality. The story of a woman being haunted in a house alone is a very old one indeed and WHAT LIES BENEATH is content to rehash a lot of the clichés we associate with haunted house fare - the ancient creaking door scene for one. Another flaw is the film's bloated running time - at two hours and ten minutes, this one will give you cramp and for no reason, either. Some subplots and scenes - such as the psychiatrist interludes - could happily be hacked from the script with little effect. A lot of the scenes in the film are needlessly prolonged, and some careful pruning could have added some excitement. Strangely enough, in the finale, the opposite occurs and about fifty mini scenes are packed into ten minutes - this is where all the excitement has been stored, and the sudden adrenaline rush seems a bit hurried and desperate in itself.Another problem is the so-called "horror" content. For me, this film works better as a thriller for many reasons. Every time there's a pause, or a potentially scary moment in this film, you just know things are building up to a jump scene, where somebody or something appears suddenly in the film and there's a loud burst of music on the soundtrack. The classic example of this would be somebody turning around and bumping into somebody else suddenly. This happens in WHAT LIES BENEATH a lot. A heck of a lot. While this kind of basic shock tactic works, it's just horror at its most simplistic and therefore rather disappointing. You won't find any of the creepiness of THE SIXTH SENSE around here.The acting from seasoned veterans Pfeiffer and Ford is excellent, as to be expected. With Pfeiffer you would expect nothing less, and it's refreshing to watch a respected actress appear in a film like this now that it's fashionable as opposed to the wealth of TV actresses appearing in such fare in a television format throughout the nineties. As for Ford, he plays a deliberately boring character for much of the film but really comes into his own towards the end; he's cast against type and great with it. As for the other actors, the underrated Joe Morton is wasted as a pointless psychiatrist while Diana Scarwid is an exceptionally irritating friend of Pfeiffer's. James Remar thankfully pops up to put in a nice imposing performance.Packed with red-herrings, lots of clichés, and enough references to Hitchcock to make you sick, this is a flawed but interesting film and a darn sight spookier than many previous offerings in the '90s. CGI is thankfully shoved aside in favour of more old fashioned scares, with the ugly computer animation only popping up a couple of times. One exceptional scene - this film's highlight - does for the bathtub what PSYCHO did for the shower, with a prone and paralysed Pfeiffer lying in a bathtub slowly filling with water. A horrific concept expertly done, immediately followed by the film's best scare. Other things to watch out for include plot holes (Pfeiffer retrieves a buried casket from underwater single-handedly), one moment of painful violence, and the crazy "chase" ending which really gets the adrenaline pumping. The ending of the film is predictable but effective. WHAT LIES BENEATH may not be a masterpiece in this particular genre, but it's well worth a watch.

... View More
Dom Nickson

Spoiler Alert!!! OK I think this nice little ghost film is actually better than the shining, sadly. The reason I think this is because this film has likable characters for the most part as the shining really didn't have enough build up. This film has some truly creepy moments like the ghost in the bathtub reflection, the face in the water, and the foot prints that are in the driveway as the shining really only has the twins, and the girl in the bathtub scene. This makes me wonder what if Jack Nicholson starred in this film with Michelle Phiffer rather than in the wolf with Michelle Phiffer? We'd have a film that's ten times better than the shining wouldn't we? I like how the whole film is pretty twisted when it comes to an end. There's one thing I never understood was how did the ghost come back to drown Harrison Ford at the end if it was obvious she has been dead for a long time down there? Overall I give it an 8 out of 10.

... View More