Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Moriarty's Review of WHAT LIES BENEATH (With Opposing POV Included)!!!

Hey, all.

"Moriarty" here.

Last Friday night, I did something that pains me. I betrayed every instinct I had as a film geek. I paid the ultimate price for it, too, as I'm sure you'll confirm when you all call me a "COMPLETE AND UTTER DICKHEAD!!" in the Talk Back section below. I know it. I knew it when I did it. I was wrong. But I did what I did out of a sense of duty to the site. Turns out, even Harry knew what was the right thing to do, but the bastard was in Prague, and we didn't have a chance to talk about it.

As a result of that choice, I missed finally seeing EVIL DEAD 2 in a theater. Private screening. And I heard Raimi was going to be present. Do you have any idea how much I would have loved to have seen that? Wait... of course you do. You're AICN readers. You know EXACTLY how much I would have loved to have seen that... same amount as you.

But I had already spoken to DreamWorks and set up my participation in the press day for WHAT LIES BENEATH, this Friday's big release. I was set to interview Ford, Pfeiffer, Zemeckis, and a few others. And the media screening for the film was set for Friday night. So I had a choice... blow off one of the summer's remaining big films and a day of press with some huge names for a screening of a 13 year old horror film I've seen four dozen times, or go and be a professional and see the one that is based on the script I hated when I first reviewed it on the site last spring. Hmmmmm...

Like a moron, I went and saw WHAT LIES BENEATH. I make no bones about it... I am mad at this movie. Not only did I lose 130 minutes of my life that I will never get back, but I MISSED EVIL DEAD 2 TO DO IT. The hatred I feel for this film knows no bounds. The contempt I have for every failed scare, every wasted frame, every expensive but masturbatory effect... it's off the charts. Harry hinted at that in an intro for a review the other day, prompting "Kirk" to write in with the following, challenging me to put it up if I was a fair man.

I saw What Lies Beneath last week and and stll dumbfounded at the level of bitterness in the couple of the reviews posted on this site. the audience I saw it wil could not stop screaming. warning to Ford fans, you might not like the last reel's representation of your favorite film hero (great for the movie though). BTW, trailer does not give away dick!

The film's first hour and 10 minutes is a lean, focused, set up for its sit-at-the-edge-of-your-seat final reel. Zemeckis efficiently introduces you to the film's two primary characters and although Ford sits out most of the first half, he more than makes up for it with his jolting presence in the final act (one that left me disturbed-in thrilling way).

Silvistri's score is on target for the mood of this film, I had heard that it evokes Bernard Herman's work on Rear Window and The Man Who Knew Too Much-boy it does and it works great here.

Pfeiffer: Amazing. I have always admired her talent, but she literary carries this film on her shoulder (not a small feat for a film with Harrison Ford in it).

Ford: Great. People keep talking about the fact that they want to see him do something different; it won't get more extreme than this. Jack Ryan he is not (can't talk about this too much without giving away the heart stopping ending).

Overall, the best thriller/horror I have seen in years, Zemeckis is a genius with the camera. I will see it again just to figure out how some of the shots involving the bath tub were accomplished.

What lies Beneath will be a huge hit for Dreamworks and Fox. The question is how big?

Okay... give me a minute here.

I'm trying to fathom how a review like the one above gets written. Or the one that David Poland ran at Rough Cut, or the one Jeffrey Wells ran at Reel.com. I'm trying to understand how audiences aren't catcalling this thing off the screen. I mean, I've been out of step with other critics before, but normally I can tell you when I walk out, "I'm alone on that one." Not here. This should be an easy call. All I can think is that the name Zemeckis blinds people, or that the Ford/Pfeiffer combo is so irresistable that these people have surrendered their critical abilities completely.

When I first talked about the script, I took a lot of heat from people for reviewing "an early draft." Turns out what I wrote about is exactly what I saw, with the addition of one set piece near the end. We'll get to that set piece later on, after you reach the spoiler section of my review. Oh, yes... there will be spoilers. There will be mighty spoilers, because without them, you might not understand what I'm talking about. You might just hear tale of the "soon-to-be-classic" bathtub scene and think there's something special waiting for you. I'd hate for you to think that, so... get ready.

First, though, let's talk about the film's most basic problem... that script by Clark Gregg. Someone needs to slam this man's fingers in a door repeatedly before allowing him anywhere near another word processor. Everything I said about the script originally holds true in the final execution onscreen:

"The picture basically plays out as a combination of this year’s IN DREAMS and Harrison Ford’s PRESUMED INNOCENT. Without ruining what little there is to ruin about the film, it’s built as a mystery revolving around a ghost that appears in the life of Claire, a housewife who’s married to a perfect college professor named Norman. These are the Pfeiffer/Ford roles respectively. The film begins with their daughter leaving for college and Claire suffering through what seems at first like a mild case of “empty nest syndrome.” Claire quickly becomes obsessed with what she is sure is a haunting in their home. At first, there’s a nod to REAR WINDOW, with her convinced that the new couple next door has had a massive fight, ending with the husband disposing of his wife’s body in the middle of the night. Even upon first reading, though, this was obviously a narrative dead end. It’s obvious from page one who the ghost is, why the ghosts exists, and who’s responsible for the ghost. That’s a major structural problem. This film is built around the central mystery of whether the ghost exits and who it might be, but there’s really no suspense here. Any reader would see these twists coming 20 to 40 pages before they actually do."

Yep. IN DREAMS and PRESUMED INNOCENT are exactly the two films that got stuck in the Brundlechamber to make this mutant script. That REAR WINDOW nod takes up a staggering amount of screen time now. It's amazing. The neighbors might as well be named Mr. and Mrs. Red Herring. The movie I kept thinking of when I saw this material was THE 'BURBS, not REAR WINDOW. The difference? I liked THE 'BURBS. Joe Dante knew that these stories are so done to death that we can't take them seriously anymore. He lampooned the genre mercilessly. Zemeckis, on the other hand, seems to believe that no one has ever seen a movie about a haunted house or a ghost before. It's as if he believes that Hitchcock's entire film legacy is a secret that only he is in on. Of course, that's not the case, and he knows it. He makes bloody sure to mention Hitchcock (no fewer than three times in five pages!!) in the press notes for this film, almost as if hypnotizing us into mentioning it, into believing that this is in some way worthy of being tied to Hitch's legacy. It's not. Not in any way. This is the phoniest kind of filmmaking, all technique and no soul. The attempts at characterization in the beginning of the film are perfunctory, matter of fact, the exposition being ladled on with ham hands. I'm shocked, to be honest, at how badly done this is. Remember, folks... this is Robert Zemeckis, whose Academy Award-nominated screenplay for BACK TO THE FUTURE is one of the most graceful examples I've ever seen of setup and payoff. No detail was wasted, and as a result, the film kept delighting us in scene after scene as we realized just what sort of surprises Zemeckis and his co-author Bob Gale had built into the film for us. There was a willingness to do anything to entertain, a sly wit that made BTTF special and memorable, often imitated but never equalled. Clark Gregg's screenplay collapses at every important turn. When someone makes a phone call just to talk about an experimental drug that paralyzes someone for ten minutes, it's so out of place, so obviously dropped in to set up a later moment, that when it finally happens, it's after an hour or more of knowing it's going to happen. His "clues" regarding the neighbors are so fake, so obviously laid out to fool us, that we sit through that entire half hour of film impatient, waiting for them to finish with the dead end subplot and just start the damn film already.

Zemeckis the director... ah, what do I say here? I guess I have to start by saying that Zemeckis has been a profound influence on me as a filmmaker. Along with the BACK TO THE FUTURE films, I consider USED CARS, I WANNA HOLD YOUR HAND, ROMANCING THE STONE, WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT?, DEATH BECOMES HER, and CONTACT to all be above average entertainment, executed at an awe-inspiring level of technical mastery. I like this guy. I have major, major, major issues with his Oscar-annointed FORREST GUMP, but it's more with Eric Roth's script than with the work that Zemeckis did. Here, though, I found myself growing more and more annoyed with the work he was doing, until it actually made me ball my fists up, angry. This is the worst kind of jacking off, a total waste of resources. His much-ballyhooed "invisible" effects work in this movie is useless. There's no reason aside from ego and bloat that this film need ever cost $90 million. That's shameful. Sure, Dreamworks has the money to spend, and Imagemovers is Zemeckis' company, so he can do and spend whatever the hell he wants, but WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD HE WANT TO SPEND THAT MUCH!?! Danny Boyle's SHALLOW GRAVE contains more genuine scares in any fifteen minutes of its running time than this film contains in its full interminable 130 minutes, and I'll bet Boyle's whole budget didn't touch the catering bill on WHAT LIES BENEATH. Suspense is not built by using elaborate crane arms to hide your cameras from mirrors. Suspense is not built by gradually lowering the camera, so that as things become "scarier," the perspective becomes lower and lower, looking up at characters instead of looking at them from eye-level. Suspense is not built by color coding your film to go from light to dark to light. Suspense is built with characters and situations we invest in. It's built best when you trust an audience and respect them and play against expectation. And a house isn't scary just because it's haunted. Slamming doors and broken picture frames aren't frightening on their own, no matter how many cows go moo in the theater. All of Zemeckis' tricks feel like tricks in this film. It's the first time I've ever caught him working while watching one of his films. It was jarring, suddenly seeing the guy behind the curtain, pulling levers and twisting knobs to make the Great and Terrible Oz work for me. Once I spotted his hand in the film, once his tricks took center stage, the rest of the film fell flat. It just lay there, inert, never lurching to anything even resembling life. A big part of that is pace. For some reason, Zemeckis seems to have drugged all his actors before they started their scenes. Everyone moves like they're running in very thick tar. Maybe it was just something Zemeckis suggested so that no one would wake Harrison Ford up.

I mean, god forbid Harrison Ford actually be required to engage our interest or give something resembling a performance. After all, "he's, ummmm.... uhhhhh.... ummmmmm.... just a carpenter who, ummmmm.... got, uh, got, ummmmm.... who got lucky," not a real-live professional actor. Or at least, that's the shtick he's stil peddling at every press junket and interview stop. If I hear this old man call me his "customer" one more time, I'm going to demand to see the Suggestions box, and I'm going to ask for my nine dollars back. For every film since 1990. By now, it's old hat to criticize him for backing out of TRAFFIC. It's his loss. Soderbergh's just wrapped shooting on what very well may be this year's Best Picture winner, and Ford is left with this floating turd. What a trade. It used to be a joke about how Ford had stopped acting except for his first finger on each hand. Now it's not so funny. He brings out his greatest trick, THE FINGER OF DOOM, at least five times in the film, and each time, I felt like a seal trainer, like I should throw him a fish. "Good Harrison. You look weally, weally angwy. Here's a tweat!!" His performance is rigged, too, with him making an abrupt change in behavior and demeanor that is so jarring, so false, that it takes him from being a character (even if it is a thinly-drawn, weakly-acted one) to a cartoon monster. More on that below in the spoilers section, though.

If anyone walks away from this one with their dignity intact, it's almost Michelle Pfeiffer. I say almost because I'm not convinced. I mean, come on... backing down the stairs with the killer laying at the bottom of them?! Is she supposed to be playing the single stupidest woman ever born? The only character who has any flesh hanging on the bare bones that Gregg has created is Claire. She's given little hints of a life before the film, before her marriage to Norman. She was evidently a cellist, a great one, who sublimated much of her life to marry Norman, her second husband. She already had her daughter when she got married, and when she sends her little girl to school, it's genuinely traumatic. All of that material is etched memorably by Pfeiffer, but it goes nowhere. It doesn't inform any of the behavior we see from her in the film. Her being a cellist, a musician, has no bearing on anything. Her potential resentment of her life with Norman is never explored with any sort of depth. All these threads suggest a better movie that might have existed if Norman had been written with any of the same maturity. As the film degenerates into a dumb suspense movie, though, Pfeiffer finds herself stranded. She gets to try and take things from the dead (NO, REALLY, HE'S DEAD, SO TOUCH HIM) killer's motionless body. She gets to tamper with "forces she doesn't understand" and play possessed. She gets to go through all seventy-three false endings, screaming and stumbling and weak and ultimately helpless. I understand what would have attracted Pfeiffer to the role, but even her fine work here can't save what was on the page.

I understand that Zemeckis wanted to try and be subtle with the manifestations of the haunting in Claire and Norman's house, but in trying to be subtle, he's gone lifeless. He falls back on the same gags over and over. A door opens without anyone touching it. Someone appears in a mirror behind a main character. It's all based on the JOLT!! and it's dreadfully uninteresting. I've seen every single attempted scare in this film before in other movies. To be fair, I've never seen so many of the same gags done in one film before, so maybe Zemeckis was trying to make some sort of statement on the art of repetition. I don't know... I can't quite get a grip on his gameplan. Admittedly, he was distracted while pumping this out, since he was shooting it right in the middle of his CAST AWAY production schedule. That film's got a beautiful, powerful, human screenplay, and I'm dying to see it. Making a film like that, a film that really demands that you give something of yourself as an artist, I can see how Zemeckis decided that his "vacation" movie would just be a goof, a lark. I think maybe he thought the script was slight, and that was its appeal. The problem is, Zemeckis directs it like it's all deadly important. Despite the fact that it's numbingly predictable, Zemeckis reveals each "secret" to us as if it's going to change our lives. Diana Scarwid, in particular, is saddled with one of the most ridiculous expository scenes of the film, having to cry her way through a painful revelation about the past that finishes the puzzle for her friend Claire. It's supposed to be a bombshell, but the damn poster for the film gives it away. Keep in mind, this is information we're learning almost two hours into the film.

And that brings us to what I warned you about... the spoilers. I'm going to talk about this film's ending now, and I'm going to do so without pulling any punches. If you are masochistic enough to still want to see this thing, then you're done here. Go witness it with your own two eyes, then God have mercy on your soul, and enjoy. For those of you who would like my final thoughts on exactly why you owe it to yourself to skip this mess, then scroll down and read on.





























Okay... still with me? Good. Let's start with the poster line. This is why I don't feel bad. Dreamworks made a point of asking us to not give away any of the film's surprises, but they wrote this tag line: "He was the perfect husband until his one mistake followed them home." Ummmmmm... okay. So the ghost is Norman's fault. That would pretty much eliminate all the suspense from the whole next-door-neighbor-did-he-kill-her-or-didn't-he? storyline. It would also eliminate the tension from the hour of unfocused "investigation" that follows that mistaken identity episode. When Norman finally reveals that he was having an affair with the dead girl who is haunting their house, he offers some lame story about her killing herself and sheds a few crocodile tears. For some reason, Michelle Pfeiffer then stays in the same house with him for several more sequences until *gasp* it is revealed that Norman's lying again, and he's actually a killer. I wasn't real clear on why she was staying around. It had something to do with the magic book and the magic hair that she ends up with. Really. I'm not kidding. Anyway, she ends up in a prime Snidley Whiplash/PERILS OF PAULINE position in what should be the film's grand finale, the riveting bathtub scene, Norman's knockout drug in full effect so she's awake but paralyzed. He puts her in the tub and starts to fill it, knowing she'll drown, the drug will wear off, and it will look like an accident. However, for some reason, he has to fall down in the shower and stage an accident first. I'm not sure how this relates to her drowning in the tub, but Norman assures us that it does. He lays out all his evil thoughts and plans for her, as all good villains must, then promptly slips and hits his head, collapsing to the floor. Dead. Really. Well, except for when he pops back up (or at least the Finger of Doom does) from the floor. Except for that, he's dead. And except for when he crawls away. He's dead after that. Sort of. But not really. A few times. AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON. And what visual panache are we treated to in the bathtub scene? Riveting shots of Michelle Pfeiffer's toe!! Long suspenseful shots of the drain. And during the whole thing, we're supposed to believe that Zemeckis is going to drown the main character and let her evil hissable husband win. Right. Great fear is based on the knowledge that anything can happen to our lead character... anything. And there's not one bit of that here. Because Norman is written so poorly, we know he's just a device, a trick, a boogeyman dressed up in movie star clothes. He's not scary because he's so obvious. Claire has to survive. She has to win. Otherwise there's no reason to sit through the film. Knowing that, Zemeckis doesn't bother creating any sort of new suspense. He relies on the oldest, tiredest tricks possible. Many of the things he does just don't make any sense. There's a big deal made about how a cell phone will only work from the middle of a particular bridge. In the ending, there's a desperate drive to get to the middle of the bridge. The phone starts working, a call is made to 911, and then Claire drives off the bridge for no good reason. The 911 call? Has no bearing at all on the outcome of Claire and Norman's story. All that happens at the bottom of the river, right in the exact spot Norman hid the dead girl's body. Good luck that, eh?

Folks... you're free to go see this film. Many of you will. Some of you might even like it for some reason. But I'm trying to do you a favor here. If you end up seeing this film, it's your own damn fault. I didn't have anyone who was willing to grab me and stop me and say, "Damn it, Moriarty, what are you thinking?! EVIL DEAD 2, man!!" I should have known better, and I still fell for it. You know better, too, now. What you do with it is your call.

"Moriarty" out.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • July 19, 2000, 11:28 a.m. CST

    Numero uno.

    by Batutta

  • July 19, 2000, 11:44 a.m. CST

    *pointing finger menacingly*

    by r_dimitri22

    "Ghost, you leave us alone!"

  • July 19, 2000, 11:57 a.m. CST

    Bernard Herrmann didn't do Rear Window!

    by lodi_dodi

    Friederich von Flotow did the score, and I don't think it was an original score either. Get it straight!

  • July 19, 2000, 11:58 a.m. CST

    Franz Waxman too

    by lodi_dodi

    Franz Waman did the score, Friederich was only part of it, sorry. Anyway Herrman didn't do it.

  • July 19, 2000, 12:03 p.m. CST

    IJ AND THE FINGER OF DOOM

    by Steve Young

    <VOICE SHAKING FROM MORAL OUTRAGE> HOW *DARE* YOU HAUNT US! HOW *DARE* YOU! <POINT POINT POINT> <JAB JAB JAB>

  • July 19, 2000, 12:04 p.m. CST

    "Bad Dates"

    by mrbeaks

    If only Sallah had been around to warn everyone off of this project. This time, it's Harrison who goes the way of the monkey. I can't believe they stuck so closely to Gregg's script. Forget comparing it to REAR WINDOW, or even THE 'BURBS, I'd compare it to that episode of "Alf" where our beloved cat eating alien suspects the next door neighbor has killed and buried his wife when, in actuality, he's only buried a side of beef. When this film was finished unspooling, I was left to wonder if it had replaced TOYS as the Best Looking Bad Film Ever Made. I now await for Zemeckis to redeem himself with CAST AWAY.

  • The first time I saw it was in front of Mission: Impossible 2. Then Me, Myself and Irene then Scary Movie then the Patriot. I swear, it looked mildly intriguing the first time but now I just get sick when I see it. My friends and I have contests over who can shout "Your wife!!!" with Michelle Pfieffer the most menacingly at the end of the trailer. Speaking of the trailer, its really poorly made. I don't think audiences know what the hell to make of this film. It starts off as some sordid lovemaking competition with the neighbors, then branches into a story of deception and marital digressions, and then they throw the ghost in there. What the hell?

  • July 19, 2000, 12:21 p.m. CST

    agreed, moriarty

    by thatsincredibill

    moriarty is spot-on in this review. but it's going to make money for the same reason Double Jeaopardy made tons of money despite a stupid script and an ad campaign that gave everything away. people want to know what they're going to see and they want the bad guy punished and they don't care if it makes any sense. not me, but a lot of people. i saw a press screening last week and this movie pissed me off.

  • July 19, 2000, 12:39 p.m. CST

    Ouch! Tell us how you REALLY feel, Moriarty!

    by Lance Rock

    Still, I'm gonna predict a $19 M open.

  • July 19, 2000, 12:44 p.m. CST

    Moriarty is a god damn moron

    by jmb

    You know as well as I do that if Harrison Ford stood before you that you would bend down and blow him just like the trained seal that you are Moriarty. And Evil Dead 2. What a piece of shit. I heard harrison just whipped his ass with Bruce Cambell's career .

  • July 19, 2000, 12:46 p.m. CST

    Moriarity is god damn moron cont.

    by jmb

    Forgive the typo but harrison just wiped his ass with Bruce Cambell's career.

  • July 19, 2000, 12:51 p.m. CST

    that's all great

    by Hotspur

    but I bet I'll go see it anyway. I mean it has Harrison Ford in it. Ok, I've left the cinema just pissed of the last three times I have been to a Ford film. I guess this will be the fourth time!

  • July 19, 2000, 12:52 p.m. CST

    Thats DAMN right JMB

    by JoeBanks918

    I am sooo sick an tired of these geek ass wannabes talken smack about the GOD of film. Moriarty you know as well as the rest of these Ford bashers that if Dr.Jones walked up to your sorry pathetic excuse of a movie fan ass and asked you to suck him off you would say yes sir Capt Solo. So shut up and kneel before your master Ford!!! I laugh for the day when Jones 4 comes on and all these geeks are first in line to see this "OLD MAN" make their hearts soar with adventure.

  • July 19, 2000, 12:54 p.m. CST

    Is it really worse than 6 Days 7 Nights?

    by Fatal Discharge

    Ummmm...but Ford didn't pass up TRAFFIC to do WHAT LIES BENEATH (this film was already done). I wonder if Zemeckis is going to go ahead and remake William Castle's MACABRE though? Seems pretty lightweight for him. By the way, FORREST GUMP was way overrated in my opinion too but CONTACT didn't get the credit it deserved for being a serious and at points moving science-fiction film.

  • July 19, 2000, 12:57 p.m. CST

    Never again, Harrison

    by Godard?

    Ever since the scene in Air Force One where the chunky flight attendant chuckled giddly as she parachuted to safety, I promised myself I wouldnt see another Harrison Ford movie unless it was Indy 4. NO ONE wants to see What Lies Beneath. The common, everyday filmgoers (Ma & Pa) who saw the trailer in the theater probably dont know much about Zemeckis, so to them, this movie looks like a cheap-trick thriller hot off the heels of sixth sense, whereas the educated filmgoers know well enough that this is Zemeckis's demon child and should be avoided at all costs. At least castaway looks somewhat interesting. Personally, I hope Tom Hanks gets raped and eaten by cannibals. Not in the movie. In real life. I dunno.

  • July 19, 2000, 12:57 p.m. CST

    Moriarty should take his thumb out of his butt

    by LeonardTheLizard

    and lighten up. It's not obvious from the onset that Harrison's character is the killer. You cite the tag, "his one mistake followed him home." What's his mistake? His affair. Why did it/she follow him home? It's slowly revealed throughout the trailer. Your pontificating sickens me. You're not Harry. Get over yourself.

  • July 19, 2000, 1:19 p.m. CST

    been there 2..

    by Mephisto440

    I can feel along with Moriarty, I 2 had the chance to see an exclusive film: at the dutch film festival gala of the century paul verhoeven's film: turkish delight became the best dutch movie of the century it was screened with almost the complete cast of the film including a young cameraman by the name of jan de bont (yes the other big dutch name in Hollywood)..to get back to the story I missed it to see a really bad movie called The delivery (or atleast that's my humble opinion...

  • July 19, 2000, 1:55 p.m. CST

    Ummm... I'm, ummmm.... Uhhhh....

    by Moriarty

    SPIT IT OUT, HARRISON!!! JUST SAY IT!!! Can you imagine if he actually delivered all his lines like he answers questions in interviews? This film would have run an addition 45 minutes, and there would be mass suicides during every screening. To those of you who charge that I would "blow" Harrison by virtue of his past work, I beg to differ. There are no interviews here because I cancelled my attendance at the press day. I decided that I really didn't feel like sitting in a room with people who made tripe like this pretending to care about anything they have to say. I have liked these people before, but this combination was lethal, and it was enough to sour me for good on Harrison and his sleepwalking. You're still buying the act? Congratulations. Mooooooo. Mooooooo. Keep paying him his $20 million to not care. Let him phone in an INDY 4 to keep the cattle happy. Give me a break.

  • July 19, 2000, 1:58 p.m. CST

    FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by SKubrick

    Is that not genius putting the camera angles low--This movie will rock

  • July 19, 2000, 2:22 p.m. CST

    Moriarty

    by jmb

    Jesus, Moriarty, maybe Harrison doesn't like giving interviews. Sorry he is not a great public speaker. He has said numerous times that he has trouble speaking in front of groups of people. And good thing you are a better and more popular actor than he is. Harrison has a gift of acting average. He acts how most of us would act in the type of situation that the movie calls for. He is not an over actor like some people. The reason people like him so much is because he isn't like all those hollywood pricks, and the more you write, the more you sound like one of these over-critical asshole critcs. The critics that can't speak for the general public, cause they think they are so much better than the average person.

  • July 19, 2000, 2:35 p.m. CST

    Uh, so much for a spoiler, the trailer gave all that away alread

    by Austin Powers

    There wasn't anything in the spoiler of Moriartiy's there that wasn't already in the trailer, except for the bathtub thing, and even there we see Pfeifer's face rising up through the surface of the water to take a breath. The entire Harrison Ford's character's past with the girl is already know to audiences who have seen the trailer. Even if this movie was worth watching, the trailer would ruin every single point of suspense in the movie!

  • July 19, 2000, 2:38 p.m. CST

    God bless Moriarty, and these Talkback hypocrites can go fuck a

    by One Angry Dwarf

    You stupid knuckle-dragging sister-fuckers. Every goddamn time Harry posts a review you assholes whine, "Stop being such a geek, Harry! Get an editor, Harry! Have some professionalism, Harry!" You lambaste him for searching out the gold nuggets, even in a terrible film. Along comes Moriarty, with a well-written, professional review that analyzes the movies many, many faults one at a time, and now you want it the other way around. "Don't be so critical! Just go with the flow!" You absolute zeroes. I hope Bob Zemeckis bends you over and rapes each and every one of your cornholes. For nine dollars, you all will be the cheapest whores in America. And for the record, the reason why Evil Dead 2 was a great flick, is becasue IT WAS FUN. Did all you short-bus-dwellers hear me? Or do you art snobs have your head so far up your own patooties that you forgot the word "entertainment." EVIL DEAD 2 WAS FUNNY AND SCARY AND SMART, THREE THINGS THAT THIS MOVIE NEVER IS. Moriarty, you're a true evil genius and at least one reader appreciates you. Everyone else can line up an suck my dwarf nads.

  • July 19, 2000, 2:47 p.m. CST

    Darth Delicious lets everyone know why he no longer posts.

    by Darth Delicious

    http://www.filmthreat.com/Features.asp?File=FeaturesOne.inc&Id=186 I don't even want to visit the site anymore. To think that my "hits" have somehow helped Hairy, et al, makes me sick to my gut.

  • July 19, 2000, 2:50 p.m. CST

    But... Moriarty's Right (!)

    by Superdudebobby

    I've also seen WLB at a press screening and must agree with the Professor's (ridiculously longwinded) review: it's very bad. We're talking the worst exposition this side of 'Mission to Mars'; the scene in which the mouse-paralysis-poison is set up is actually even worse than the doctor described it, as he left out the detail that someone actually asks "So, uh, that would work on other mammals as well, right?". What?! What kind of writing is that? BTW, M, be glad you didn't go to the press junket. Not a critical note was raised -- everyone was like "how did you enjoy acting with Ms. Pfeiffer?" and crap like that, when the real question on everyone's mind was how the hell this P.O.S. script got filmed. (Ford once again talked like he was auditioning for Meet Joe Black, BTW). So quit yer harassing of Moriarty, folks -- the old Evil Genius may have had his share of misjudgments and misfires recently, but as far as I'm concerned he's right about this film and he's right about Ford's shtick getting mighty old (although, M, not every one of his films since 1990 warrants a refund in my book: The Fugitive worked). To recap: avoid this one. - SDB

  • July 19, 2000, 2:51 p.m. CST

    Quickly losing faith in Moriarty!

    by keeper

    Just went to see The Patriot yesterday. Not bad. Could have been better but wasn't it supposed to be some sort of masterpiece? I really thought you were going to dish up the goods this Summer Moriarty but calling an ok film a masterpiece really shakes my confidence in your abilities to pick out the real winners from the also-rans.

  • July 19, 2000, 3:21 p.m. CST

    Having seen this, I can tell you that Moriarty is 5/6ths correct

    by Deltahead

    Only Michele Pfieffer is worth anything in this film. She's classy enough to dance around the obvious stupidity of the script and actually make it seem fresh (for brief periods of time). The rest is a complete and utter waste. Bad writing, no character development (except Pfieffer, who gets some slight development that goes nowhere, like Moriarty noted) and an absolute lack of scary moments. The three main words for this movie are: Avoid Avoid Avoid.

  • July 19, 2000, 3:28 p.m. CST

    Evil Dead 2 in a theater

    by smegger

    Hey all, I was one of the lucky ones who happened to see Evil Dead 2 in the theaters. It was a very cool experience. I don't remember this movie getting a lot of press, so a friend and I were going to see it because we were fans of the original. We didn't know what we were in for. About 15 minutes into the movie, the audience started laughing their asses off. I started to get pissed. This was a serious horror movie! The audience shouldn't be laughing. Soon, my friend and I started giggling and looking at each other. We were puzzled. Was this movie so bad that we were laughing at it, or was it supposed to be funny? We caught on soon enough and joined in on the laughter. To put it in perspective, I cannot remember an audience laughing as much at a movie until I saw "Something About Mary" in the theaters. I think the fact that I wasn't expecting a comedy made it even funnier. One of my most memorable movie going experiences, right up there with "Amazon Women on the Moon" (positive experience) and "Yor, Hunter From the Future" (the only movie I have ever fallen asleep to in the theaters.)

  • July 19, 2000, 4:01 p.m. CST

    So, Darth Delicious, you'd rather have FilmThreat?

    by user id indeed!

    Have oodles of fun! Don't be surprised if you find it's suddenly offline after Gore's Movie Show is cancelled and he is thrown into a paralyzing depression. Moron. Don't you ever wonder why Harry doesn't post idiot "essays" about how horrible people higher than him are? Because he's at the top. Why is he at the top? BECAUSE HE NEVER STOOPED TO WRITING ABOUT PEOPLE. Just MOVIES. He never bothered writing about how horrible some celebrity is because of this or that. He stayed to the topics, which are movies and fanboyism. He's a raging geek, and he's proud of it. Trying to call him anything other than a geek is ignorant and a waste of Harry's time. You heard me, HARRY'S time. Because HARRY went through the trouble to make this damn site and it's TalkBack. You and anybody else putting Harry down is like getting on Tv and telling everyone how evil the inventor of the television is. Gore's "in depth" writing (you mean people PAY for Harry's screenings?!!? My value system is shattered!! I thought he grew a money tree and plucked $20s from its plentiful branches!!!) is to AICN as the Enquirer is to The Tribune. In other words, crap. Harry doesn't like movies because he's paid to like them, he likes movies because he's a geek, and if you couldn't tell by the way he lavishes his love on movies like "Robinson Crusoe on Mars", you deserve FilmThreat. Enjoy yourself, but remember that every hit you "give" Gore is just an encouragement for more untrue tabloid mudslinging on the internet. Congratulations, and get the hell outta here. This has been a Moment w/User ID Indeed!

  • July 19, 2000, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Slightly off topic, but....

    by AZMoviez

    Could someone send me the "Ford Finger of Doom" acting page? I lost it a while back and I need a laugh.

  • July 19, 2000, 4:19 p.m. CST

    jmb

    by Anton_Sirius

    Seethe with jealousy much? Oh, by the way, writing 'whipped' instead of 'wiped' isn't a typo. It's you trying to sound clever within your limited command of the language and fucking up.

  • July 19, 2000, 4:21 p.m. CST

    What Lies Beneath-spoilers

    by Private Ryan

    I also saw this film a couple weeks ago at a free screening at the Metreon in San Francisco. No, it was not a great movie, nor a pairticularly good one. The whole red herring thing went on too long, and the film dragged at many points. But the performances were better than Moriarty gives credit for Pfeifer was good, but Ford was also good in a diefferent role for him. Moriarty talked about how Ford's character made a drastic change in character from loving husband to psycho...true but it was logical...he was trying to hide his secret, that he was a killer. It makes sence, and it was one of the few things in this film that did make sence. I liked Ford in this for once, after the disasters that were Six Days/ Seven Nights and Random Hearts. Overall, I think Morirarty was a little too angry at this film (and I would rather see Evil Dead 2 anyday)and though it is no masterpiece, it isn't quite as bad as he says it is. The ending was not very suprisng. The movie itself was just mediocre, and not as terrible as Moriarty would have you think.

  • July 19, 2000, 4:29 p.m. CST

    Harrison's Career

    by Anton_Sirius

    Look, he obviously doesn't want to be a star. It's apparant in every begrudging interview and yawn-inducing "performance". So why do you selfish bastards insist on keeping him A-list? If you cared about him at all you'd stop seeing his movies and let him ride off into the sunset with some small shred of his dignity left intact. Three big flops in a row and he could legitimately claim he was done and retire. But NOOOOOOOO, you pricks make absolute shite like Air Force One (and this one, I'm sure- although Presumed Innocent didn't do much at the ole b.o., did it? Hmm) nine-digit hits and force him back out onto the lot for yet another humiliating go-'round. His best days are behind him- you know it, he knows it. LET THE MAN BE, says I. LET THE MAN BE.

  • July 19, 2000, 5:11 p.m. CST

    hey ben

    by ShiteBoy

    <<I suddenly have a bad taste in my mouth.>> must be from christain gore's dick right? whats your real name, fucky mcjerkwad? i. suk cockforanickle? if you dont have anything nice to say about somebody then go stick your dick in an electric pencle sharpener (chris told me it would fit.)

  • July 19, 2000, 5:56 p.m. CST

    crap!

    by B Wayne

    This movie looked like a piece of shit anyway. Harrison Ford should go back to what he knows how to do best and that's kicking ass!!

  • July 19, 2000, 6:08 p.m. CST

    those who've made it

    by OWNERX

    It is fair enough to say this movie sucks--it probably does--,but it is another thing when a critic tells directors and actors--professionals, no less--how they should've done things differently. There is a reason these three people get the chance to make floating turds like this. And that is their track records. The review I just read sounded like jealous whining from somebody who would cream in his trousers if either Zemeckis, Ford or Pfeiffer would listen to his wannabe dreams of stardom. I critics job is to critique--not insult. THose who can't do teach......

  • July 19, 2000, 6:21 p.m. CST

    Yo Ben Dover

    by Deltahead

    It's absolutely true that some movies are meant for pure entertainment value, with no artistic merit. Evil Dead 2 is a great example. But according to this review, and the general opinion by other critics, WLB fails even at that. If it provides no entertainment value, and no artistic merit, and bad acting, and bad writing, why then.... it's a turd.

  • July 19, 2000, 6:57 p.m. CST

    I WANNA HOLD YOUR HAND- Its all downhill after that

    by houndog

    Let's face it, the man makes melodramatic shite. Gump, Contact, UGH!

  • July 19, 2000, 7:40 p.m. CST

    What's up Anton?

    by jmb

    Are you taking my comments a bit too seriously? Typo's are typo's no matter how you look at it. Maybe you studied English Composition for 10 years, but I don't remember talkback being an arena for the brilliant minds of our society. So I apologize for the second time, since it seems to bother you so much. There was no mysterious cleverness involved there Anton it was just a typo. "Seethe in jealousy much" Is that all that you could come up with? I read your comments about harrison career, and I should ask you the same question.

  • July 19, 2000, 8:08 p.m. CST

    Horror and Art, Zemeckis, Ford...

    by Lazarus Long

    Where to begin? Zemeckis doesn't hold much appeal for me as a filmmaker (I revile Forrest Gump more than possibly any other film), yet his projects are usually interesting enough to warrant seeing (Castaway, Contact). Here it's "Watch an Academy Award winning director turn his talents to scaring you out of your pants!" Let's look back at a previous example: William Friedkin, after winning the oscar for The French Connection, took on the adaption of The Exorcist as his next film project. He teamed with recent Best Actress winner Ellen Burstyn. And he made one of the scariest horror films ever, near-perfect in almost every aspect of filmmaking, breaking boundaries in some areas (sound effects, blasphemous images). The film went on to be nominated for Best Picture, and arguably should have won (1973 winner was The Sting). So why does Zemeckis fail here? As Moriarty reported, LAME SCRIPT. As we all know, LAME LEADING ACTOR (or at least, not a very emotional one). Ellen Burstyn went through almost as much hell as her character making The Exorcist. It shows. Pfeiffer may be good, but she wasn't able to save Batman Returns either. Anyone with a $90 million dollar budget can have a good-looking film. Yes, Zemeckis is a competent director with a sense of framing. But without an emotional connection to the material, or an interesting perspective on the material (which is fluff anyway), there's no surprise this is a piece of crap. Kubrick may have not been that connected to The Shining, but one, he's probably the exception to many rules, and his cold detatchment worked well considering the location and the cabin-fever aspect of the story. Zemeckis is a hack, a kind of genre-Spielberg with a pedigree featuring some imaginitive earlier work, and a later career with some preachy sentimentality from an immature perspective. God knows we don't need another one of those. But that's what wins oscars, I guess. It worked for Kevin Costner, too. And looked what happened to his next project. Maybe What Lies Beneath should have been titled "Waterworld 2", from all the lame aquatic motifs...

  • July 19, 2000, 8:28 p.m. CST

    MORAIRITY IS A FUCKIN IDIOT

    by SKubrick

    he said patriot was a masterpiece, ah i didnt see no masterpiece. YOU FUCKIN HARRISON FORD HATORS ON THIS WEBSITE. GO to DARK HORIZONS and see the review of "What Lies Beneath"-theres a real review. NOT SOME SHIT EATING I HATE FORD REVIEW.

  • July 19, 2000, 8:37 p.m. CST

    Moriarty, I have the same hatred for THE PATRIOT

    by Drath

    Piece of shit that should have been called DEATHWISH 1776: This time, it's historical! Sometimes, crap just doesn't get recognized as crap until it's sucked millions down the latrene with it on its dark odyssey.

  • July 19, 2000, 8:43 p.m. CST

    MORIARTY ...

    by moto

    It's funny to see a guy like you rip on Zemeckis, Ford, etc. while you STICK UP for BRUCE CAMPBELL whenever you get the chance! It really does give you merit:) Look, you didn't like the film. Get over it. SOME people WILL like the film. Get over it. It's ridiculous for you to say that "you're just trying to do us a favor" by "warning us". GET OFF THAT FALSE THRESHOLD YOU'VE PUT YOURSELF ON. You talk big about Hollywood... fine. Big deal. There's thousands of others like myself working in the film industry too. Who cares? I'm off on a tangent now. Basically, as a (what the hell are you? a critic? hmmm), I find it BEYOND lame that you don't tell people to find out for themselves. Sure you warned people along the lines of "go, decide for yourself, but you were warned." Do you actually think everyone is going to agree with you after they have seen it? Look, it's a great site. I love your connections and beneft from the "knowledge" that you display about what's going on. It's just annoying to hear this arrogance that you carry around with you! You're not a critic when you handle things that way... you're a fanboy film geek. I'm gonna get a lot of slack from your fans with rants like "you don't like what you read? Get out." "You rip on the people who give you the oppurtunity to come to this site? Get out." "Bruce Campbell this yada yada." I don't care. We all have our opinions. And this is mine. I just get annoyed by people that walk into a room (in this case, a website) and strut. It goes against all of my beliefs as a film lover... and someone who's trying to make it in the business. That's what is bunk about Hollywood and anything connected to it. Be different than the others. Show some class.

  • July 19, 2000, 8:55 p.m. CST

    THE TERM TURNCOATS ARE SYNONYMOUS WITH FANBOYS

    by moto

    One thing I hate about the Internet... it has created fanboys. People who judge a movie before even seeing it. People who rely on guys named Moriarty and Harry. Hey, they're here to give there opinion... but for God sake people, don't write the film off because of two people.... or ANY critic out there (Ebert, etc). Think for yourselves. Now, most of you know that you loved Ford and Zemeckis. You watched their films and continue to love most of them. In Ford's case, now you people are saying he's a "talentless hack" and what not. GIVE ME A BREAK YOU TURNCOATS. Pacino and De Niro have made MANY bad movies... but that doesn't mean they are "talentless". Has Ford made a few missteps? In MY opinion yes... but does that mean he's lost it? The funny thing is... when he does make a great film that you all love, you'll jump back on the bandwagon. Same goes for Zemeckis. I loved FORREST GUMP. You hated it? Fine. IT'S JUST A MOVIE. FORD and ZEMECKIS are VERY talented people that have put a huge stamp on the film industry for the last 25 years! Stop thinkin in such nieve, broad strokes. But hey, who am I to tell you what to do right? It's just my opinion.

  • July 19, 2000, 8:57 p.m. CST

    THE TERM TURNCOATS "IS" SYNONYMOUS WITH FANBOYS

    by moto

    Just so no one stoops so low as to rip on grammar:)

  • July 19, 2000, 10:09 p.m. CST

    You want to see a good Zemekis Ghost story?

    by Einhander

    It's called The Frighteners. It came out a few years ago. It's produced by Zemekis, and the director <Peter Jackson> was guided by him. It's a fun, occasionally thrilling flick. It has Jeffery Combs, that guy from Re-Animator. It's also a chance to see the director of Lord of the Rings show what he can do. Go rent it instead of watching this overblown claptrap.

  • July 19, 2000, 10:19 p.m. CST

    Moriarty

    by Raidergoo

    Moriarty, you ignorant slut. My wife has stated we will see this film. I dread it. If Screen It says Michelle is nude, I'll go, but I gotta figure a way to avoid this one.

  • July 19, 2000, 10:29 p.m. CST

    Einhardt, you ninny!

    by user id indeed!

    You don't think every raging movie buff/geek on this site hasn't heard of Peter Jackson and his fantasmical films of wowitude?!? The Frighteners makes me shiver with glee. If only they would take all the spiffy SE Laserdisc crap and slap it on a SE DVD... aaargh. Frighteners is great, but I would suggest Meet the Feebles and Dead Alive(good luck finding either, although Virgin sells the Feebles DVDs) for the non-Peter-acquainted out there. All three of you! Ha ha ha! Whew! Watch out for them sea lions, they're slippery demons. This has been a Late Late Moment w/User ID Indeed! Hey, does anybody else here like Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Love that movie. 40's detective noir meets 40's theatrical cartoons. What a great premise. Zemeckis has been pretty flat lately, with Contact and What Lies Beneath. Might I suggest..... Roger Rabbit 2: The Toon Platoon? Whow ouldn't see that?? Budget be damned!!!

  • July 19, 2000, 11:17 p.m. CST

    This is nuts

    by elcie1

    The reason this movie was made is simple -- from "Sixth Sense"'s phenomenal success. Same reason as "The Kid" was made -- Bruce Willis wanting to score with another kid movie. It's just a movie. Don't take it so seriously! It's ENTERTAINMENT, people. Yes, we've probably seen this story 13 times before. Yes, we've seen a ton of movies with Harrison Ford in them. But you hope, just HOPE that something might be new and unusual, just like we HOPE that "Unbreakable" will be something different. But if it's not, then so be it. It's a MOVIE, for God's sake, so treat it as such. And being that Harrison Ford is a pop culture ICON, give him the respect he deserves, dammit! He's Han, he's Indy, he was Jack, GIVE HIM A BREAK! JMB was right -- Harrison is under-stated. He plays the ordinary guy. He's not supposed to come out with guns blazing and a naked blonde on each arm. He's an Everyman. He's not trying to be charming, and that's what makes him interesting. You want charming, go rent Golden Eye.

  • July 20, 2000, 12:05 a.m. CST

    Good to know the AICN sucks vs. rules debate has carried over in

    by Niiiice

    I'm too tired now to get involved. And plus the only ones who make it any fun aren't here. Well, except maybe user id indeed. That fool sort of grows on you after awhile.

  • July 20, 2000, 1:24 a.m. CST

    Moriarty I told you over and over not to waste your time on this

    by Bari Umenema

    HEEEEERE'S...JOHNNY!!!!!!!!!!

  • July 20, 2000, 1:30 a.m. CST

    Jack Rapke Click Right Here Buddy Boy!!! you too perini

    by Bari Umenema

    Jack you were Bob's Agent for his entire career and you're now his producing partner. Having fun yet? Sure Cast Away will be Great but this one is not a feather in your cap me thinks...

  • July 20, 2000, 1:44 a.m. CST

    Shitty Script but that fucking Clark Gregg got some front page p

    by Bari Umenema

    Also, Godard? mentioned that Tom Hanks should be raped and eaten by cannibals in real life!! Now come on Godard? that's not nice, but if it happened you can bet that CBS would televise it Live! and get even higher ratings than "Survivor" so go figure...

  • July 20, 2000, 1:48 a.m. CST

    Not mentioned in the press notes, but the idea for this waste of

    by Bari Umenema

  • July 20, 2000, 1:48 a.m. CST

    I know the Feeling

    by Saluki

    I know what he means by just HATING this movie, one that hurts you so bad, you go over the entire plot and destroy it because it is so bad. I did the same thing with Ransom. I'm sure some of you have talked or written about a movie that you hated start to finish. Get over it.

  • July 20, 2000, 1:48 a.m. CST

    moto: about listening to critics

    by jeffv

    People are under no obligation to see every movie and judge it for themselves. A movie critic is to movie goers what an assistant is to executives. Executives don't have the time for every little detail themselves, so the pawn it off on their assistant to deal with all the time-wasters. The trick is to find one that matches your sensibilities. So, what you do is whenever you are determined to see a movie, you read all the reviews afterwards. If you find a reviewer that seems like-minded to you on a regular basis, you grow to trust that reviewer's opinion and use them to filter out the bad choices ahead of time. Not saying I'm like-minded to Moriarity by any means, but a review is just an opinion. You just have to listen to the critics who seem to share your standards and ignore then ones who don't. Criticising a review is like criticising someone for having an opinion. You should just be deciding whose opinion is trustworthy for *you* and leave it at that.

  • July 20, 2000, 2:24 a.m. CST

    What Lies Beneath ROCKED!!

    by GEEKBASHER 3.0

    Okay I went to a screening tonight, expecting to hate this movie, It was in fact in the same auditorium that I had viewed the awful Haunting in! When I walked out I was completely satitisfied! What Lies Beneath was scary, fun and well a good summer movie! The audience poured out loving it..so if some may hate it, I think this movie will be a hit, only because it delivered the thrills and the acting was really first rate, Michelle really works it in this film and there was one scene towards the end that I swear everyone including the old man behind me screamed very loudly! Robert Zemeckis did a fine job here, and I cannot wait to see it again! So just judge for yourself this weekend if you decide to see This film, untill then, take it from me, if you love a good haunted house thriller! This one really delivers!!! God that sounded cheesy, but really I was on the edge of my seat throughout!

  • July 20, 2000, 3 a.m. CST

    Bennet Schneir Click Right Here!!

    by Bari Umenema

    Bennet is the smart young Image Movers development exec who "developed" this script with Clark Gregg and Zemeckis so don't you make fun of it, DON'T YOU MAKE FUN OF IT damn you all to Hell!!! Jennifer Perini is his boss, she supervised its development and is quite proud of it, so don't you make fun of it, DON'T YOU MAKE FUN OF IT damn you all to hell!!!!

  • Like i told you in chat Moriarty, experiencing EDII on a big screen with Raimi in attendance, (imagine how much Spidey info you could have pumped him for?)Harry and the rest of us could EASILY have forgiven you to miss out on this shit? Hell, Ford had a chance to do Gemini Man - but now he

  • July 20, 2000, 3:37 a.m. CST

    NUXX! is Right!! Harrison do "Gemini Man" before it's too late

    by Bari Umenema

  • July 20, 2000, 6:05 a.m. CST

    Its true..

    by JMX

    Moriarty is totally right, this movie blows, Ford has lost it and Stir Of Echoes was wicked. Bacon v. Ford >>>Bacon all the way. Bring on Unbreakable!!

  • July 20, 2000, 6:13 a.m. CST

    Entertainment Weekly hynotized?

    by Bobba Phat

    Well, Moriarty, seems E.W. is hypnotized with the Hitchcock references. In their review of "What Lies Beneath," they call it a "stylish tribute to Alfred Hitchcock." Just thought you'd find this drivel amusing, as i did...

  • July 20, 2000, 6:55 a.m. CST

    I smell a conspiracy

    by jmb

    I think that there is a conspiracy to only put negative reviews of What Lies Beneath up on this web site. I have seen so many positive reviews floating around the net that I find it hard to believe that Harry and his henchmen only have gotten one of them. Shady very shady indeed. Since Harry won't post my review, I will just say that I really liked the film. I saw it Tuesday at a screening in Columbus. My review is on Dark Horizons today if you would like to read it.

  • July 20, 2000, 7:55 a.m. CST

    What was so "good" about it?

    by Saluki

    I find most positive reviews on this movie very short. They honestly do not go into WHY the movie is even good. So you saw it in Columbus, eh? The Lennox, Marcus, somewhere else?

  • July 20, 2000, 8:39 a.m. CST

    Saluki

    by jmb

    I saw the film at the Marcus Crosswoods/Imax theatre off of route 23. The reason that I didn't go into specifics is that I didn't want to ruin the film for any else. It is one of the those films that the surprises be left for those who are going to see it. It is kind of like saying what you like specifically about the 6th sense. I just don't want to give anything out of respect for the audience. I hope that is a fair explanation.

  • July 20, 2000, 10:34 a.m. CST

    moto: "Moriaty is a fanboy film geek". OH YEAH HE IS, but isnt i

    by Outkaxt

    I mean, he is a fanboy film geek. BUT ISN'T IT THE WHOLE POINT? HE SPEAKS FOR US. We, ok, I myself I am a goddamn fanboy film geek myself. Why the fuck do I need a fucking critic to give me opinions? FUck man. He aint no critic, and neither am I

  • July 20, 2000, 10:38 a.m. CST

    Fair Enough

    by Saluki

    Ah yes, Crosswoods holds many sneak previews, the Gladiator showing was excellent. While I have doubts I would enjoy this movie, it seems everyone finds a thriller they enjoy, such as Stir of Echos or Sixth Sense.

  • July 20, 2000, 10:59 a.m. CST

    jmb, does it REALLY take 10 yrs. of English Comp...

    by Znosaro

    to learn that no "Typo's are" NOT "typo's" they are typos. An apostrophe indicates possesion, as in "The typo's grammar is beyond reproach" or "Boy, I really love that typo's grammar," etc. See, when you wanna refer to the "plural" form, you just use the "s", as in "How man JMBs does it take to screw in a light bulb," etc. Thank you for taking the time to review this 5th grade grammar lesson. Hope it's not too much schooling, as we all know how much you despise people with a grammar school education :-)

  • July 20, 2000, 11 a.m. CST

    Relaxe boys Ford's doing Indy 4 Soon Enough!!!

    by gilmour

    M.Night was on howard Stern this morning and said he is meeting with Speilberg now for writing Indy 4. I know Harry reported this but I take everything reported here with about a ton of salt. At least we get this info straight from the horses mouth.

  • July 20, 2000, 11:50 a.m. CST

    off topic, so ban me :)

    by teapot

    Actually, in cases where a letter or acronym is plural, there is an apostrophe between it and the S. The correct form of your sentence is: "How many JMB's does it take to screw in a light bulb?" ...but i say grammar, schrammar, who cares as long as we know what you mean.

  • July 20, 2000, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Znosaro - thanks

    by jmb

    Thank you for clearing that up. I wasn't sure if that had been dropped yet.

  • July 20, 2000, 12:01 p.m. CST

    Good news Gilmour,

    by jmb

    I hadn't heard anything about him being on Stern. So finally some definite info about him writing it. I had read some comments made by Ford on the subject, but I don't think he was too sure what was going on with the writer's. Either that or he wasn't allowed to say anything.

  • July 20, 2000, 12:15 p.m. CST

    JMB I am sorry

    by JoeBanks918

    Let me apologize for all these morons on here who keep having to give you a grammar lesson, WHO THE HELL CARES PEOPLE THIS IS A FILM SITE!!!Go to SeeSpotRun.com with your lessons and leave the man alone for Christ's sake!!! Anyways back to the important stuff I have to agree with alot of what JMB says it does seem to be some kind of conspiracy here so to speak. Alls ya see is how bad this movie is and I have seen it myself and while it is not gonna win any Academy Awards , it was fun to watch and entertaining. I am soooo sick of some of the attitudes on here from Moriarity and Harry. Take for example Bruce Campbell, hey I like the guy think he is entertaining but whats up with these two clowns acting as if he is this GODt thats laughable. I mean are we gonna start getting updates on the newest video game voice over the man does cause thats about the most his career is doin now yet Harry and Moriarty act as though he is the greatest actor of our time. Harrison Ford makes movies that entertain people not everything is gold he does(Random Hearts sucked) but the majority of movie goes beside the extreme geekboys who are dyin to play Bruce Campbell's new Playstation game, LOVE Harrison Ford so back of the guy is a legend simple as that. Lastly since Moriarty wont go see it and all you other Ford bashers wont I will be sure to see it 5 times just to keep his career goin cause I rarely walk away from a film of his pissing and whining like soo many of these geeks do. I enjoy films and Harrison makes good movies the numbers dont lie. If there are any typos or typo's or watever the hell else grammatically incorrect I dont give a shit so save it losers I will still sleep at night if I make a mistake. Peace out!!! JONES 4 you WILL ALL BE THERE TRUST ME!!!

  • July 20, 2000, 1:21 p.m. CST

    Seriously... is there anything more important than grammar?

    by Znosaro

    I saw we just sit here all day and pick apart every sentence in Talk Back. Yep, that should do it. Grammar Tip of the Day - "Me n/either" is NOT proper english. The correct format is actually "I n/either." Thank you, and have a good day :-)

  • July 20, 2000, 1:50 p.m. CST

    SEE SPOT RUN

    by JoeBanks918

    I"S NOTS BE WORRIES BOUT NO EDUMACATION PEEPS? Alssss I needers is to wasstchs flims: Matters nopes if my grammaercy spellinastions is crects longz ats I triues to maszes crect poonts. Lastly and just so its clear ZNOSARO whens the last time you heard of any MAN being fucked because he could spell right??? Or that his woman would blow him because he put an apostrophe in the wrong place son? Oh dear God I cant believe I am still even writing to you but I am bored so let the games begin =). And for you Amazing Larry I hate to ask this ZNOSARO my good friend but could you tranlaste just what the hell he is sayen cause my second grade edumacation can understand. Talk about grammar jeesus man what the hell country are you from??? LOVE YOU ALL!!!

  • July 20, 2000, 1:55 p.m. CST

    Znosaro?????

    by JoeBanks918

    "I saw we just sit here all day and pick apart every sentence in Talk Back"???????????????????? What the hell does this mean??? How can you see we just sit here? I am lost please help.

  • July 20, 2000, 2:29 p.m. CST

    Why couldn't he do this for "Six String Samuri"?

    by squonk

    I mean, I rented that piece of shit with some friends and I think they will never talk to me again (Either that or it was my nasty farts that drove them away). God that SUCKED! That stupid whiney kid moaning every time Buddy tried to get away from him, those stupid hard rock guys dressed like Guns and Roses. God it sucked. I'm actuallt making myself angry again over that fucking movie. Shit.

  • July 20, 2000, 2:35 p.m. CST

    Harry ate the Easter Bunny!! NOOOOO!!!

    by user id indeed!

    Fiend! Now who will bring the children their marshmallow peeps and stale jelly beans?!? The horror... love the "V" reference, Cartuna! Let's see an "Infra-Man" Harry head now! Fun!! This has been a Moment w/User ID Indeed!

  • July 20, 2000, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Did anyone else think...

    by r_dimitri22

    ...that the opening title scores for V the miniseries and V the TV movie were both ubercool?

  • July 20, 2000, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Very good, Joe

    by Znosaro

    You're getting good at the grammar game. But, to be honest, that last one was too easy. Try to spot the error in the next two sentences. *** Did anyone find your incredibly imbecilic anti-grammar riff amusing in even the most remote and twisted way? Anyways, I didn't. *** Test over. So, spot the error and I'll give you a cookie. Perhaps not.

  • Thank you Jeffv for posting a welll written opinion. Better than the crap that is usually on here. Anyway, I do agree about finding a critic for your tastes... Ebert would actually be the closest thing for me... but the only person who I can trust is MYSELF. No one has the exact same tastes as you. It might be close... but never THE SAME. I think sites like this with "reviews" like this HURT the whole idea of film. But it's the American way. Free country. I love to read reviews... contructive reviews. They give me an idea of what to expect. But it annoys me to say posts here that say, "Damn Moriarty... I guess I won't be seeing this one." No one should rely on anyone else's opinion but there own. Sure, if I read or hear a terrible review (ala Wild WIld West) from a critic I like, I may pass on it and see something else. But I'll never write a film off, rip on it, rip on its star and director, if I haven't even seen the film. That's what pisses me off. And to the guy who said, "isn't that the point of Moriarty being here, to speak for us fanboys." Speak for yourself. The point of them being here is to give us some great scoops/info, use their contacts to update us on what's going down, etc. Not to create some false hero worship that goes on here. I'm not ripping on him perese, but the people who take his words, put them on a pedistal, etc. People who'll write off a movie without even seeing it... because some joe schmoe said so. Moriarty, I love this site. You and Harry have created something great. Just don't exploit. hell, I'm getting all serious about a damn website... I'm a hypocrit!:)

  • July 20, 2000, 5:06 p.m. CST

    Joebanks makes me laugh

    by jmb

    I for one find Joebanks' comments quite amusing. I would like to thank Joe for amusing me.

  • July 20, 2000, 6:37 p.m. CST

    Peanut Brittle, Znosaro and the Creep who cross-posted the Film

    by Bari Umenema

    Moriarty was being Facetious Mr. Brittle Peanut. Znosaro you may know grammar but you can't type on your keyboard so it looks like lots of typos and/or that you can't spell worth a rat's ass. As for the Film Threat Jerk who's been cross-posting his rants on all the boards posing as Father Geek, perhaps let him stay on here undeleted so everyone can see just how imbecilic and moronic these guys are. You are the one who is a jerkwad loser fuckwad my man, hope you are drafted into the Army so you can be gangraped every night in the barracks. Buy-Bye.

  • July 20, 2000, 6:39 p.m. CST

    Moriarty the moron

    by wileyboy

    I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting fucking sick and tired of all these critics who think they fucking know everything when they don't know shit. Moriarty is no different. Fuckin A, even his name pisses me off.

  • July 21, 2000, 7:33 a.m. CST

    Old People

    by Vampire Hunter D

    Who want's to see a couple of old people doing it? I'm saving my money on this one.

  • July 21, 2000, 2:45 p.m. CST

    OK, "Forrest Gump" was not way overrated....

    by Andymation

    .....it was so goddam marvellous it couldn't get near that discription and somone who have serious issues with "Forrest Gump", well, I have a hard time takin' 'em seriously, still...This movie does sound like it's gonna' suck. And speaking of sucking, as much as I dig Ford, I would never ever SUCK his dick. Nope! No matter what star twinklin' in my mind walkin' up and say that to me I would just A) say "No fucking way I'm not gay!" and B) call Katie Holmes and Shannon Elizabeth and ask 'em both to join me in a threesome. Yup. And I don't want no Idiana Jones 4 more than I want a T3 which is as much as to pee on an electric fence and than jump from a scy-scraper and land on a pile of barb wire.

  • July 21, 2000, 2:47 p.m. CST

    Moriarity is an Ass-Hole!!!

    by Shuvo

    He is definitely one of the worst wanna-be critics I have ever seen. He calls this movie a waste of time. Look you can never judge a movie when you are more busy trying to prove that you are a CRITIQUE!!!! And also you don't have any ability or potential to judge a director like Robert Zemeckis.

  • July 21, 2000, 3:03 p.m. CST

    Old People 2

    by Einhander

    Actually, one of the only summer films left to look forward to is Space Cowboys, which might be the first all 'old-people' movie that has a budget over 20 million.

  • July 21, 2000, 5:58 p.m. CST

    STAY AWAY

    by kurosawa-sensei

    we watched this last night. after the first 70 minutes, we were doing the wave and throwing little pieces of paper at each other. awful flick. it almost made battlefield earth seem good in comparison. hee hee. ALMOST! :)

  • Alright, let me begin by telling you all that I DO know what I'm talking about. A lot of people, classmates at school, terachers, adults, friends and family ask me for my thoughts on movies and then often decide whether a film is worth their time based on my little 'review'. I saw WHAT LIES BENEATH on a Friday night, the 9:50pm showing. Now, I should also say that I've never seen a movie thats scared me. I'm not trying to be 'macho' or whatever here, its simply a fact that no movie has ever scared me. Well, WHAT LIES BENEATH freaked the hell out of me. And its such an awesome movie. First, the Hitchcock references - you all are blowing this WAY out of proportion. Zemeckis is giving a big nod to a form of inspiration here, NOT COPYING. He's just 'giving props to who he considers "the man"'. Now, for Ford's performance... I'm a big fan of the slowler - than - most - people - think aging actor. Hes done some incredible work, and his work in this is the 'return' of the Ford we all knew before his not - so - popular, "Six Days Seven Nights" and "Random Hearts". His 'Norman' should get an oscar for this aging gem of the American cinema. Please consider the skill required to not only (bit of a spoiler here) act as Norman when he claimed Madison killed herself, but the incredible depth required to play a character - playing a character giving such an emotional outburst. Don't follow? When an actor plays a character, the actor knows he (the actor) is essentially lying. But to 'lie' as a character that is lying to another character, that takes such skill, especially in the was Ford pulls it off. And perhaps (spoiler again!) the most shocking part of the film was seeing Ford as THE BAD GUY! Ok, enough about Ford...now, for Pfeiffer...lets thiunk about her recent performances...hmmm, "The Deep End of The Ocean"...a touching family drama...wait, is it possible that this actress (Ford too, for that matter) wanted to actually BRANCH OUT and do something DIFFERENT? What a thought! Shes great in this film, giving Claire a lot of depth. In the final act, we actually CARE about her, and want to see Norman dead! She, being the main character, has to carry a lot of this movie on her shoulders, and, lucky for us, those shoulders are strong. Now, in conclusion, I'd like to assure all who read this that me, my colleagues, and the rest of the theatre was very well taken by this film. The audience was screaming, and then was cpativated by "Oh my gosh" 's once the truth was found in the end. WHAT LIES BENEATH takes the viewer for look at the lives of these two people, Claire and Norman, and captivates and pulls you in in such a way that you feel what they're feeling, and you almost consider yourself part of the family. The film won't win any oscars, but is still a great film and a lot of fun. I'd also like to say that the reviews posted on here are people's OPINIONS, and, rather than shutting them down or calling them names if you feel differently, just accept that someone feels different about something from the way you feel. Just because I like a movie and you don't does NOT make either of us stupid or inferior. If I like a movie that the critic's don't, it doesn't mean I don't have taste. Please, accept this people, few things in life are as sad as seeing someone ridiculed for thinking differently. (Once again, GREAT MOVIE! FORD'S THE MAN!) Thank you.

  • July 22, 2000, 5:50 a.m. CST

    Buddy Repperton And His Ilk

    by Moriarty

    Hey, everyone. Moriarty here. Or Drew McWeeny. Whatever. I think there's a common thing I see happening now in TALK BACK, so I might as well address it. Ever since Ron Wells decided to use my real name in print, there's been a particular, dedicated form of troll who has come to this site to post my last name over and over as if they're doing something really naughty and wild. So far, the standard reaction on my part has just been to delete the post and send an e-mail asking them not to do it again. Not because I'm in any way troubled by my real name. I'm not, you know... I've had it for 30 years, and it's worked just wonderfully for me so far. Got no complaints. One thing's for sure... these trolls are going to remember it forever. And in a week, I won't remember which halfwit it was who used it this time... they'll just be one of the faceless mass. So they come here and they use the name. Congratulations. You can read and then actually regurgitate your new knowledge elsewhere. That's some trick. They seem to all be humorless (my "denial" that "Buddy Repperton" gets so hot about was so obviously a joke that I'm literally startled anyone took it as anything but), and they seem to think that they've got some mission regarding "the truth." If truth is your real mission, then I suggest going back and reading the work I've done on this site. All the reviews... all the columns. Because despite the fact that we write as characters on this site, we write about ourselves in deeply autobiographical ways. I do, anyway. And I sure haven't always painted a picture of myself as perfect or infallible. I've written about many of the jobs I held in town, including the one at that infamous laserdisc store (which actually just sold off its entire rental catalog, making it effectively just another DVD store... damn shame, too) and my summer as a tour guide at Universal and my time at the Director's Guild and on and on. I've never hidden my work history. I've had some fun jobs out here. I've never hidden anything if you were paying attention. As far as the big secret of my name... it wasn't. I always knew that it would be available to the public at some point, so I made sure that all of my dealings with studio publicists and execs and everyone else have always been with everyone forewarned and fully aware. The name Moriarty is just a label for the film writing I do, a premise to hang the rest of it on. The character is great fun, and I intend fully to keep using it as we branch out into other media. Now that I've said this... now that I've acknowledged all this and answered your "charges," I'm going to state the policy publicly so no one gets their feelings hurt later on. You can criticize me and my writing and my opinions all day long, as vehemently as you choose. But from now on, the name Drew McWeeny is reserved for my friends and the people I do business with. If you want to write me privately, feel free to use any name you want. But in these TALK BACKS, you'll show me the common courtesy of using the character name, or you will be deleted. Two strikes, and you're banned. There's a big blue box right beside this TALK BACK board each time you write one that explains the hard and basic truth: this is our site, and we make the rules. I don't understand why people like "Buddy Repperton" (nice attacking me for not using my real name when you're calling yourself a character from CHRISTINE, buddy) insist on coming here if it offends them so deeply. I know from the mail I get every day that many, many more of you enjoy the work we do here, and it's you guys who keep us working. Anyway, I'll leave Buddy's post up so you can see exactly the kind of off-topic personal attack nonsense that in the future will be bounced. See some of you in San Diego. See the rest of you here. "Moriarty" out.

  • July 23, 2000, 3:56 p.m. CST

    ho hum

    by thundersuck

    i have to say i agree with jmb and the others. I will go see this movie, simply *because* moriarty hated it. Anyone who liked "the patriot" doesnt know movies, because that one failed in every respect. i guess if this thread is still here after i see the movie ill post some more in here, but i'm pretty sure it cant be that bad given moriarty's track record.

  • July 28, 2000, 7:53 p.m. CST

    my....GOD this movie sucked...

    by XTheCrovvX

    i wont subject you to a review of the horror, the pure, mind blowing turd of a movie this was...all im gonna say are these things...number one, forgive Zemeckis, Hitch...he knows not what he does...now turn yourself back over in your grave, ok? Number two, if this movie becomes number one again this weekend, im going to go jump off the bridge my damn self, and join Madison...number three, Michelle Pfeiffer looks good for her age...fourth and finally..dont know who else mentioned this...but if you really need to know what Zemeckis can do with a horror/suspense flick when he wants to, go check out "The Frighteners"...it starts as a comedy, and is advertised as one...but just wait until about 45 minutes in, after that cowboy dude bites the big one...now THATs a good piece o' movie...Revolution is my name

Top Talkbacks