I think that whether it will go down as a classic of the Haunted House/Spooky Story genre will remain for others to decide; I AM very excited about it, though. This is a thoroughly old-fashioned story told with great care in its composition, framing, pacing, and atmosphere. Frankly, I don't think it has a chance of making its budget back here in the US - it is too languidly paced for a lot of repeat viewings, and that will cost it at the box office - but I certainly wish this film well.

It has been a while since I saw a film spook film so assured of its story. Zemeckis (sp?) takes his time introducing the characters and conflict, and the camera lingers often on seemingly inconsequential bits. The frame is always full of information, even if just a passive reflection of our surroundings; the cumulative effect is of immersing us in the dimensions of the world our characters inhabit. We begin to have a sense for where walls and sinks and windows and lamps are, and in such an intimate tale, those details end up mattering. Thankfully, there is an absolute minimum of over-cranked, hand-held, bleached-print artsiness to get in the way of the story. Also, this movie has some of the most wisely-chosen and subtle CGI effects that I have seen - particularly for a genre movie. I think that experience on FORREST GUMP and CONTACT has served Mr. Zemekis (sp?) well in this regard: rather than dominate the proceedings, the CGI touches only serve the story, and are (honestly!) pretty seamless. Nice work. Ford is really pretty good, as is Mrs. Kelly. Aside from an (IMO) unfortunate veering into well-covered thriller territory for the final 20 minutes, I found little to fault. I REALLY respect this movie's desire to serve as a sort of modern THE HAUNTING or THE UNINVITED, where all possible terrors need not be revealed (unlike the CGI-created goobers of last year's THE HAUNTING). Neat.

As to the score: I was reminded of some of Donaggio's work with De Palma. What music there is - this movie employs very long and effective stretches of almost absolute silence - is very damned good, IMO. A bit bombastic, but GOOD bombast....which I like in a lot of my scores, anyway. I'll be picking this one up for sure.

I strongly recommend that you folks check this one out. Like I said, it won't make any huge sums here (maybe in Europe?). It really DOES need to be viewed on the big screen, though, for its careful attention to shot composition, lighting, and sound design to be best appreciated.

Thanks a lot for the positive review. I learned about this film back about a year ago- and was quite pumped to hear that Ford, Pfeiffer, and Zemeckis were going to be working together. Then, this summer, I've seen that damned trailer that gives everything away over a dozen times. My hopes for the film dropped a bit- although seeing Ms. Pfeiffer rain-soaked wasn't so bad...
And then, to top it off, I've been reading a few negative reviews for it now. Thankfully, your review came along and now I'm excited for the film and the score again!

I think Silvestri does his best work when he scores a film for Zemeckis- and even Zemeckis at his worst (Death Becomes Her) is still fun to watch...

Iv'e always been a Zemeckis fan. He is one of the most underrated directors of ALL TIME. Even Death Becomes Her is charming in its own Tales from the Crypt way. And CONTACT was seemingly forgotten at the Oscars.
Now team Zemeckis with one of (if not the most) overrated actors, Harrison Ford and you'd think there'd be something good there. Now I really can't stand Harrison Ford anymore. His versatility has always been questionable and its come to the point where I can't beleive him in ANY role anymore. I think his last good film was the Fugitive. MAYBE Clear and Present Danger. Now when I see him I only see the ridiculous actor that accepted the role of the President in Air Force One......gimmie a break.
As for What Lies Beneath, I saw a preview for this the other night and well....I REALLY DONT HAVE TO SEE THE FILM NOW SINCE IT WAS ABOUT AN HOUR LONG! I think the preview even had an intermission. I went to get a soda and the preview was still on!! All this coupled with the fact that Zemeckis was really hoping that the internet wouldnt "leak" out too much information about the plot.
Ah Hollywood, how pathetic you've become. But then of course, mainstream Hollywood movies aren't made for the functioning contributing citizens anymore. Mainstream Hollywood's "meat and potatoes" are really the mindless hordes of people who dont mind being 5 or ten minutes late to a film. The kind of people that think "art" is a person.
This is what Harrison Ford has come to mean to me. The kind of pandering "gimmie the check" kind of actor.

Who knows, maybe I'll rent this film one day and like it. Hopefully by then I'll have forgotten plot-points 1,2 and 3 from the trailer.

Thanks for the review! I will definately be more willing to see the film now!

I guess it's good to meet someone with radically different views, though... Maybe I should change my user name to "Sirotnad."

Nice to meet you, though
Tim

I HATED the trailer for this one, thinking that (as has definitely become the norm) it ruined the movie. I won't defend the stupid trailer, as it does give a better idea of the set-up than we needed.

However.....

It really does NOT give away the entire thing. Believe me, there are a number of important twists and oblique "takes" on things to alter the final movie from what you're sure it must be. I understand that you're probably going to take this with a grain of salt - "fanboy goes ape", or something - but it really isn't everything that the trailer makes it appear to be. I, too, went in thinking that I already knew the outcome & motivations. Aside from one of those needlessly long "this is important information for later"-type of shots, I really DIDN'T end up knowing the deal. It's NOT the trailer, guys. Honest.

Which plugs into something else....

Whether you end up seeing it or not.....whether you like Ford's performance or not (I did).....whether it ever MATTERS or not.....this is a resolutely UN-Harrison Ford role. He manages his character with a subtle touch here. There is absolutely no spoiler in me telling you that he is neither the focus of the piece nor The Big Savior. If you avoid the flick because of him (and I can't blame you; Indy has made some "paycheck" movies of late) you'll miss out on a good film that marks something of a departure from type for him. Again, Honest!

In fact, now that I think about, there's not a single composer I can think of that I don't like. Just scores.

<Begin Tangent>

Dantoris: I'll accept that you don't like TWINE, but I won't accept your views on that score being a "low point" in his career. I think, regardless of how you liked the music, David put out a tremendously high-quality score w/ some great thematic ideas. You may disagree w/ how those thematic ideas were executed, and that's fine, but anyway you look at it, TWINE did not mark a low point his David's career. Saying that is just plain and utter silliness. It was a Bond score, and if anything, regardless of how much anyone likes it, a Bond score is the highlight of a composer's career.

I look forward to his next Bond score immensely, though I know deep down inside you'd prefer Cmiral to score it. [shutters at the thought]

<End Tangent>

Love ya!
Jeron

However, the good thing about this is that he is attached to the Bond franchise. The Bond films rarely change very much in style, and Arnold doesn't seem to be doing it much either. His scores for Tomorrow Never Dies and TWINE have the similar "been there, done that" Bond sound, but that is exactly what is needed in the franchise to satisfy the audience. He should keep doing these films.

well, you sold me. I'll be goin' to the movies.

BTW, they haven't hired you by chance to plug this movie, have they?....Nahhhhh

Scott

I have gone on before about really good scary movies. I get excited when someone at least TRIES. I really don't like my horror too saturated with laughter - dilutes the result into something else altogether, usually - and respect the film makers who do NOT condescend in their approach to the material. Most of the time, anything less than a serious approach to the material is a clear signal of contempt for it....and I do NOT respect the writers and directors who want to have it both ways (e.g., make money off of a "vampire" story, but laugh at it & about it throughout). Give me the flawed honesty in attempt of something like THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT over SCREAM II any day......

Leads to one of my biggest joys: John Carpenter. Boy, he can make some stinkers; but he has never conned his audience, nor tried to use Horror as a stepping stone to making "real" films (nor, apparently, sided with the Conventional Wisdom that places Horror films just slightly above Porn on the commercial food chain).

Here endeth the rant......

You guys will likely respect the the attempt on WHAT LIES BENEATH, even if the movie doesn't end up working for you (and I think that it will).

Wasn't Starman a Carpenter attempt at a non-horror picture? Like Mel Brooks, I feel as if Carpenter's best days of storytelling are in the past...a limited pallete of ideas has caused a rehashing of plots and characters that just end up falling flat overall.

Zemeckis, however, proves time and time again that he is NOT willing to be pigeonholed into ANY one genre...and yet treats them all with a great affinity. Contact, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Death Becomes Her, Forrest Gump, Back to the Future and now What Lies Beneath (and the forthcoming Castaway) are ALL completely different pics (hell, even the BttF series was essentially composed of a time-travel drama, a hard core-sci-fi and a western).

Which all goes to say that Zameckis may very well be the most versatile story-teller in Hollywood right now. AND, he is a story-teller that I will allow to take me anywhere he feels he wants to go...that is how talented I feel he is!

=)

Carpenter's made several non-horror pictures, as well you know; it's just that, as Mark suggests, he's never tried to make himself "better" than that genre, he can fit in the occasional STARMAN or BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA right along with PRINCE OF DARKNESS (which I haven't seen) and VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED (which, unfortunately, I HAVE seen.) He's found his niche, and seems comfortable in it; just as long as he doesn't get TOO comfortable, I prefer it when he's messing with us.

The viewer goes right into the mouth of madness with Sam Neill, and John Carpenter is the guide. It's one of the ultimate mind-trips if you are into the genre of psychological horror.

The score was pretty low-key in many places though. Aside from moments from the finale and the end credits, this would probably be a pretty uneventful listen on its own.

Go see the movie though!

Warning to those who only like the speed of sound, gone-in-1-second,
MI: 3,4,5, XYZ-Men type of action flicks. This movie isn’t for you.
It is a slow paced, psychological thriller. It doesn’t kick butt; it gradually
unfolds. I rather enjoyed its languid gait after so many action movies.

Yes, the plot contained some clichés we’ve seen in other scary movies,
but I delighted in watching the skilled machinations of its two seasoned,
deft, professional actors. Harrison Ford continues to surprise me with his
choice of roles that play against heroic typecasting. This movie,
however, really belongs to Michelle Pfeiffer, who delivers a textured,
multi-layered, bravura performance.

Silvestri delivers requisite scary sounds in the usual places, and his music
in the end titles is, as has been noted, a homage(?) to the
Herrmann/Hitchcock movies. Great sound. If I have a complaint, it is that this movie
was underscored. Silence is often important, and the director employs it wisely. However, in places the movie contained
too many extended stretches of almost fidgety silence. I would have
liked to have heard more underscoring in several scenes. A quiet haunting or ghostly theme and an
emotional underscore for Pfeiffer’s gradual, psychological shifts and
awareness may have proven effective.

It was time well spent for me.

NP Just the TV

Jeron, I know that a lot of women thought the movie FATAL
ATTRACTION would eliminate male adultery. I used to tease hubby,
offering to show it on a weekly basis. Sigh. He didn’t buy into watching
it that often. I wonder if a movie exits that would teach the same lesson to
wives? I’ve seen a few rather poor flicks on the Lifetime women’s channel,
but I can’t remember a class act major movie warning women. Hmmm.
Might be an interesting idea if done with the expertise of FATAL
ATTRACTION and WHAT LIES BENEATH. Hope you got to sleep
last night.

I suppose that there's not much more to say here. I don't think I have anything new to add...but here I am anyway.
I loved What Lies Beneath, and Mark, I would like to give you all of the credit for getting me out to see it...except that my beloved wife approached me in the midst of a tense work day and quietly said, "We need a break..."
The next thing I knew, my fanny was in a theatre seat, my hands holding popcorn, hotdogs & Cherry Coke!
I've been a huge fan of Robert Zemeckis since Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and in my eyes he hasn't done anything less than perfect ever since (kinda' the way Rocco feels about Spielberg!).
What Lies Beneath is an absolutely PERFECT Summer "Let's-Get-Away-From-It-All" movie...it draws you right into its setting and characters, it takes all the time required to create and sustain an appropriately eerie ambiance, and it frequently sneaks up behind you, causing you to jump out of your seat!

I didn't believe this was possible anymore!

What Lies Beneath is everything that I had hoped Ghost Story would be, but wasn't. In spite of the many old chestnut cliches (the creaking doors, etc.), Zemeckis builds to and delivers several real shocks!
Harrison Ford & Michelle Pfieffer are both excellent! It wouldn't surprise me to see Pfieffer receive an Oscar nod for her Dianne Weist-like subtlety and depth in this dynamic, multi-faceted performance!
The references to Hitchcock's Psycho abound. They are woven throughout the script ("Norman" has this thing about burying victims in the local river, beginning with his father), the physical production (watch the way Michelle Pfeiffer's fall from the bathtub is shot!), and naturally, in Alan Silvestri's wonderful musical score. I think that Hitch would've LOVED this one!
And, Mark...it seems as though your prediction (understood) that this movie will tank at the U.S. boxoffice may not come true. The next three weeks will tell the tale, but so far the film is happily doing quite well!

NW: Gloria Copeland on TV.

[This message has been edited by Chris Kinsinger (edited 26 July 2000).]

Again, here's me posting congratulating Rocco on making me double over in laughter (I haven't even SINGLED over in laughter in a few days!).

Shaun

Now comes WHAT LIES BENEATH, and I must admit that I was completely amazed by the control and precision of the picture -- well, not THAT amazed, all his movies have seemed designed and formally executed to within an inch of their lives -- but I felt that the "stretching" Zemeckis was trying to do (and, says me, failed to do) with GUMP and CONTACT finally reaches a kind of fruition. The word I kept coming back to throughout was "elegant" -- a word one could hardly apply to ANYTHING else Zemeckis has done before -- but which applies ideally here. He and his favorite editor Arthur Schmidt and recent favorite cameraman Don Burgess create a really remarkable atmosphere -- as Mark pointed out at the top of the thread, Zemeckis isn't afraid to spend a LOT of time on certain things that might not look important on the printed page, but which are VITALLY important once we've seen how they're shot and cut together. (Zemeckis is also fond of including any number of red herrings, but he never bludgeons us with them -- e.g. he's fond of panning his camera down to find a piece of physical information, cluing us in that this might be important later -- but it isn't always! Which in some ways just makes you feel crazier! I'm reminded of the superbly confident direction of last year's not great, but still underrated thriller ARLINGTON ROAD -- Mark Pellington, a less experienced helmer than Zemeckis, pulled off some great effects out of a script that was ultimately really very hollow and unlikely.)

The trailer for WHAT LIES BENEATH appeared to give away the whole thing, but it really didn't ... I was kept guessing throughout, which is difficult to do. Michelle Pfeiffer has one of the most interesting and expressive faces in movies today, and I was continuously amazed at what she was doing, especially in the long takes -- long takes are the real proof of an actor's ability, and she pulled off everything without a hitch. So, perhaps more interestingly, did Harrison Ford, in probably the finest piece of screen acting he's ever done, and definitely the only CHALLENGING work he's attempted since THE MOSQUITO COAST more than a dozen years ago. I have a newfound respect for the man and his abilities, and hope he doesn't throw them away with more garbage like AIR FORCE ONE. (INDY 4 would be interesting if they take into account his advancing age, as Sean Connery and Clint Eastwood have gracefully been willing to do. His performance in WHAT LIES BENEATH suggests that he just might tackle that after all.)

Ford's top-billed, but it's really Pfeiffer's movie, and I don't think I could say much about how elaborate her performance is without throwing in a whole pile of spoilers. Suffice it to say that I agree with Chris above: I wouldn't be surprised if this is Oscar material. Like Ford, this is the most challenging work she's had in years, since BATMAN RETURNS in her case.

Supporting players, including the underrated Diana Scarwid (nice to see her again!), have little to do, but all are believable. I was interested that James Remar, an excellent actor who's played villains since way back when, was almost unrecognizable, and directed to perform with such restraint. (This is half a spoiler: I love his grab-the-neck moment at the party.) (Now that I think of it, did we ever even see Remar in close-up? Or a very good look at his face? It was like Zemeckis was shooting AROUND him, which is a damned interesting technical decision in itself. No, that does not comprise a spoiler. I wouldn't dream of telling you what Remar's up to in the movie. You'd never guess anyway. Nothing in this picture is ever QUITE what it seems, even if you've seen that accursed trailer.)

As for the score: The Herrmannesque references are continuous (oddly, I kept hearing more of JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH than any of the Hitchcocks, particularly that low growling motif that's so obviously derived from the cue "Explosions" early into JOURNEY). Zemeckis actually milks more suspense out of SILENCE (did Mark write this or mention it to me? I'm not going back to look right now.) The music is more decorative than anything else; occasionally, it's a bit stinger-heavy for my taste, but it gets the job done. I wouldn't own this album, not because I think it's a poor score, but because as my tastes go, I'm sure it would be a poor listen.

All in all, I don't think WHAT LIES BENEATH is a masterpiece, but it's very entertaining -- not in a "lite" Bruckheimer-blowing-stuff-up sense -- and makes me look at many of its participants (mainly Zemeckis and Ford) in a somewhat different light. Chris mentioned Oscars above ... I can't help thinking that three of the film's best technical aspects -- Schmidt's editing, Burgess' camerawork, and the set designs by Rick Carter and some other guy I never heard of -- are going to go right over the heads of their respective nominating boards. This is as carefully thought out a movie as I expect to see this year.

You said this about Robert Zemeckis:

quote:

---

I always had the feeling that his preoccupation with technical challenges superseded all else.

---

I must first establish the fact that I adore Steven Spielberg's films as well as Robert Zemeckis's films.
They are both truly great artists and craftsmen in my estimation.
However, I place Zemeckis ahead of Spielberg in terms of the courage and conviction of his subject matter choices, as well as his willingness to subjugate his ego to the material he is filming.
In my view, Zemeckis's masterful handling of the Back To The Future trilogy displays far more courage and desire to remain faithful to the established characters and settings than Spielberg's "Indiana Jones" trilogy, which, while incredibly entertaining, continually (in the second and third chapters) bends and sways in the winds of theme park attraction-style entertainment in the neverending effort to seperate dollar bills from wallets.
Spielberg even goes so far (Is this laziness? I don't get it!) as to permit every possible fabric of the firmly established Indiana Jones profile to be totally prostituted in the lamentable Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom, a film which is wonderfully fun to watch, but has absolutely NO relation whatsoever to the facts as they are presented in the original Raiders Of The Lost Ark!
Zemeckis rose high above that need to please the masses, actually inviting boxoffice failure with his courageous treatment of Back To The Future, Part II. And in the midst of that astounding trilogy, Zemeckis presented his masterpiece, Who Framed Roger Rabbit!
Here is where I must call you on the carpet, brother Rocco! Please, OH, PLEASE find fault
with Roger Rabbit...Zemeckis, as you have said, places his "preoccupation with technical challenges (above all else)."
I'd like to know the name of one other movie director who might have been able to make Roger Rabbit the gleamingly perfect piece of cinema that it is.

Certainly Spielberg might have. But WOULD HE HAVE?????

I doubt it.

His unprecedented success has made him an ICON.

Being a living ICON isn't easy.
The industry pressure is probably a force that none of we lay people have any concept of!

Zemeckis isn't an icon, and probably never will be, so he, in his workman-like way, labors in the shadow of icons, and is freely willing to risk boxoffice mediocrity, or even total collapse, on films like What Lies Beneath!