Revelaciones

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...."

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.

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.

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.

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.