Schatten der Wahrheit

This is the most suspenseful thriller I have seen in the past year. As a refreshing change to more formulaic chillers, WLB takes its time to build the suspense. It is allowed to do this by virtue of Harrison Ford, and, especially, Michelle Pfeiffer, who, I feel, deserved an Oscar nomination for her convincing portrayal of a happy, but suddenly lonely, wife. It is just about as Hitchcockian as you can get, and I rate the bath sequence as gripping (pardon the pun) as taking a shower at the Bates Motel. The plot is thin and the action is played out sedately. Yet it seems perfectly timed in setting the mood of the whole piece. I particularly liked the music,and the supporting actress Diana Scarwid, whose lighthearted attitude during the seance scene made it all the more chilling. A perfect example of good film-making with only a slight plot. I am sure this movie will mature with age until it is rightfully regarded as a modern classic. Count the number of times you jump!

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.

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.

I spent hours last week on the net, reading reviews, and boy, were they rough on this flick. Most reviewers went out of their way to say it was boring, stupid, unoriginal, a waste of time, how Harrison Ford looked so old he should retire (more on that later), and one critic even went so far as to compare it to "Battlefield Earth" for Godssake! Needless to say, I had such low expectations that I went to see it by myself (not wanting to subject friends or family members after hearing how awful it was). I even considered skipping the first half because I heard Harrison Ford wasn't on screen much for the first hour. While WLB was not the scariest or most exciting movie of all time, I left the theater glad I saw it. Unfortunately for me, a careless reviewer gave away 99% of the 'twists' in the story line, and the trailers already gave 75% of it away anyway, so there was only one real surprise.

The surprise turned out to be that I actually had fun. I think everyone already knows the set-up and plot by now, so I won't bother with a sypnosis. I will say that every seat was full (another surprise) and there were more screams from the audience than I've heard during a movie in years. We're talking over a dozen times where half the audience yelped/jumped in shock and a handful of moments where everyone screamed. Loudly. We are talking adults here too, not nervous little kids. In all fairness, many of the jumps are the 'fake' kind that you are all too familiar with if you've seen enough horror/suspense films, i.e. "OH GOD! You almost scared me half to death sneaking up on me like that". The movie also frequently employs the device where a character is in frame, the camera pans along with them out of frame for a second, then we pan back and someone/something has suddenly appeared in the frame behind them-cheap shot, but it works. Many reviewers complained that the score was overdone, with a loud blast of music in the scare scenes to ensure everyone jumped. Honestly, I couldn't tell whether or not this was the case, because the audience's yelling covered it up! There is one *very* big unexpected jump-trust me, you'll know it when you see it-that will probably end up on a lot of 'scariest moments' lists, I am ashamed to say I SCREAMED at the top of my lungs like a little girl, and so did everyone else in the theater, including grown men. (note: if you do decide to see this movie, see it with a group of friends or at least a significant other, because you will have much more fun (I found that it's pretty embarrassing sitting there all by yourself and suddenly yelling and spilling your candy).

On the negative side, there are many cliched horror movie moments, and the dialogue wasn't exactly brilliant. There were also parts where they over-did the foreshadowing to the point of insulting my intelligence. Example: "Call on the cell phone, we're running late" "Oh, the cell phone doesn't work" "That's right, the cell phone won't work in the middle part of this bridge." "Yes, I forgot about the fact that the cell ph--" OKAY! WE'VE GOT IT NOW! THANK YOU! So, the script could have used a polish, but not enough to ruin the movie. Another complaint I've heard is that the movie "rips off" Hitchcock's films (a collapsing character pulls a shower curtain down off the hooks with her, a character is named Norman, etc) but I do know the difference between a ripoff and a loving tribute, and Zemeckis knows what he's doing, I highly doubt he was trying to trick the audience into thinking these were his original ideas. For the record, Harrison Ford still looks great with his shirt off, better than some actors in their 30's. He has recently reached the point where he can not pass for a man in his early 40's, but compared with other actors in their late 50's, he still looks mighty fine, especially without that unflattering "angry brush" spiky hair style he's had in his last couple of films. Let's just say there were plenty of women there with biiig smiles on their faces during the love scenes. When he gives that sexy crooked boyish grin, about 20 years instantly drop from his face.

OK, enough rhapsodizing about Harrison Ford, back to the movie. Diana Scarwind as Claire's best friend is funny and lightens up the tone. Michelle Pfieffer is wonderful, making some of the corny dialogue sound genuine. Many less talented actresses would simply go into "woman in peril" mode, but her acting is very impressive, and even the critics who really hated the movie gave her credit for that. Oh, and speaking of aging well, there were plenty of males in the audience looking pretty happy during the love scenes too. So guys, if your date or wife votes to see this "chick flick", don't make her drag you- you'll have a much better time than you think. Sure, this movie is no all-time horror classic, but it is a fairly intelligent, entertaining, thrill ride of a movie that deserves a much better chance than the critics are giving it.