What Lies Beneath (2000) User Reviews

Scary, spooky, in a way that reminds me of days gone by.

[bob.lindell · 7/10 · 2 August 2000]

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.

Solidly creepy chiller

[thehumanduvet · 7/10 · 18 June 2001]

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.

Claire And Present Danger

[ferbs54 · 8/10 · 22 October 2012]

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...."

Enjoyed every minute

[elle-10 · 22 July 2000]

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.

What lies beneath? A smarter movie struggling to get out...

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 6 December 2006]

Robert Zemeckis' homage to Hitchcock (funny how we always say 'homage' and not 'plagiarism') concerns a married couple, their spooky new house, a suspicious neighbor...and enough red herrings to weigh down any commercially-viable product. Still, I was hooked for about a third of the way (once the wife supernaturally took on the persona of a missing woman and seduced her husband with a little licking and biting, I began losing faith). By the finale, so many gimmicks are being thrown at the screen, it just becomes an upscale B-flick. All the inconsistencies aside, one has to applaud Michelle Pfeiffer for her gratifying performance; even though the entire subplot about Pfeiffer's neighbor leads nowhere, she is very appealing walking up to the man in public and calling him a "murdering son-of-a-b*tch". Harrison Ford is fairly solid as well, until the last act which leaves both he and Michelle completely rudderless. That's when the filmmakers go overboard and sink this suspense-thriller in a sea of slick desperation. **1/2 from ****

You're not yourself today are you?

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 1 October 2009]

Claire and Norman Spencer's marriage starts to fall apart when she believes there is a ghost in the house. Things gather apace when Claire is convinced that the spirit is trying to tell her something. Something that could be too close to home for comfort.

Robert Zemeckis does Hitchcock? Well yes, the influence is obvious, unashamedly so. But the trouble with that, is having the maestro as a benchmark renders all other modern day attempts as folly. However, casting aside that gargantuan issue, What Lies Beneath is an effective creeper come thriller that boasts star credentials.

Directed by Zemeckis, formed from an idea by Steven Spielberg (from the story by Sarah Kernochan) and starring Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer as the fragmenting Spencer's. That's a pretty tidy bunch from which to launch your movie. What follows is a mixture of genuine unease and mystery, red herrings and standard boo jump moments, all of which almost gets lost on a saggy middle section as Zemeckis plays Hitchcock one too many times and loses sight of the supernatural heart of the piece, not helped by Clark Gregg's meandering script I might add. None the less, the picture gets pulled around for the finale as the spooky combines with thriller to produce some quality edge of the seat stuff. But it's only then that you totally realise that the makers here have tried to cram too much in to one film. In eagerness to manipulate the audience for the fine ending (though you probably will have it worked out at the half way point) the film just ends up as being confused as to what it mostly wanted to be.

Pfeiffer is excellent and looks stunning and Ford gives it gusto when the script allows. Support comes from Diana Scarwid, Joe Morton, Miranda Otto and James Remar. The house is suitably eerie with its waterside setting and Alan Silvestri's score is perfectly in tune with the creepy elements of the piece. It's a fine enough film in its own right, regardless of the Hitchcockian homages. It's just that it should have been a far better horror picture than it turned out to be. 7/10

Lie with me

[ninjaalexs · 7/10 · 28 December 2017]

A glossy tense thriller that introduces some horror elements that were popular at the time with films like The Others and The Ring. Harrison Ford puts in a decent performance and looks the part, but he isn't quite menacing enough, maybe because he's too likeable. Pfeiffer a class act as always, although I get echoes of Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct in this one. Well worth a watch.

Ebert and Roeper are sorely misguided with their dislike for this film...

[Sandcat2004 · 9/10 · 7 August 2004]

It is interesting to revisit the archived reviews available at EbertandRoeper.tv and listen to their comments regarding this film and their perception of its ability to frighten, its technical construction, and its characters' success in aiding the narrative. Each of the respective critics dislike What Lies Beneath in both its construction (camerawork and plot development) and its effectiveness in creating suspense. While this movie is enjoyable regardless of whether it was viewed on opening weekend or whether it is the third or fourth viewing on television, it is more understandable that Ebert and Roeper had some issues with the film during its theatrical release (whether they have altered their views upon its DVD release, I do not know). The true beauty of this film is the manner in which it holds up over time and how it DOES splice all of the great filmmaking techniques together into a nice homage to classic suspense films.

The plot, including the incremental revelations of paranormal activities within the newly gone-off-to-college childless home of Pfeiffer and Ford, is not really what drives this movie. Ebert and Roeper complained in their critiques that there are too many red herrings that serve no purpose but to mislead the audience; thus, when they are exposed as mere ruses, much of their existence within the film is superfluous. But that is the fun of the movie. That is the fun of many classic suspense films, even numerous Hitchcock films. There are situations that are added because they lend a hand in the build-up fear, not the characters' fears, but the viewers' fears. In Psycho, the image of the cop's face outside Leigh's car window, masked by sunglasses, expressionless, and looming over the camera is scary to viewers. Yes it fits into the script because she is frightened as a result of her thievery. But ultimately, it is the viewers' own fear of cops' intimidation tactics that makes the scene effective. In What Lies Beneath, hearing cries of distress through a fence that offers no real visibility of the cause of such pangs is very similar. Who cares if it is mainly a device to build uneasiness?

To be fair, Ebert and Roeper really seemed more irritated that too much of the plot and its elements of mystery were revealed in the marketing of the film . The true cause of the haunting that Pfeiffer's characters is terrorized by was apparently revealed rather blatantly in the trailers and television spots used to promote the film. Therefore, Ebert and Roeper seemed more angry that they were not even given the chance to enjoy the unfolding of the plot and the subsequent suspense. However, it is only know that their argument seems to be more fallacious in its use of logic. I understand that each person has a reaction to a film based on the uniqueness of their own likes, dislikes, and inclinations to genre, but there is an established set of framing techniques, camera movements, and lighting designs that reliably cause an emotional reaction by the viewers. It is very hard to find Ebert and Roeper's critiques impervious to default when this film does not tend to lose much of its emotional effects upon repeat viewings.

To elaborate, the unknown ghost, its motivation, and its history and relevance to Claire (Pfieffer) are plot points for the basic construction of a three act narrative; and, a three act narrative is a contrivance proved to be effective for the assimilation of information by means of tapping into the inherent way humans use logic to invent concepts from raw data (if a, then b, and if b, then c: therefore if a, then c). Subsequently, the artist now has a template on which to attach the expressions of humanity that create the emotional impact of the film (or play, etc.). In a sense, the structure of What Lies Beneath is very simple and only attempts to create a large enough template to succeed in allowing the viewer to follow the basic arc of the narrative. The strength of the film exists in the the technical construction and how precisely orchestrated it is to get the most emotional impact from the various moments in the film. Watching the film for the third or fourth time, the plot isn't new or exciting, the characters aren't complex, yet the film is still suspenseful. It is not the unfolding of the story creating all the suspense; rather, it is Zemeckis's camera use, his choices for sound and light design, and his ability to precisely coordinate a myriad of elements that enables the film to work as a whole. This is not a film that would survive on its script. This is not a film that would survive by its stars alone. This film succeeds because of the choices in direction.

Finally, to counter Ebert and Roeper's unsound critiques of this film, attention should be paid to their mention of films that they found parallel to What Lies Beneath, whether thematic or visually reminiscent in some way. Roeper states that the movie has too many cliches and that the ending is reminiscent of Carrie, Cape Fear, and even Gone with the Wind. On the other side of the aisle, Ebert compares the film to Ghostbusters because of moments he found comedic that were not intended to be so (although I don't find any scene unintentionally comedic). The odd aspect of their critiques is the absence of any mention of the numerous shots Zemeckis directly lifted from several of Welles' films and a litany of shot selections that pay homage to Hitchcock. While this movie isn't groundbreaking, it is a great exercise in technique that results in a fun, effective film.

This bugged me immensely

[KUAlum26 · 5/10 · 15 June 2008]

The cast is solid,the atmosphere seems right,the imagery equal parts erotic and chilling and yet...

There is about forty minutes out of this over two hour fest where there is a completely unnecessary red herring subplot(something that was explained away easily in the ads!)where the error-prone,gradually suspicious-but-loving wife(Michelle Pfeiffer)of a popular college professor(Harrison Ford in a role MANY will not be familiar or comfortable) is wrapped up in the death of a woman that lives next door to their palatial,rural estate. Besides the fact that it has little or no bearing on the true plot of the movie,but the amount of time devoted TO that MacGuffin is so tedious that it feels as if the director,producers and the advertising execs pushing this film weren't on the same page.

I seem to have been the only one(at least if you went by the comments I've skimmed so far on this site)to noticed.

Director Robert Zemekis wants(stress WANTS)to make a Hitchcock-like thriller:he half succeeds in that he creates good mood and tension,but he fails miserably in making a slow,long,tedious and aggravating film where the plot takes WAY too much time to establish and the action to get rolling.

More of a curiosity than a real chapter to any of the principles' careers. Not a total waste,but hardly the best work done by any involved.

A slow and easy fright fest. First rate terror!

[michaelRokeefe · 7/10 · 26 August 2000]

A professor's wife believes that her neighbor is a murderer; but her personal terror is trying to cope with a spirit haunting her new home. Harrison Ford is what we think is a mild mannered genius. His neurotic wife is played by the ever classy Michelle Pfeiffer. We see a very different side of Ford and Miss Pfeiffer at one point has only her eyes to relay her torment.

What I really liked best about the movie is the sound effects. It reminds me of days gone by when the sounds of the wind, a rainy night, footsteps and a squeaking door speak volumes.

This movie is not necessarily too long, it just moves slowly getting to the energy packed finale. Your palms will sweat and you will inch to the edge of your seat. The terror filled twisting climax is well worth the ride.

A Spooky Blend of Suspense and Supernatural

[john-collie-1 · 7/10 · 11 July 2023]

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.

More of psychological thriller gets spoils by the slow speed of film

[sauravjoshi85 · 6/10 · 1 June 2022]

What Lies Beneath is a 2000 supernatural horror thriller film directed by Robert Zemeckis and starring Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer.

A women start witnessing disturbing supernatural activities after moving to the old house of her husband, soon she discovers a shocking past about her husband.

Calling this film a horror film will not be correct as this film is more of a psychological thriller with a hint of horror and apart from few jump scares there is nothing in the film that can define this film as horror film.

We have seen such plots in the past and execution of the film also gets predictable. The film doesn't excites much and the super slow speed of the film might irritate few viewers. The film also lacks the depth and intensity.

Acting is superb and probably the only highlight of the film. Climax of the film is also predictable and doesn't excites much.

Overall the film could've been a decent film but the super slow speed and predictable execution spoils the show and the film turns out to be another average film.

Surprisingly good and creepy horror/mystery.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 9/10 · 8 November 2000]

When I went to the cinema to watch this movie,I expected it to be another big-budget Hollywood garbage.After the seance I was pleasantly surprised.I saw "Scream 3" some days ago and that movie wasn't nowhere near as scary as "What Lies Beneath".Great performances by Michelle Pfeiffer(she looks really gorgeous in this one)and Harrison Ford.The climax is absolutely terrifying(especially the bathtub sequence).Plenty of suspense and shocks,wonderful atmosphere of dread and fear.Finally after never-ending strain of lame slasher flicks a truly suspenseful movie.Check it out if you dare.Highly recommended.

Good scare.

[gregduir · 6/10 · 8 October 2020]

Scared the absolute pants off me, but was a good watch and would watch again.

The Big Cheesy

[char treuse · 1/10 · 18 May 2006]

This is an example of a cheesy, low-budget idea gone Big-Budget, High-Concept Hollywood. The sole screenplay to date by actor Clark Gregg is an uneasy mix of supernatural thriller, suspense film and psycho-killer-horror with a clumsy exposition. The secondary characters are throw-aways, as the story suffocatingly focuses on a professor and his wife. Harrison Ford plays his role with all the passion of a cigar-store Indian, while Michelle ("Don't hate me because I'm beautiful") Pfeiffer does her boilerplate pained-and-tormented turn, complete with pinched cheeks and crocodile tears. Robert Zemeckis' direction is banal at best. The over-the-top CGI work is largely superfluous and overblown, particularly during the climactic scenes. Some reviewers described this as "Hitchcock-like" but Hitchcock would never have touched such a sub-par script nor depended so heavily on f/x. In fact, "What Lies Beneath" is rather short on suspense. There are, admittedly, a couple of scares but, shamelessly over 2 hours long, this "thriller" is largely inflated and anemic, and more closely resembles bottom-of-the-barrel DePalma.

Suspense is what lies beneath

[ih007b2077 · 5 September 2001]

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!

One of the scariest movies ever!

[movie_maniac_mike · 7/10 · 19 October 2000]

WHAT LIES BENEATH

***** See this now! **** Great! *** Quite Good! ** Not Horrible, Nor Good. * Big Mistake!

I had heard What Lies Beneath was horrible from local reviewers, but I actually really enjoyed this film. It had a well thought-out screenplay and impressive directing effort from Robert Zemeckis. The only then I could complain about was the finale, which seemed rushed and quite silly.

Norman Spencer (Harrison Ford) is growing more and more concerned about his lovely wife, Claire (Michelle Pfeiffier). Norman and Claire have just sent their daughter, Catalin (Katharine Towne) away to university, and Claire has no sooner started hearing voices and seeing a dead woman's face in the bath. When Claire starts investigating further, she discovers bizarre and simply horrifying secrets about the locked up secrets of the past, and it grows into life-threatening danger.

While Ford seems horribly miscast, Pfeiffier, as usual, pulls off a brilliant performance. She was Oscar-worthy as Claire. What Lies Beneath is one of the scariest movies I have seen to date, and I was so horrified I was almost too afraid to watch anymore of it! In my book, that is quite some achievement.

****

Goes like this

[shiva14 · 7/10 · 4 December 2011]

• Turns on the TV, this movie is playing: "Michelle and Harrison in a horror flick? wow, good stuff"

• Some minutes pass: "Wow, nice seeing Harrison not doing his "side smile" and man, Michelle never ages" - Some time later "Well, this movie isn't scary at all, I mean... Come on, is this supposed to be scary"

• Even more time later: "HOLY F@CKIN S!HT!!! WHAT THE F@CK JUST HAPPENED!! OH MY F@CK!NG GOD, I NEED NEW PANTS"

In short, this is what to expect from What Lies Beneath. Its a very slow moving film, 99% of it is not scary... But when it hits you, it hits you. This movie has the biggest shocker I've ever seen in my life, and for me, this is the merit of it.

It's slow enough to catch you with your pants down and give you the scare of a lifetime.

Creepy, with a thrilling climax.

[OllieSuave-007 · 7/10 · 3 March 2014]

This is a good scary movie where it will send you and your family/friends huddled together at times, a story about Claire Spencer (Michelle Pfeiffer) who believes her lakeside home in Vermont is haunted by a ghost. Together with her scientist husband Norman (Harrison Ford), they try to seek the truth behind the haunting.

While not the best horror movie I've seen, this does stand out a bit from other horror movies, which are typically ghost/killer-on-the-loose flicks, with the screaming protagonists frantically trying to escape or trying to do the antagonists in. This film, on the other hand, has a captivating plot; coupled with the the acting performances of Pfeiffer and Ford make this movie worth a watch. There are also well-executed creepy atmospheres, signaling the appearances of paranormal activity, especially in the eerie bathtub scene.

The film keeps the audience guessing if there is really something supernatural going on or some kind of explainable phenomenon. And, it all ties in to a thrilling climax, which is executed well. It's a good horror movie if you plan to scare your friends during a sleepover.

Grade B

A Good Thriller

[md006 · 8/10 · 25 February 2001]

Unlike most movies that are "supposed" to be scary, or suspenseful, this one actually pulls it off. I'm not saying you'll lose any sleep over this movie, but it definitely has parts where you'll jump or at least get startled perhaps. Many critics felt this movie was predictable, but I disagree, and even though the story is nothing groundbreaking, it still has some originality. Great acting from Harrison Ford and Michelle Phiffer really make this movie what it is...A good thriller. They convey the feelings very well. Robert Zemeckis is also a great director and the angles he uses in this film help give it that extra mysteriousness. The movie is also driven by its great soundtrack, reminiscant of Psycho-esque music. The movie is not exactly scary, but it is a little freaky. I enjoyed this movie a lot and its really worth the rental and if you can watch these kinds of movies over and over again and enjoy them, then its worth the purchase.

I thought this movie was excellent as well! Solid 7 Stars from me!

[huggibear · 7/10 · 30 September 2017]

Who would have thought or suspected the killer? Certainly not me. I'm not going to spoil it for you because this movie is definitely worth a viewing. It was spooky, but not gruesome or horrific as a horror would normally be. It was pretty low key and untypical for a horror movie. I would have classified this more like a thriller though instead of a horror. However, it does have lots of suspenseful moments, which could be their reason for classifying this in the horror genre. It's still very good, believable for sure and it has unexpected twists and turns, which caused this movie to stand out as unique. Who doesn't like something different and non-cliché' or typical? I only wish the daughter that went off to college at the beginning had come back into the picture as a means of support and some family closure. But well worth my viewing time. Kudos to all the people who made this film! Very enjoyable indeed! And pieces of this were filmed in Vermont as well, where I currently live...very cool!

A lot slower than I remembered but worth watching for Pfieffer's performance and great cinematography

[spencer-w-hensley · 7/10 · 19 May 2021]

Re-watched this for the first time in about 10 years. Having been on a binge of re-watching Michelle Pfieffer films, surprisingly this has been one of only very few films that was a box-office success for her so I felt that alone was worth a rewatch.

And who doesnt want to see her alongside the great Harrison Ford and direction from Robert Zemeckis who has directed some of the all time greatest films?

Well for all involved this movie is definitely not among their best but it works and the main reason why is because of Pfieffer's performance.

Of course Ford is top-billed but this is really Pfieffer's movie she really is the main star and her performance in this is so strong that the movie works as a result.

The pacing is very slow. Zemeckis has probably not directed a slower-paced movie since the second half of Back to the Future Part II.

Nonetheless the story is an interesting one to keep you involved in spite of the slow pacing.

Ford seems to be phoning in his performance here until the last half of the movie. Not to say his performance is bad but he just cannot hold a candle to Pfieffer who seems to have the most range here.

And I am not complimenting Pfieffer's performance based solely on her beauty. Yes she is one of the most beautiful women alive, but her beauty is totally irrelevant to the strength of her performance in this film. She is just simply magnificent as an actress here regardless of her looks.

The cinematography is also wonderful with truly beautiful Vermont scenery.

It's hard to understand out of some great films that Michelle Pfieffer has been in why this is one of few that was a true box office success. Not to say this is a bad film by any means but she has been in better films that didnt do as well as this one did which is a shame because she obviously is someone with lots of talent, and she is more than capable of drawing big crowds to her films.

Many refer to this as a horror film but I would say it is more of a mystery suspense thriller. I just wasnt really scared by what happened onscreen.

Again the story is interesting enough to not keep you bored.

I wish the chemistry between Ford and Pfieffer were stronger and Ford gave as equally impressive a performance here as Pfieffer did but again it is nice to see Pfieffer use her talent to the best of her advantage.

Worth a watch for Pfieffer and the cinematography but expect the pacing to be slow while not boring, dont expect Ford to give one of his very best performances and dont expect a horror movie and you should enjoy it for what it is.

This cast and director have all done much better but it's a movie that is worth at least one watch. It definitely has some goods to offer and that is more than enough when said and done.

More money than sense

[Punky Monkey · 1/10 · 11 May 2002]

What Lies Beneath must be the most expensive and lavish cheap timefiller I've ever seen.

It's so densely packed with obvious melodrama and genre cliche, that it could easily be mistaken for one of those dire conveyor-belt mini series that Steven King keeps pushing out (supposedly to make up for the shortcomings of Stanley Kubrik or David Cronenberg).

Harrison Ford as a bad guy? Watch Mosquito Coast to see just how menacing the man can really be.

Scary and haunting? Not compared to real spinechillers such as The Changeling.

Tense, dramatic and manipulative? Try Memento instead.

Ultimately, What Lies Beneath, is a catalogue of half-measures. The fact that you've seen it all before shouldn't be a problem, so long as the old cliches are given a new slant, but the movie doesn't even go that far. What's worse is the fact that the movie starts slow, and grinds to a halt within the first hour. Despite a valiant attempt to regain some momentum in the last few reels, it ultimately gets nowhere.

The script alone makes this TV movie fodder, or at best a straight-to-video cheapy. How it got the budget and the names is beyond me.

A big disappointment.

The creepiest film in many years.

[kkenison · 14 May 2001]

I sat down to watch this film with basically no pre-conceived notions concerning its plotline (or quality, for that matter.) A little over two hours later, I was still shivering and shaking. Robert Zemeckis has taken what is undoubtedly a good (though maybe somewhat predictable) screenplay, and has lifted it to the level of Hitchcockian genius. My eyes bugged out, my skin crawled, my breath got short, and I couldn't have torn myself away even if the Publisher's Clearing House Prize Patrol was at my door.

Along with a great story and masterful directing, this movie features the superb performance of Michelle Pfeiffer. Ambivalent about her acting skills in the past, I am now a full-fledged Pfeiffer fan. Harrison Ford is certainly adequate, and this role is a refreshing change for him, but Michelle steals the show.

Good ghost stories are few and far between. Even "Stir Of Echoes" and "The Sixth Sense", fine films that they are, don't compare to the perfect blend of soundtrack, plot twists, camerawork and performance that make up "What Lies Beneath". If goosebumps are your thing, don't miss this one.

More of a psychological thriller than a horror...

[PerryAtTheMovies · 7/10 · 9 November 2020]

This is a 120 minute movie of pure drama and suspense. Rather than call this a horror film, I'd rather call this a psychological thriller. It messes with the mind almost in ways that "Get Out" portrays minus the whole mind/body takeover. This film takes you on a bender of being emotionally invested in one plot that when the next plot comes up, you're still holding onto the first. I enjoyed the way this film took the apparition. While not showing it for most of the movie, you know there's someone, or something there.

Overall, if you're wanting a movie that will have you thinking, and guessing, all the way through, I believe this is the perfect fit. I think maybe 120 minutes was slightly too long, but it had me holding my breath and waiting for the next big thing, while simultaneously making me talking to the screen. Overall, overall... I recommend!