The Good: Moments of genuine suspense, Special effects
The Bad: Michelle Pfeiffer's acting, Ford's character, Utter predictability, Length, Pacing
The Basics: Using all of the most common and overused elements of a horror film, What Lies Beneath fails to capture the attention and imagination of the viewer.
[Note: This is a retro review! Originally printed in 2002 when I started writing reviews online, I liked my original opening and when I reread, it reminded me of something I had forgotten. Wow, those crabs died quick! Anyway, I liked the idea of that memory not being lost, so I have retained all of the original review. Enjoy!]
Last night, I did two things of lasting import: I bought a pair of crabs for my aquarium and I got a couple of movies out of the local library. One of those two films was What Lies Beneath. So, I put the fiddler crabs into the fish tank and I popped the movie in. I ought to have stuck with the crabs.
What Lies Beneath tells the tale of Claire Spencer, a housewife in Maine who is married to the overachieving Norman Spencer. Claire is feeling anxiety over her daughter leaving home and neglect from her husband working on an important thesis. She becomes anxious to the point that she believes the new neighbors are having troubles that have resulted in the husband next door killing his wife. The first hour of the film deals with a psychological breakdown that focuses on Claire and hallucinations she is having. She also seems to cut herself on everything possible in her environment. So, Claire has a little episode that ends with the revelation that the neighbor next door is alive and well. But the creepy occurrences that had been plaguing Claire before the truth was revealed continue as Claire researches a missing girl who matches one of her hallucinations. From then, the film becomes an interweaving of the missing girl, Claire's supernatural possession and an affair that Norman had a year ago.
The problem with What Lies Beneath is it's an obvious film. It is utterly obvious, following all of the conventions of a horror/suspense film. The doors open on their own, the windows open, Claire cuts herself. We know when Claire finds the bathtub full of water, she's going to see something in it, something that is designed to scare us. In fact, the only way one might be frightened by this film is if they've never once seen a horror flick. So common are the techniques used in What Lies Beneath that when the person I was watching the movie with began to become afraid, to alleviate the fear, I called the next few moments of the film. I was 97.5% right (I was wrong about a mast near the end of the film). It's all here as you would expect: the disappearing body, the sneak up behind, the person waiting behind the open refrigerator door. Plus, it's a horror film with a guy named Norman, so what do you think?
But more than that, the obviousness sucks away all enjoyment for anyone even remotely awake. That the word "Lies" fades in first and last in the opening title accents what we ought to have reasoned rather quickly: someone is lying. That obviousness continues, though, in all aspects of the film. This overuses the old adage, "If a gun is introduced in the first act, by the final curtain it must go off." In this film, you have keys and neurotoxins appear prominently and without obvious cause early in the film, then are deployed at times that we see coming a million miles away later on. And some of it is just plain idiotic. When the key is finally used is just plain insulting to anyone who has ever gone swimming.
Also problematic is the acting. First, Harrison Ford is given top billing when Michelle Pfeiffer deserves it. Most of the movie is Claire's story and she deserved the first billing on that alone. And it is that alone, because Pfeiffer's acting here is decidedly below par. I've been known to appreciate Michelle Pfeiffer's acting abilities, but here she is completely wasted. Pfeiffer's talents are being used to put Ally McBeal in a horror film. What I mean by that is that Pfeiffer's Claire Spencer is acted as if Spencer was Ally McBeal. It's like people around David E. Kelley can only conceive of one type of crazy woman. Go figure. But it is distracting and it is a serious detraction to taking this film seriously.
Harrison Ford never seems to hit his stride as Norman, either. There are moments (right now I'm thinking of a conversation Norman has with the dog in the final bathtub scene) where Ford seems to be playing Han Solo or Indiana Jones again. There are charming moments where he appears to be playing his character from Sabrina again. In short, he never defines Norman Spencer as a unique, original entity. He seems to be calling on his other (better) roles for this one.
In fact, the only real reason to bother with this flick is the first hour. In that first hour, some of the psychological questions about Claire Spencer's character are actually compelling enough to keep us guessing. But once things begin to get explained, well, it's all over then. This film was supposed to be terrifying, but I was calling shots early on and it had such a lack of an impression on me that I went and took a bath after it, then went to bed untroubled.
Well, not entirely untroubled. I was bothered that I had sat so long through such an obvious, poorly constructed film. That was time I could have been watching my new crabs.
For other films directed by Robert Zemeckis, please check out my reviews of:
A Christmas Carol
Forrest Gump
The Back To The Future Trilogy
3/10
For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!
© 2011, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |
No comments:
Post a Comment