Highly entertaning film from the always fantastic Robert Zemeckis. Great performances from the cast, and good story-telling. Keep's you interested as you see the story unfold. And lot's of scares, and many creepy scenes. Don't watch this film by yourself or before bed. I highly recommend this film, see it.

What Lies Beneath starring Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer is a Hitchcock style film. I like this movie, Pfeiffer steals every scene while Ford plays his creepiest role yet. What Lies Beneath is about a husband and wife who are now in the empty nest period of their lives, the daughter has moved onto college and the couple have buried a secret and finally starts resurface. This film is a bit slow especially the first hour but after that the pace and story fall into place. Give this sly and slick ghost film a chance. Enjoy!

Claire Spencer's (Michelle Pfieffer) daughter Caitlin is heading off to college. The retired cellist has nothing to do but enjoy her beautiful Vermont home and her delectible husband, Norman Spencer (Harrison Ford).

Empty Nest Syndrome is hard, but nobody ever told Claire she'd become obsessed with her fighting neighbors and see the face of a dead girl underwater...Plus, she's facing the anniversary of an auto crash.

The first part builds suspense like only Hitchcock could. I swear Claire hurts herself so often, she's a walking Band-Aid commercial. She keeps getting startled by the phone, her husband walking up behind her.

When Norman has had enough, he urges Claire to seek professional help. The psychiatrist suggests Claire get in touch with the ghost. She and her friend Jodi get an Oija board and have seances to summon the neighbor's wife...

And the rest keeps you glued to your seat with the hairs standing up on the back of your neck. "What Lies Beneath" goes further than being an homage to Hitchcock and stands on its own as a classic of the horror genre. I had to watch in a well-lit room -- and my poor cat couldn't even stay on my lap.

I'd seen this movie before, loved it, wanted it and got it here! No worries!

Surprisingly good chiller even if it is a little predictable. Pfeiffer carries this movie for the most part and having Harrison Ford and James Remar switch their usual roles throws you off for a while, but ultimately makes you skeptical. It's a good little ghost story,but it does have a few pimples. One thing I did not like about the DVD itself is that when you put it in your DVD player it plays parts of the movie before going to the menu screen. If you are seeing the movie for the first time, skip this section as it spoils the film a little! A great homage to Hitchcock and it does have a few good scares. The DVD transfer looks very good.

Amazon's review really nails this film for the intelligent, old-fashioned edge-of-your-seat thriller that it is, but it is a flawed film too.

No need to rehash the plot as both Amazon's review and the product description tell you enough about the film, so I'll get right to what I loved, liked, and disliked about this film, but let me warn you in advance that this review contains serious SPOILERS that I feel I can't ignore while writing this review as it specifically connects to the flaws the film contains.

This film's strengths: Don't let the box title fool you with Harrison Ford's name being first, which is based upon his considerable star power, this film belongs to Michelle Pfieffer and to her alone although a very young Miranda Otto from The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Flight of the Phoenix, and War of the Worlds gives a noteworthy supporting performance. Ford himself really plays second fiddle to Pfieffer in this thriller and although he gives a good performance, he seems out of place being a supporting actor and looks rather uncomfortable during most of this film.

The script is intelligently written and slowly reveals the plot in such a way that we feel we know what is coming, but we are as unsure as Pfieffer's character as to the "truth" of things. The direction is first-rate by Robert (Back to the Future and Forrest Gump) Zemeckis as he experiments with playing Alfred (The Birds and Psycho) Hitchcock. He builds this little masterpiece up to a compelling and chilling conclusion that doesn't disappoint even though it does leave us scratching our heads a bit.

The film's weaknesses: Simply put . . . it's Harrison Ford's presence in this film which ends up being rather distracting. At the time he was too big of a star to play such a supporting role and one keeps scratching his head wondering just why he's in this film. In addition, Ford himself seems so uncomfortable not being the main attraction. I don't mean that he's too egotistical to play a supporting role, but he had been a number one box-office draw for nearly two decades at this point that I just don't feel he knew how to fade into the background in a less starring role. Lastly, while he makes a (spoiler alert here) remorseful guilt-ridden bad guy, he does not make a believable self-serving psychopath and the faulty script at the end attempts to make him BOTH.

That is the film's other serious weakness. Ford's character is supposed to be guilt-ridden over an affair he had with a college student that ended with him murdering her. Ford is actually very good at playing flawed characters as many of his heroes are such, but the script also has him as a lunatic at the end. First he's genuinely sorry for his affair, his part in the death of his lover, and the pain this has caused his wife to experience, and we, the audience buy that as Ford is great at playing stronge but emotional characters as with his great performances in The Fugitive and Air Force One, but the script then has him enjoying his attempt at murdering his wife (Pfieffer). He jokingly asks her if she would rather have hot or cold water in the tub as he attempts to drown her and then even loving plays with his dog as she is drowning before his eyes. Is this the same man who was crying, literally, to his wife over what had happened with that other woman. In an otherwise intelligently written and well-acted film, this is a glaring inconsistancy in a character and it doesn't add up. Add that to an already uncomfortable performance by Ford in a supporting role and you get an ending that is somewhat murky if not still thrilling and suspenseful.

Well, I don't want to end this review on a negative note as this film deserves all four stars that I gave it, but it's not without its flaws. This slickly, well-executed thriller is worth both your time and money, but just don't be surprised if you find yourself scratching your head a bit when it's all done.

I love this movie! I saw it in the theater when I was in college and bought it when it was released to video. I know that a lot of people complained that Michelle and Harrison had little to no chemistry, and I agree! However, they were married a long time, and there were "serious" issues there. I thought the plot was great, and I stayed interested until the end. I've watched it many times, and think it's a great mystery/thriller.

I wasn't sure what to expect with this movie when it first came out. I've always enjoyed Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer, but wondered what this movie was all about. I was pleasently surprised, as it was far better than I thought it would be, and I didn't anticipate the twists and turns.

Harrison and Michelle play Norman and Claire Spencer, a happily married couple who are adjusting to their new positions in life. Their daughter has just gone off to college, and they are now pseudo empty nesters. While Norman still has his work as a college professor, Claire finds herself a bit bored. Their new next door neighbors have become an object of fascination, as they have passionate fights and reconciliation. Clarie eventually becomes convinced that the husband murdered his wife when she sees some strange things in the middle of the night. After attempting to contact spirits on the Ouija board and some odd goings on here and there, Claire becomes convinced that the wife's ghost is trying to communicate with her. When she confronts the neighbor, he explains, once his wife appears at his side, that he didn't kill his wife. Embarrassed, Claire leaves with her tail between her legs, thinking it's just some paranoid fantasy.

But there really is a spirit trying to connect with her, just one not in association with the neighbors. It's of a university student who disappeared last year named Madison. Who Norman had an affair with. Who Claire walked in on, ran away in shock, had a car accident, bumped her head, and forgot about.

It's a juicy tale, to be sure. It's a good, old school kind of thriller, without blood and guts, and keeps the suspense going until the very end. A good movie to rent some night when you want some lite entertainment and a little horror mixed in.

This movie has a little bit
of everything and it is very
entertaining. So enjoy this
one with friends and family.
I recommend this one.

I never expected to see Harrison Ford & Michelle Pfeiffer in a supernatural themed story, but What Lies Beneath was a pleasant surprise...Ford plays Norman Spencer, a scientist married to Claire [Pfeiffer] who gave up a promising career as a cellist to be a supportive wife & mother. Claire is experiencing the empty nest syndrome after sending off her daughter to college. Norman & Claire's idyllic life in their beautiful lakeshore Vermont home is shattered by Claire's visions of an entity, and Norman's callous dismissal of her visions only strengthens Claire's resolve to get to the bottom of the matter. The rest of the story revolves around Claire's investigative efforts that takes a supernatural twist when she tries unconventional methods to commmunicate with the spirit...and finds a shocking revelation thathas to do with the mysterious disappearance of a beautiful college student. The truth indeed does lie beneath the surface, and you will have a great time unearthing the mystery with Claire!

The movie moves very slow at the beginning (and by "beginning", I mean the first 3/4 of the film) and doesn't have much happening plot-wise. Some "surprise" plot twists along the way keep you interested, only to let you down again. They just kind of leave you hanging. There was absolutely no chemistry between the two main actors.

I did give it 2 stars because it picks up pace at the end (action-wise, but not plot-wise) and makes you glued to the screen, wondering what's going to happen next. Its just regrettable that the rest of the movie couldn't have been the same.

At best, a renter.

Received in good condition and on time. Great price. This was a gift. No problems that we know of.

Excellent movie that will keep you "on your toes." Two excellent actors make having movie nights worth while!

This is a great thriller you will want to see more than once.
Great twists and turns that will surprise you. You will enjoy this one if you are fans of Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer. Enjoy!

"What Lies Beneath" will always be remembered as Robert Zemeckis' homage to Alfred Hitchcock. From the opening credits to the stunning climax, the techniques of the master are unashamedly paid tribute to. The music, the camerawork, the building up of suspense, the characters names etc. are all straight from numerous classic Hitchcock films such as "Vertigo", "Rear Window" and "Psycho". But while it may seem quite stupid to try to copy such a brilliant director's work (the "Psycho" remake comes to mind), Zemeckis has surprisingly created a great film here.

Clair and Norman appear to be a happily married couple. They clearly have money, a beautiful house and a daughter heading towards her own successful career. But when Claire suspects her neighbour of murdering his wife, her world suddenly begins to crumble around her. Not only is she constantly spying on the suspicious activities next door, but she also becomes aware of a presence within her own house. While those around her (Norman included) believe her to be losing her sanity, Claire searches deeper for answers which inevitably leads her to repressed memories that, with the help of beautiful girl long dead, lead her to a shocking revelation that sends her marriage and mental state into turmoil.

When reading the above plot, you may feel that this is nothing new. There have been countless movies over the years with ghosts attempting to communicate with the living to reveal the cause of their demise. In fact, there are plenty of cliché moments in "What Lies Beneath". But the film is so beautifully and lovingly made that it is thoroughly entertaining nonetheless. Michelle Pfeiffer and Harrison Ford are both fantastic and completely convincing throughout. Pfeiffer in particular has a tough role to get through here, having to be both extremely vulnerable and steamily sexual at various times. She is always beautiful, but at the age of 42, she is simply stunning and captivating as Clair. But it's Zemeckis' direction that stands out as exceptional. The film is quite long at 2 hours, but this running time is used to build up the intensity. What starts out as reasonably cheap scares, turn into genuinely frightening ones by the second hour. There are some great set pieces (the bath scene in particular is a classic) and CGI is seamlessly utilized throughout, particularly as a tool for camera trickery.

I know this film has its detractors and I can honestly understand the qualms that they raise. But a good film is a good film in my book, regardless of its origin or blatant worshipping status. "What Lies Beneath" gave me exactly what I wanted with some great scares, masses of suspense and intrigue, topped off with fantastic visuals, sound, acting and direction. What more could I possibly ask for in a thriller!?

Seriously, this movie has Michelle...I don't care that much to finish her last name. She is a terrible actress and yet she keeps getting roles in good movies. This isn't one of them. Unlike her catwoman preformance in "Batman Returns" where she was at least nice to look at, she does nothing in this movie. It's not even up to par with "Dangerous Laisons," in which where suppsoed to believe the hottest women in france are Glenn Close (ok, technically she is an attractive older woman) and Michelle. If that's true, I'm never going to france.

This movie, and the plot could have been covered in a seven minute short film...and how did they get Harrison Ford to do this?

All in all this movie sucks and time should not be wasted watching it.

shirt, not bad for a guy pushing 70. And Michelle always looks adorable. Loved the plot, perfect family, perfect house, perfect dog, perfect friends, perfect husband, a scientist with a big salary no less, perfect size 2 wife, and something hidden, dirty and horrifying to screw it all up. Enjoy!

I jest just a bit with that headline. This film is more disappointing than truly contemptible. WHAT LIES BENEATH looked like it might be that rare Hollywood commodity: a horror film geared toward a somewhat more mature audience. Casting respected actors (and major stars) like Ford and Pfeiffer seemed promising. And even though I am not a huge fan of director Zimeckis, I figured you could count on him for a solid, if not necessarily inspired product.

Most intriguing, however, was the "Hitchcockian" buzz that surrounded the film. Most of the commentary about the film cited the Hitchcock influence, which is enough to make any suspense buff--or classic cinemaphile--pay attention. But I was disappointed on that score as well.

Yes, there are nods to such classics as REAR WINDOW and PSYCHO in this film, but guess what! The key difference (and it really is key) between this and almost ANY of the master's films is the supernatural element that is so dominant in this movie. I can't think of a single Hitchcock classic where the suspense stemmed from otherworldly forces. Human nature, not the supernatural, was the source of all things evil in those films. THE BIRDS was about as spooky as things ever got in the Hitchcockian universe, but that still had more to do the unexplainable in the NATURAL world, not any supernatural one.

It is certainly possible, however, to take your Hitchcockian influence and spin it off into a different direction. Sure, you can have your icy blonde haunted by real ghosts rather than by her inner demons. But you know, you better do it good, and you better be original. WLB is not particularly good, and while its Hitchcockiness may be in doubt, it is certainly derivative numerous other suspense and horror films. I won't say that there are no surprises, but even they weren't all that original. A viewer might be surprised at the identity of the villain, for instance, but no one will be startled to see how hard that villain is to actually kill and keep dead. At this point in horror film history, how many viewers are truly taken aback when an apparently dead bad guy's eyes suddenly pop open (glaringly, of course).

I've read a number of critics' reviews of this film and was not at all surprised to find that they really were mostly negative. I'm also not surprised to see that many of my fellow "citizen reviewers" here at Amazon do love this movie and find it merits a full five stars. Well, I'm not a cinematic snob (I hope) and don't always side with the pros, but this time out I kinda do. Yes, this film has its merits--not the least of which is Michelle Pfeiffer's nuanced performance--but as a horror/suspense effort, it is seriously flawed. The fact that it visually quotes classic films of the genre, only serves to point up its own weaknesses.

"What Lies Beneath" is the type of ghost story movie in the same mold as "Stir Of Echoes", and what I mean by this is that it is a revenge ghost story. In other words, the ghost in the movie is not the malevolent entity in the movie, but the ghost's killer is. However, these type of revenge ghost story movies do not work very well to present a truly pure horror movie viewing experience because once you realize the ghost just wants revenge, the focus of the movie changes to the punishment of the mortal killer(s) and much of the suspense and mystery of the supernatural becomes secondary or maybe even lost completely. This is unfortunate and such is the case with both "What Lies Beneath" and "Stir Of Echoes". Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer star in "What Lies Beneath" and they are both great actors and I have no problem with them in this movie...no, it's the script that I do not feel presents pure and unadulterated horror. If you just want to see a drama, this movie is fine but, as a horror movie, it does not function well as such...in fact, as a horror movie, this movie sucks. The only movie like this that actually works as a horror movie in my opinion is a movie called "The Changeling" with George C. Scott...I would recommend "The Changeling" any day over "What Lies Beneath" or any other movie like this which have become somewhat popular in the horror genre over the last 10-15 years. Unfortunately, these movies are riddled by a common anti-climactic flaw which extinguishes the mystery of the supernatural which ignited the audience's interest in the movie in the first place. If people think this is a good drama, that is fine, but I just hate it when I read reviews and get all excited about watching a horror movie and it turns out the movie sucks as a horror movie...such is the case with "What Lies Beneath".

This movie has all the perfect elements. Hitchcock was robably beaming in his grave. This movie has so many layers. The moment you THINK you know what this story is about, it changes, and then changes again until the truth astonishes you. I remember when I saw this movie in the theatre-I was just rivited to the screen. Catching it on TNT so many years later, it still has the same effect. The young teen screams don't have the corner market on suspense. I wish there was more movies like this out there. Bravo.

There are times when a movie "borrows" from a LOT of previous directors. Scorcese has even mentioned that a camera angle, or a way a scene was set up was something he'd seen or done in a different movie.
Having said that, Zemekkis uses as much of his talent and liberally uses those of the masters to find out how good he can direct a thriller. Most of it works, some of it doesn't. Reading some (a lot from late 2003) of the reviews made me wonder why people would spend money to see a movie, realize in their opinions that it's a bad movie, and then spend MORE time writing a review of it 2 years LATER!! The DVD came out I think early 2001. "Scream" was good in its self reference, but isn't it still a "stab and stalk" movie series? How many times did Sydney get chased?
Anyone who says this movie is "boring" obviously hasn't sat through Casablanca, or Psycho (movies with quite a bit of dialogue with no real "action" for more than 5 or 6 minutes) or other movies that are big on dialogue.
Oddly enough, people still believe in watching a movie for the atmosphere more than the story (Silent Hill anyone?)

What Lies Beneath is a stylish supernatural thriller that guarantees the viewer to be kept anxiously on the edge of their seat. Michelle Pfeiffer and Harrison Ford provide the star power for this ghost story with a twist and as well as making a most attractive all American (supposedly ideal) couple, do a good job of driving the dramatic tension and suspense along with suitable pace and expression. Another very stylish star of this film is its setting and design. The stately, Vermont, lake side home, provides a visual feast and perfect setting and atmosphere for a haunting. In particular the somewhat gothic looking Victorian style bathroom, with its deep old fashioned bathtub. Along with the lake it provides the focus for much of the film's pivotal action and creepy apparitions. Adding to its classy set design and camera direction, is some very tight and creative editing which pulls the story and drama together in a fluid montage of scenes that unravel the plot in a timely and appropriate way. If the first half of the film seems a little drawn out, then I think it needs to be to in order to provide an effective depiction of Claire's gradual and frightening revelations. It also provides suitable build up and contrast to the final more melodramtic, action packed terror at the films climax. The original musical score played throughout the film is also suitably chilling and atmospheric in all the right places.
This (along with 'Frantic') is one of Harrison Ford's best performances in my view. There is a disturbing naturalness in the way he disguises and then later attempts to justify his character 'Norman's' past deeds, that seems very realistic. Michelle Pfeiffer, who carries the majority of the film, is also very good but at times comes close to being in 'over acting territory' in that some of her reactions and expressions appear a little posed somehow. She always has presence however, and her face in all its chiselled, classic beauty, was made for the big screen. How does a woman clothed and submerged in a filled bathtub manage to look that beautiful I ask you?
Even though I know what's coming I can still watch this movie many times just to take in the stylishly chilling atmosphere and setting, shot against the backdrop of that magnificent house and lake.

This film basically turned me on to Harrison Ford.. he's dynamite in it... I feel the Hitchcockesque elements in the film... and the thing I love about it is that the plot is really quite realistic.. I love seeing Harrison portraying high profile men in his films.. it gives him this sort of pizazz and mystique.. it's really great.. it's just a really convoluted plot that feels real and is one of the scariest pieces of cinema I've ever witnessed... a job well done

Director: Robert Zemeckis
Cast: Harrison Ford, Michelle Pfeiffer, Diana Scarwid, Joe Morton, James Remar, Miranda Otto, Amber Valletta, Katherine Towne, Victoria Bidewell.
Running Time: 130 minutes
Rated PG-13 for terror/violence, sensuality and brief language.

"What Lies Beneath" borrows heavily from movies like "Rebecca" and "Psycho", adding generous helpings of "Rear Window" and "Wait Until Dark" to the mix for good measure. Claire (Pfeiffer) and Norman (Ford) are a well-to-do married couple living on a somewhat palacial lakeside estate in Vermont. Norman's a research scientist and spends much of his time finishing papers and giving lectures while Claire stays at home, dealing with the emotional aftereffects of a recent car crash. Norman has a stepdaughter, Caitlin, who goes off to college at the beginning of the movie. For the first time in years, Claire is alone in the house, and she notices strange things afoot. She experiences some strange phenomena, including a woman's reflection in her bathwater. The fragile Claire is convinced the disturbances have something to do with the strange couple next door, and urges her husband to look into the matter. He finds nothing, of course, and asks her to see a therapist, thinking that his lovely wife is still unstable, but the therapist recommends contacting whatever might be causing the disturbances, and that's when the fun begins.

It's ironic that a movie be entitled "What Lies Beneath" when it is so shallow. This picture is typical Hitchcock suspense with plenty of creaks and jumps and `look behind you' scenes, but there aren't enough full on scare sequences and much of these are just overused clichés. Director Robert Zemeckis ("Back to the Future", "Forrest Gump") is clearly having a blast behind the camera and successfully masters yet another genre. He puts a tremendous deal of skill into the proceedings; however, there simply isn't enough material to work with. The film uneasily balances between domestic drama, supernatural chiller and all-out thriller, and the three sub-genres simply don't gel. As the neurotic housewife, Michelle Pfeiffer is perfectly cast and brings depth to her first good role in a long time and holds her own against the more popular Harrison Ford, who curiously avoids the limelight for most of the movie. As soon as the emotional hokum gets going, the film loses a good deal of momentum, but the shear suspense of it all is what keeps `What Lies Beneath' going. But with the uneasy mixture, the bogeyman material seems out of place when in tone with the thriller aspect. While it is very slow-paced, Zemeckis and Pfeiffer make a deadly combo and almost overcome the bogging down of sentimentality and a slightly shallow script. Eerie, creepy and surprising, "What Lies Beneath" is flawed, but generally a sophisticated thriller that is still better than most of the modernized, teenie-bopping trash that Hollywood sends out these days.

'What Lies Beneath' directed by Robert Zemeckis ends with a very satisfying bang / surprise, but it is just a bit tedious in getting there. Contrary to the blurbs on the jacket, the movie does not live up to Hitchcock's quality and does not do for the bathtub what 'Psycho' did for the shower.

While it is not as bad as the most critical reviews, it does not add lots of points to its stars' resumes, as it simply does not effectively use the ambiguity between psychosis and the supernatural as we see in Hitchcock and the best of Stephen King.

Nice surprise in the casting and in the technique used to attempt murder. Otherwise, average.

If you're looking for a quiet but scary, wintry ghost story -- pass this one by.

You're better off renting The Changeling (Canadian 1979), a film of quiet ghostly scares. Atmospheric, suspenseful, thought-provoking. Or try Ghost Story (1981), a film with beautiful wintry scenes, and rich characters played by seasoned Hollywood Golden Age pros. The Changeling is a low-budget import, Ghost Story a big studio effort, yet both are excellent ghost films.

As for What Lies Beneath ... well, it's hardly worth sitting through two hours to find out.

Despite its length, its star cast and star director, What Lies Beneath has a smallish story. One trade critic compared it to a TV movie. True enough. What Lies Beneath feels as though it was written as a TV movie, until by some miracle Harrison Ford, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Robert Zemeckis were conned into it. Maybe one of them actually liked it, signed on, and then it snowballed. Once those names signed on, distribution had to shift to the big screen. The script was lengthened to accommodate the theatrical distribution and star talent (important people require a film of important length). A few unnecessary special effects further padded the story.

It's still a small story. And not a terribly original or compelling one.

Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer are a trendy but classy New England couple. He's a college professor, she's a former concert cellist who gave up her career to raise a daughter. They're the sort of people who've lived or worked in Manhattan, attend museums, summer at the Hamptons or Martha's Vineyard, and try to find authenticity in a faux rustic lifestyle. Literate, sophisticated, a perfect New York Times Sunday Magazine kind of lifestyle in a small northeastern college town.

But things only appear perfect. Soon after their daughter is sent off to college, Michelle Pfeiffer imagines things. She thinks the couple next door may not be what they seem. She imagines murder. She imagines ghosts. But her initial suspicions prove wrong. So too her new suspicions. What Lies Beneath is full of twists and turns, and red herrings leading into more twists and turns, and still more red herrings and twists and turns.

Long before film's end, one wearies.

All the twists and turns and discoveries feel less suspenseful than artificial. It's as if Zemeckis thought: "Gee, there are so many ways this film can go ... so many good possibilities ... let's use them all!"

Yet despite its ponderous length and pretty cinematography, What Lies Beneath remains a Lifetime Original TV movie. Men are evil, concealing a "beast within." Women are victims -- smart and brave! -- but weakened by their one great fault: they just "love too much." (Another critic noted that whenever a man commits adultery in a Lifetime movie, it's inexcusable. When a women commits adultery, it's "a matter of the heart." In that sense, The Bridges of Madison County and was also a TV movie).

It's hard to discuss this film without giving away its red herrings or surprise twists, or letting on which is which. Suffice to say that issues of spousal abuse and adultery and murder all emerge at various points. The title has two meanings: what lies beneath the veneer of domestic tranquility that neighbors present to the world, and the veneer of love and fidelity that couples present to each other. And what lies beneath the ground, and beneath the lake.

I don't know who'd like this film. It's more of a "chick flick" than a horror film. But "chick flick" fans (which does not include all women) would dislike the occasional ghostly gore. Horror fans would respond: "What gore?" For that matter: "What scares?"

There are a few shocks buried in those wearying hours. The ghostly makeup evokes Ghost Story. (Now there's a "wronged woman" film that horror fans can enjoy! If you're tempted to see What Lies Beneath, see Ghost Story instead).

What else?

Harrison Ford plays against type. Pfeiffer's the heroine, Ford the cad. That's good for one big surprise (except now I've ruined it for you -- sorry). What Lies Beneath seems intended as a star vehicle for Pfeiffer. But since when do TV movies qualify as "star vehicles?" When they're released the big screen?

Pfeiffer has a clichéd Best Friend. The usual "Rhoda type." Slightly overweight (obese, by Hollywood standards), always arriving unannounced, full of wisecracks. One almost hears a TV sitcom laugh trax whenever her unwelcome presence intrudes, adding yet another unnecessary layer to this sluggish mess.

There is also a clichéd Musty Occult Book. You know the type. Whenever someone in a horror film or TV show confronts the supernatural, they always visit a dim library or used bookstore to research the topic. There they discover a thick, heavy, rare, dusty, musty volume of ancient lore. Seems these books are hard to come by. No wonder these people know nothing about ghosts, or vampires, or werewolves. For some reason, they never enter a brightly lit Barnes & Noble superstore, where they'd find many aisles of occult books in the New Age section. And not the old musty kind with woodcut illustrations, but shiny, new, clean-smelling paperbacks.

Appropriately, it is the clichéd Wisecracking Best Friend who delivers the clichéd Musty Occult Book to Pfeiffer.

As for the special effects, they're pretty, but often unnecessary. Without the effects, What Lies Beneath could have been shot as a workable TV movie. One senses that after the stars signed on and theatrical distribution was secured, the budget rose in all areas, so they had to find ways to spend it.

For instance, the final scene is in a cemetery. It's the prettiest scene in the film, seemingly shot indoors on a sound stage. Wintry gray "skies." Shades of gray tinged with white and black, creating a bleak, expressionistic -- almost Caligarian -- sensibility. Then as a final touch, just before the end credits, the outlines of a woman's face forms in the snow. Not a clear image, but the kind one sees in passing clouds.

I expect a team of computer graphic artists spent at least several days on just that one image. It's a pretty image, but wholly unnecessary to the film.

It's still just a TV movie.

What Lies Beneath is a very suspenseful movie that I have seen before, however, it is so good that I had to purchase it. Now I can watch it over and over.

It took me quite a few months after buying this to actually watch it - I seem to be getting worse & worse for needing to watch a film in the right mind frame, or when it's "appropriate". Plus, I've been told this film isn't that great.

I was pleasantly surprised how scared I was watching this film. You'd think after a while you would be desensitised after watching a lot of horror films, but I jumped loads, and after it had finished, insisted on switching on all the lights in the house. And then I was too scared to go to sleep. Never has a film affected me as badly as this did.

I'm not much of a fan of Harrison Ford, but loving Michelle Pfeffer. She is such an amazing actress, and I noticed it most in this film. It's all in the eyes with her in this, especially in the bathtub scenes. She manages to portray so much just through her eyes, and it's brilliant. Most actresses would probably fail miserably at this, but she does it well.

The film severely drags in the middle however, and for me, this stopped me giving it a higher rating. It starts well, it ends well, it doesn't work so well in the middle. Robert Zemeckis could have easily trimmed this by half an hour, and made it a much better movie. Nothing much happens in the middle, apart from some boring stuff with an Ouija board, and that's about it.

It's not up to scratch as some of the other movies that Robert Zemeckis has done, including the fabulous Back To The Future trilogy, Castaway (this was entirely filmed during on the break on the film) and Who Filmed Roger Rabbit being some of his best.

If you can, pick up this film for cheap (which you should be able to now), cos you'll regret it. It's one of those films you will watch once, and never watch again, but I've definitely found, it's a film that sticks with you.

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 scary as "What Lies Beneath". Great performance by Michelle Pfeiffer (she looks really gorgeous in this one) and Harrison Ford. The climax is absolutely terrifying (especially the bathtub sequence). Plenty of suspence 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.

Hitchcock comparisons aside, this is one tidy ghost story.

Minimal gore and violence, some self-depracating humor, and losts of creepy, eerie moments make this one a winner. Atmosphere is key here and the stunning lake house they built for this film is gorgeous. Tranquil, beautiful. peaceful and just the right set-up to concince us it's all paranoia.

Pfeiffer is absolutely excellent here and carries the film squarely on her shoulders. If we don't believe her, the whole film goes out the window. Her performance ranks among her best and she did deserve an Oscar nod for it. Her expression change when she is momentarily "possessed" and the sees the house door open reflected in a mirror is alone worth a viewing of this quasi old fashioned chiller.

A good fun ride, some nice chills, and Pfeiffer's perfomance make this the winner it is,

Robert Zemeckis makes his homage to Hitchcock in What Lies Beneath, starring Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer.

The Spencer's -Claire and Norman- are a supposedly happy and successful marriage. He is a prominent scientist, she's an ex musician that just left her only daughter at college. Free time takes Mrs. Spencer to spy on her neighbors, and from that activity she believes that a crime has been perpetrated next door. Insecure and nervous, Claire's paranoia grows as a series of paranormal events take place in her perfect home: doors open and close, electrical equipment turn on automatically, spectral visions in the bathtub. Are all these things related? That's one of the many secrets the movie hides.

A lonely home, secrets trying to be revealed, darkness, ghosts and the impending sensation that we are not sure what our eyes are seeing, What Lies Beneath has enough elements to hook you up for a scary time. Zemeckis takes advantage from every trick, cliche and ideas to spice the story, until he leaves us with a terrible deja vu sensation. The result is a supernatural thriller cleverly built, part psychological, part ghost story.

And one could very well wonder, when Michelle Pfeiffer sees a spectral reflex on the water, if the ghost we are seeing is indeed Mr Hitchcock.

As soon as the credits vanish, we take a walk from moments of Rear Window, Suspicion, Vertigo and even Psycho. The cinematic references overwhelm us, from the lead man's name, the disturbing music score, the movie's rhythm, the creepy house alone on a hill. Hitch's fans will enjoy tremendously this tribute

Pfeiffer and Ford are two stars talented and very charismatic, whose performances give more depth to the story. Pfeiffer, above all, is very convincing as the housewife victim of a series of inexplicable events. Her terror and her pain are very truthful. Ford is somewhat relegated to a second place.

In the end, the secrets that hide What Lies Beneath are not so interesting. The excess of subplots, tributes and tricks make the movie into a series of brilliant moments that are bigger than the whole. For the entertaining time, we can thank Zemeckis. For the suspense and fear that comes from our inner souls, let's thank Hitchcock, the man that understood that, in a good story, there must lie beneath secrets and emotions too scary to be revealed ever.

Making a good movie of a ghost story is a ticklish business. There is a vast but treacherous chasm between Terror and Horror, and few can navigate it successfully, for Terror is the subtler art of the two, a fact attested to by the rarity of truly terrifying movies about Haunts.

Think about that for a minute. While there are scores of excellent Horror movies awash in buckets of blood and gore that I would happily watch again and again, you can count the truly successful cinematic Ghost Tale on one hand. Why are Ghost Stories, which are the pinnacle of trule tales of Terror, so difficult to put on film?

I think it has something to do with the nature of what terrifies, as opposed to what horrifies: Horror is a visceral and visual art, which repulses and horrifies by sight. Terror, on the other hand, is heightened by the unseen far more than the seen. The good Ghost Tale is the haunt of the guttering candle, the shape in the shadows, the thunderous knock on the wall of an empty room in an empty castle, the dimly heard footstep treading up a lonely stairwell.

Only a few films have gotten this delicate balance right: the original "The Haunting," Amenabar's superbly chilling "The Others", M. Night Shyamalan's "Sixth Sense", and the criminally underrated "The Haunting of Julia", the last of which is not available even on VHS! To this short list of worthy Terror films, I would add, without hesitation, Robert Zemeckis's superb little excursion in sheer spooky fright "What Lies Beneath."

Yes, Zemeckis has studded this simple, frightful little tale with all manner of homages to Alfred Hitchcock, including nice little nods to "Rope", "Vertigo", "Rear Window", and "Suspicion". But Zemeckis, a seasoned and skilled director who has a few trips to the Crypt under his belt, is not overly pleased with his cleverness; instead he spins out a crisply paced, beautifully filmed (cinematography by Don Burgess, who worked on "Terminator 3", "Bourne Identity" and "Forrest Gump")little movie that builds from a lurking sense of unease to a shrieking crescendo of full-bodied terror.

The story is simple. Dr. Norman Spencer (Harrison Ford, grizzled and effectively obtuse) and his wife Claire (played by the always lovely Michelle Pfeiffer) are empty nesters. Their daughter has gone off to college, Dr. Spencer has his genetics research, and Claire---well, Claire has the summer house on the lake, memories, and a little too much time to herself.

Claire quickly becomes caught up in the silence of the lake house, and the profusion of her memories---particularly some she has lost, or possibly buried. And what of her mysterious, reclusive, slightly sinister neighbors? What of the brusque professor-next-door's wife (played briskly by Miranda Otto, who even musters up her frightened eye in service of scares), who evidently lives in fear of her husband? And what of her sudden disappearance during a rainstorm?

Worse still, what of the whispered voices in the house, doors slamming shut, and the bathtub filling up by itself?

All classically spooky stuff, but all legendarily difficult stuff to get right if you want to truly creep the audience out. Zemeckis does it, littering the path to the white-knuckled conclusion (why, on the lake, of course...where else?) with red herrings and a bucketload of ghastly little moments designed to make your bones creep and tingle.

But the pleasure of this journey is the getting there, and Zemeckis realizes that the best horror is painted on a palette of silence. "What Lies Beneath" benefits from its studied atmosphere of the malevolent. And when the Spook appears, as in all good Terror Tales it must, it is deliriously scary.

"What Lies Beneath" joins a select group of truly creepy terrifying films, and like the other members of that good company, this movie is ideal for a storm-swept weekend night with you, a blanket, a cup of hot spiced tea, and a warm and stoic cat.

JSG

This is director Robert Zemeckis' attempt at a Hitchcock-like suspense movie.

Unfortunately, much of the suspense comes from the old tried-and-true suspense movie conventions of walking backward so you don't see what is in plain view; over-reactive fumbling and bumbling and dropping important things; and the intrusive musical cues.

However, like all Zemekis' movies, this one contains some impressive camera moves and special effects, which include shooting upward through a glass floor.

The acting was pretty good throughout, and most of the success of the movie is due to Michelle Pfieffer's performance. Harrison Ford was good, and played a bit against type.

The movie left a few loose ends untied (such as the situation with the neighbors, and some visions and apparitions), had a few lapses in logic and reality (yeah, I know it's a ghost movie) such as the boat mast poking a hole in the windshield though not breaking it, and some of it was a bit too convenient (one accident at the exact location of a previous accident), and the final scene felt tacked on (think how nicely ambiguous it would be if what lies beneath just sank past the camera...)

Overall, the movie is pretty good and entertaining, and though it started off strong, it tapered off a bit as it got into the second half.

DVD extras include a commentary by Zemeckis and 2 producers, a brief documentary of (mostly other) Zemeckis movies, and text-based cast/crew info.

I don't like scary movies. I don't like them for the same reason I don't like rollercoasters with loops in them. Sure-- I know I'll survive the coaster, but that doesn't make it FUN. Ironically, this movie would have BEEN better if it had been scary.

Sloppy sloppy sloppy.

The acting was mediocre, the plot was easy to guess half way through the movie, and once the movie "reveals all," it stutters through some subpar slasher-esque scences for about 15 or so minutes of redundant cheap trick camera angles and constantly annoying music.

Only watch this to complete your Harrison Ford collectin. There is no other reason for it to exist.

I thought that the plot of this movie was okay. The movie was entertaining. However, I got a little weary of the suspenseful music used to make the movie scary. This is not a scary movie if that is what some people are looking for. It is entertaining if being entertained is enough. Michelle Pfeiffer annoyed me with that constant silly expression she used to looked spooked! She always had her mouth opened. I think that she was not directed well in her performance. This movie was quite a change in character for Harrison Ford ( who is one of my favorite actors). Not his best performance, but acceptable. All in all, I liked the movie.