Beneath

I expected a bit much, since I made the mistake to read the "Diamond among pearls" comment. Back to reality: the acting is mediocre towards bad, the story is boring and the scary stuff is just a girl having weird visions. The fact that overall it makes sense is a plus, especially for the "psychically sensitive girl that no one believes" subtype of the horror genre.

Bottom line: this is more of a psychic thriller and not a horror movie. The last part, while it conveniently ties all the loose ends, is way too convenient, more of a moral compromise that breaks the slightly better feel of the story coming to a quasi-logical finale. I can easily imagine all the actors playing in a third rate soap opera, so don't expect a lot better acting that that.

Christy (Nora Zehetner) is haunted by her sister Vanessa's death. On her 14th birthday, Vanessa allowed her to drive the convertible. They had an accident and Vanessa got trapped and burnt. During her funeral, Christy was convinced that Vanessa was alive trapped in the closed coffin. In the present day, Christy returns home to attend a funeral. Vanessa's husband John Locke, her niece Amy, and John's strict French mother are still living at home. Christy is having hallucinations and suspects John of malfeasance as Vanessa's doctor but no one believes her. Amy suspects a ghostly presence in the home.

This seems to be a couple of production companies trying their hands at horror. It struggles to be anything new or compelling. It should have been a simple haunted house movie. Christy could stay with the Lockes and forced to stay to save Amy. That's what I assumed it was going for when she has her hallucinations in the house. Then she gets friends, has cops, and flashbacks to the hospital. It's trying to be a shocking story and it does have a great twist. The big Vanessa twist is completely predictable and tiresome as the reveal gets stretched out. The Amy twist is the much better one. This is a weak attempt.

Anyone who is nitpicking at this movie over ridiculous things such as "do school websites list past students' phone numbers" and "this character would've/should've/could've not let the younger sister drive" should be ignored.

Films are made for viewers willing to allow the film to take them where it will. If the film is imperfect, the real film lover will still attempt to see it for what it wanted to be; for what it's actual *point* was. That is, of course, assuming there is one.

On the other hand, there will always be the wannabe Sherlock Holmes of film fandom, who will pick at the silliest details as if a movie somehow needs to be a fully provable mathematical truth.

Silly.

On to the film.

I must say, it is a typical thriller with horror elements taking place in a typical old house with typically hidden "creatures" and such, where the main character attempts to uncover a mystery until in the end -- surprise. If you want to understand what this film's atmosphere is like, think of "A Tale of Two Sisters" and "The Others" (with Kidman).

Is the movie super-successful at what it does? I wouldn't say so. I will say, though, that it was certainly not a failure either. In fact, "willing viewers," as described above -- in other words, those viewers who have managed to retain their childlike sense of wonder and innocence when they sit down to watch a film -- should be left completely unaware until the final revelation.

And let me tell you, mate, if you have any kind of compassion for the characters you see on screen and think the value of cinema lies partly in you allowing yourself to become emotionally involved with them (as opposed to analyzing their every action like some goofs will inevitably always do), you will be horrified at the ending. Bleedin' horrified. Not that it's particularly "scary" in the typical horror film sense, but because of the human suffering and injustice involved.

Ignore the yapping cynics and enjoy this perfectly acceptable entry into the spooky-family-in-an-old-house-with-a-dark-secret roster. However, allow me to still add that that if you are looking for a movie along this theme and want one that is *really* well done, watch "A Tale of Two Sisters" instead.

When I saw this was an MTV films production I almost put it back on the shelf immediately - but reading the back of the case made me want to give it a chance. I'm glad I did - in addition to starring a cute actress from the TV show "Heroes" there was an interesting storyline with twists and turns that I didn't see coming. Having come off of a run of small studio/independent/low budget horror movie viewings I appreciated the visual and sound quality. The downside is that it tends to drag a bit (rather odd sounding for a running time less than 90 minutes, I know) and although billed as a horror movie I'd say it was more of a suspense/mystery - not much in the way of scares here but if you're receptive to what I've described I'd say Beneath is a worthwhile viewing.

when I saw the 'MTV Films' logo pop up at the beginning of the movie. This production company are well known for making teen-focused trash like the JACKASS movies, but BENEATH seems to be their sole foray (so far) into horror movie territory. Let's hope they don't make any more attempts in the future!

This is an utterly predictable, completely routine and altogether dull movie. It looks and feels familiar from the outset: a maladjusted but pretty young heroine, who often suffers nightmares and hallucinations, returning to her small town and discovering some dark secrets amongst the townsfolk. Such films have propped up the Hollywood film industry since the 1970s and BENEATH proves to be a familiar and depressingly poor addiction to that genre. Despite the prevalence of plot twists in the narrative, everything that happens is easily guessed and the wannabe-shock ending is worth nothing more than a yawn and raised eyebrow.

In some places the story seems to have been inspired by JANE EYRE but classy this isn't. Instead it's a film filled with clichés, from the good-looking deputy sheriff type character to the wide-eyed heroine stumbling around in the dark. Nora Zehetner (BRICK) makes a game effort as the heroine but she can't do much with the all-too-familiar material. The worst part of the film is the flashy direction, which is so clichéd as to be unbelievable: all sudden jump cuts during the so-called 'scare sequences', flashes of people writhing in beds and the like. The most unpalatable part of the film is the twist ending, which left me with a bad taste in the mouth. It just tops off an altogether uninteresting movie.