Cool News
WHAT LIES BENEATH review
Ya know what... Moriarty is going to hate me. John
Robie is going to hate me. Alot of folks I know are
going to hate me.
But ya know what, I don’t care.
WHAT LIES BENEATH is dividing critics and
writers right up the middle. If you check out
Tomatoes you will find that there is a nearly
exact 50/50 split on WHAT LIES BENEATH.
It’s critics hate the film with a passion. Yelling about
it’s terrible script, the ham-fisted acting, the blatant
pissing on the grave of Alfred Hitchcock, the bump
bump noisy cheap scares.... BLAH.... they say.
Elvis Mitchell from the New York Times says, “It’s
Openly Schlocky.”
On this site of mine, I’ve seen the film called a
“steaming pile of shit,” which was then in turn quoted
by ROLLING STONE in an article by Peter Travers
about online ‘geek’ critics.
Now, I’m just now seeing WHAT LIES BENEATH,
tonight actually... I went, took my Dad... Paid $15 at
the Gateway theater tonight to see... what my friends
were calling ‘a steaming pile of shit’.
Why would I pay full price to see a movie so heavily
decreed by everyone I personally know?
Because... well, I wanted to rest when I got back in
town... Had to take care of business, had to enter my
home for the first time in two weeks and lay on my
bed and turn on my computer and sigh..... HOME....
I decided to catch the last showing of the day...
Dad and I went in... grabbed our seats... and watched
as the entire theater filled up. Very heavy in the
female demographic. Whole groups of women and
couples. But I was struck by the fact that it was full.
This film has been out for a week now... if it was the
steaming pile of shit that I had been hearing... then
friends of these people should’ve scared them all
off... But even the front row of the theater was full.
Hmmmm, I tell Dad, “Well... I don’t know what’s
going on here... but obviously this movie has some
word of mouth on it.”
Dad looked at me funny... as if to say that perhaps
marketing had something to do with it... NO... the
trailers suck for this film. The posters do nothing to
make you WANT to see the film. No classic tag lines
or advertising for this film.
The only reason for a late night Friday packed house
on the second weekend of a film... is... somebody
likes this film and told someone.
A lot of someones.
While sitting there, this lady stops and asks me what I
think of the film. I inform her that I haven’t seen it,
but that a friend said it was a piece of shit. She says,
“Yeah, my brother said that too, but my son said that
I should see it and take my friends.” Hmmmm....
Right before writing this review... I went into our
Chat here on the site and took a brief... “WHAT DID
YOU FOLKS THINK OF WHAT LIES
BENEATH?”
Two people didn’t like it, and everyone else was
terrified of the film (in that stinky bomb sort of way)
and the rest just had dramatic disinterest.
I was always raised to ‘find out for yourself and to
think for yourself’.
So that’s why I was there.
I enjoyed the hell out of WHAT LIES BENEATH. It
is by no means perfect. But I can tell you right now
one of the key issues alot of these haters of the film
have with this flick...
HITCHCOCK.
I can see how if you are looking at this film and you
are saying... $90 million dollars, Robert Zemeckis,
Harrison Ford, Michelle Pfeiffer... and then you ad
themes of Hitchcock throughout... How some critics
might have a profound involuntary hatred spew forth
about the film.
But like I have said before... $90 Million dollars?
What is that? This movie cost $15 and 2 hours of my
time. That is the real cost. And did it fill those 2
hours and give me $15 worth of entertainment?
Oh yeah. Is it a classic? No. Is it worthy of a pimple
on the ass of Hitchcock? Maybe.
But I will tell you that every single review I’ve read
has been making the wrong comparisons. This isn’t
REAR WINDOW or PRESUMED INNOCENT.
This is Brian DePalma’s BODY DOUBLE.
I love BODY DOUBLE. I’ve seen it so many times I
can’t even began to recount them all.
Michelle is in the Craig Wasson role. Harrison Ford
is in the Gregg Henry and Amber Valletta is in an
abridged version of Deborah Shelton’s character.
This is a B-movie version of a Hitchcock film,
exactly like DePalma used to make before he even
blew that. This is a movie that is meant to entertain
and give it’s audience the heebie jeebies. It’s also a
ghost story. The type where you can see Michelle’s
character beginning to feel spaced out and eeried
away when the PHONE rings. Where subtle (and not
so subtle) faces and visages of some undead thing
arrives.
The red herrings? Everybit as obvious as in BODY
DOUBLE... but ya know what? So what?
All I know is my audience wasn’t catcalling or
snickering... there was no laughing during key scenes
and the theater was stark quiet... except during key
tension moments when you would suddenly here like
60 asses shift in their seats to make a un-oiled Tin
Man sound.
Now... I want to point something out here. Like I
said, this is a B-Movie suspense/ghost/Hitchcock
knockoff.
This isn’t OBSESSION or BLOW OUT or DON’T
LOOK NOW... this is closer to BODY DOUBLE,
DRESSED TO KILL and SISTERS. There’s more
cheese on the cracker, but I was satisfied all the same.
Should this have been better material? Absolutely.
Should Harrison Ford cease looking for roles that
don’t force him to stretch a bit? YES. Will Zemeckis
win an Academy Award this coming ceremony?
Well, he’ll at least be nominated and the early early
early advance money is on him to win in my casino.
(for CASTAWAY btw, not this.)
But whatever you do... don’t listen to me or
Moriarty... make up your own mind when you see the
film. Critics, writers? We like to spout our opinions
and sage advice upon your viewing angles... but
ultimately it is up to you to decide if the $15 is worth
it.
For me, it was. For you? Well, ya can’t answer till
you’ve seen it.
-
+ Expand All
-
This is going to be one of those films that will be fun to argue over for years to come.
-
contact the AssholePatrol for more information.
-
I haven't seen it, yet but a friend of mine has. He is divided on it. He mentioned the whole Hitchcock thing, too. He seemed to think this movie demonstrates why Zemeckis will never be a Spielberg. Too many things going on, and you don't get drawn in. Of course, I adore Zemeckis and will probably love this film. Can't have too many hammy acting and B-movie stories(Evil Dead trilogy anyone?)
-
Thanks for taking me to movie with you last night. I'm back at hospital eating ice cream and cake. Bye now...
-
The reason critics are attacking this film for attempting Hitchcock can be summed up in a few remarks from Roger Ebert. Apparently Zemeckis "set out" to do a Hitchcock film, and Ebert points out that Hitchcock wouldn't have made this film in his day or any other day. Instead of using supernatural phenomenon to back up his film, Hitch preferred to analyze the more interesting human nature/emotions/motivations behind what the characters do. Even in Vertigo, the whole ghost story/doppleganger thing turns out to not be real, but we learn MORE about James Stewart when he discovers it isn't real. There's nothing wrong with supernatural films, but to claim you're going for a Hitchcock feel when ou're doing the opposite (relying on cheap thrills) is pretty lame. Perhaps this film was worth $15 for the entertainment value, but from what I've seen and heard this films is just trying to make you jump out of your seat. And personally I'd rather see low-budget Carpenter than $90 million Zemeckis. He's a fucking hack, a poor man's Spielberg, who's a bit of a hack himself.
-
I dug what lies beneath. fun. exciting. and better then most stuff this summer. the bathtub sequence was worth the price od admission. also some funny moments(intentional) and i liked that the heroine was a neurotic housewife. besides the obvious hitchcok stuff, there was also some nice nods to diabolique and argento. i'm glad harry gave it a positive. there's nothing better then a good genre film done with some intelligence. zemeckis clearly loves and understands this genre and that's more then i can say for most filmmakers who churn out these kinds of movies.
-
Jul 29, 2000 3:38:27 AM CDT
Oh so it's a Great Date Movie/Chick Flick huh? I still ain't bu
by bari umenema
-
Jul 29, 2000 3:42:58 AM CDT
Hey Harry you forgot to tell us if your Dad shared your enthusia
by bari umenema
-
I liked the movie just fine. Not the best thing I ever saw, but a perfectly enjoyable few hours in a movie theater (one of my favorite places on Earth). I was entertained & I had fun, which was EXACTLY what I was looking for. Didn't remind me of Hitchcock at all, but I wasn't expecting to see "Rear Window" (one of my top 5 of all time), I was expecting some Michelle Pfifer / Harrison Ford fun & that's what I got.
-John -
I can't wait to see it. When I first heard about Ford & Pfeiffer
together with Bobby Z, I thought
"Too cool!" and nothing I've seen
or heard has convinced me otherwise. Good advice, Harry,
and good work out west. Welcome
home. We missed ye! -
Jul 29, 2000 4:38:19 AM CDT
Has nothing to do with Hitchock and has everything to do with a
by caligari
I love Robert Zemickis. I love Contact, Rodger Rabbit, Back to the Future, Used Car, the works. But I'm telling you, I wanted my nine bucks after watching this piece of garbage. God, what a waste of a master director's time. The film is nothing but cheap shocks that are sooooooo cliche (Harrison ford opens the refrigerator, gee do you think when he closes the door Pfeiffer will be there to go OOGA BOOGA!. Yep, she was). The first hour is a "Rear Window" ripoff, which is never paid off! We sit through an hour of it, then the movie switches gears to another story! Then the third act sinks into the worst kind of slasher movie rip off. My jaw dropped, when Zemeckis resorted to the tired cliche of: the unconscious villain at the bottom of the stairs. The helpless heroine has to step OVER him in order to get out the front door. Obviously, Zemeckis has not seen the last five years of slasher movies (Scream, I Know What You Did Last Summer, etc.) to know how OLD that gag is. In fact, in the screening I saw, a group of teenagers were giggling at this scene and shouting out dialogue from "Scream" (because the film was exactly mimicking similiar scenes). On top of all this, there's not one ounce of genuine horror or suspense in the film. It's all so easy to keep having people jump out at the actors for two hours, it's another thing entirely to craft a screenplay with genuine suspense and thrills (Of course, that would take hard work). I was so pissed when this movie was over, two hours out of my life WASTED!!! Moriarity was being easy on the film.
-
How is it possible that a movie that is split 50/50 as to whether it is good can still go on to make 20 something million it's first week? When you consider all the bad press, reviews, and poor marketing concepts, this film should have failed to some degree. Yet it flourishes. Now when you compare this to THE IRON GIANT, which had excellent reviews, great word of mouth and only a crappy marketing campaign, you would think it would have achieved box office gold. Yet it did not. After much consideration I have concluded why great films, like THE IRON GIANT sometimes fail, and OK or bad movies prosper. Here is my conclusion: Because 90% of humans rely on entertainment to simply divert the mind. Regardless of whether the entertaining medium is film, book or music it must distract the observers in someway as to remove, if only temporarily, the memory of how horrible and pointless a life the observer leads. And it is furthermore imperative that this occurs in a completely passive way so that the observer need not participate or excerpt any kind of mental effort. This also has the effect of creating a form of entertainment that is disposable and forgotten about. Nothing is discussed afterward. Just the satisfaction of being diverted. On the other hand, when an observer comes across a film like THE IRON GIANT, the opposite happens. After watching such a movie, the brain becomes stimulated and focused. Diversion is transmuted to participation. And it is through the reflection of the merits of a film like THE IRON GIANT, growth then occurs in the observer
-
Aaaah, the Man With No Vice stirkes again, eh? Oh well, I'm not gonna see it anyway...... just doesn't interest me.
-
It's not often that I can be proud of working concessions at a movie theater, but last night, the two large drinks Harry's dad ordered? Awww yeah. My work.
-
Look, im a pretty easily entertained man....a few of the movies that some deem as utter crap, i actually like..perfect examples being Con Air, The Rock, MI2, Godzilla, Phantom Menace..and in the case of Phantom Menace, i have a love for it...i make no assumptions of any of those movies being perfect, there might be elements i straight up despise(::coughcoughJARJAR!!coughcough::)flame me away if you want, i have my reasons, and i'll debate them any time....but that being said, it REALLY takes a lot for me to be truly BORED at a movie..the last time i ended up falling asleep at a movie, it was the 13th Warrior...about an hour in, it became obviously clear this piece of camel dung wasnt getting any better...so when i woke up, and the credits rolled, i hung my head in shame, gathered up what little dignity i had, and went home....it was soooo close to that very same situation in this movie....it moves so slow, it gave lifeless dead end plotlines at every turn...did i really give a damn that the next door neighbor killed his wife? The commercials and trailers told you straight out that the movie's supposed to be about Harrison Ford's love affair with a dead woman....so whats all this set up bullshit?! get on with it!! i had to wait an hour before the other dead woman even came up...before then, i had nearly fallen asleep 4 times....only to be awakened by the most cheap, lifeless scares i have ever seen....i have no problems with little surprise scares that turn out to be nothing...hell, i love those...but, damn, Zemeckis, once in a while, they have to turn out to be SOMETHING!! Not just a cheap unclosing door, or a computer turning on.......and then there's Harrison Ford...SPOILER BEWARE!!!! SPOILER BEWARE!! wait for the spoiler end warning before reading on..SPOILER BEWARE!!!! SPOILER BEWARE!!SPOILER BEWARE!!!! SPOILER BEWARE!!SPOILER BEWARE!!!! SPOILER BEWARE!!SPOILER BEWARE!!!! SPOILER BEWARE!!SPOILER BEWARE!!!! SPOILER BEWARE!!SPOILER BEWARE!!!! SPOILER BEWARE!!SPOILER BEWARE!!!! SPOILER BEWARE!!SPOILER BEWARE!!!! SPOILER BEWARE!!SPOILER BEWARE!!!! SPOILER BEWARE!!......still here? GOOD! now, for years, id harbored this sick notion of Harrison Ford playing a villain....maybe it was that scene in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom where the blood of Kali turns him to one ruthless son of a bitch that got me thinking about that...but, now here, it happens...and it's...dead...lifeless....it's a weak turn for the worst...i mean, damn, he turns from a boring husband, to a boring murderer...ALTHOUGH...i will say this...the final 20 minutes, i actually ended up enjoying...there's a nice bit of tension as Michelle Pfeiffer walks upstairs with the phone...only to find out exactly what number he dialed....that was pretty cool....then the bath...aside from one "why the hell did he do that?!?!" bit from Harrison, it was kinda suspenseful...of course, i would've chosen better subject material to point the camera at than ONE FUCKING TOENAIL!!! but it was a good scene.....but, aside all that, i still cant help but have my usual horror movie complaints...why she didnt grab a knife from the kitchen at some point, knowing her husband was gonna kill her...why Harrison didnt just beat the shit of Michelle Pfeiffer in a fit of rage if he was that desperate to see her dead...but somehow, after that, i ended up liking those last few scenes...were they worth the $5.75 i paid to see it, though? sweet merciful christ, no! SPOILERS END!! SPOILERS END!!SPOILERS END!!SPOILERS END!!SPOILERS END!!SPOILERS END!!SPOILERS END!!SPOILERS END!!SPOILERS END!!SPOILERS END!!SPOILERS END!!SPOILERS END!!SPOILERS END!!SPOILERS END!!SPOILERS END!! Anyways...thats my take on this worthless piece of crap...you know, if Hitchcock's ghost is seen anywhere in a theater near you...could somebody please beg him to keep Zemeckis alive, regardless of how he chooses to smite him for this travesty? Cast Away looks good, and he has to be able to finish that before anybody bitch slaps him back to oblivion for this film...to the rest of you, go to your local video store, find a little movie called "The Frighteners" with Michael J Fox....much more satisfying Zemeckis suspense experience....now if you'll excuse me...i have a cell phone call to make, and i have to drive to the middle of a bridge to do it....Revolution is my name...
-
When i first saw this film i couldn't believe how entertaining it was considering about 100 terrible reviews by critic wanna be's. There is a disturbing trend concerning Harrison Ford and this site: He is being criticized WAY too much. It seems most of you now automatically expect every film he's in to be total shit before you see it. WLB isn't great but to call it a total piece of shit is laughable. Oh and about people asking why a film like WLB becomes a hit 2 words: Harrison Ford this film more then any other perhaps shows why he's the biggest boxoffice star ever. People love this guy put just about any other actor with michelle in this film and it probably makes half of what it did opening weekend. Face it he's a reliable, good actor and for whatever reason the public loves me.
-
Jul 29, 2000 10:25:42 AM CDT
This just in: Harry decides that the Holocaust, genital herpes,
by darthslater
Jesus, big guy, when was the last time you disliked ANYTHING? I try to remain a pretty optimistic guy for the most part, but this has been the single worst summer for movies that I have seen in the last decade, yet every week you're enthusing about (or defending) something. The thing is, you don't really go into detail on this review about your reasoning. You give reasons why other people like it, and you talk about other people's comparing the film to Hitchcock and Depalma, but what exactly was so great about the flick, Harry? Throw us a bone, man. Personally, I thought that "What Lies Beneath" was . . . how can I put this delicately . . . a wretched example of an overly earnest director with a love for visual effects teaming up with two stars who are hopelessly out of their element and a script that throws logic to the wind in favor of "scares". I hated the fact that the trailer and posters pretty much told me that Harrison Ford was going to be a bad guy, and thus I automatically knew that the ghost would be a "good" ghost who wanted to show the humans something instead of rip them limb from limb, thus removing ALL suspense from the movie (and on a sidenote, fuck the Sixth Sense for starting this horrible trend, because a lot more similarly-themed movies are on their way. Go, "Poltergeist"!) I also hated the final "chase" if you can call it that, because no amounts of fancy "from underneath the car" CGI shots could hide the fact that this scene was very, very embarrassing for all involved. I hate Harrison Ford (god, I never thought I'd say that--my favorite actor ten years ago. Jesus). I hate the fact that in his "transformation" into a killer, he displays emotion on his face in exactly two shots, and the emotion in question looks more like confusion than regret. (Aw, shucks, now I've gotta kill the wife that I've been kissing for two hours. Gosh durn it.) I hate the fact that every time Zemekis uses one of his infamous "invisible" shots like zooming through the floorboards, I am suddenly jerked out of the fantasy world the movie has been trying so hard to create. I hate the fact that a man with a concussion can wake up from unconsciousness, chase down the fleeing truck, hang on to the back of a boat and untie the knots, climb out the front of the boat and into the pickup, all without being seen and in the space of a minute or so. I hate the exposition that is horribly, horribly FORCED into the movie at every turn. I hate big mysteries that take two and a half hours to solve, but that the audience has already guessed in the first fifteen minutes. And, for the record, in my theater there was plenty of catcalling (well, all of it was from me, actually), no people nervously fidgiting or screaming, and several walk-outs. If only I had been one of them. There, Harry, that's everything I hated about the movie. Your turn. What was so good about this flick, what made these flaws bearable? The fact that it's ripping off DePalma ripping off Hitchcock? We need something a little bit more. You've got a lot of influence, and you're gonna make a lot of people unhappy by advising them to go to this flick despite what they've heard.
-
test
-
the real cost of a ninety million dollar suspense-mystery? maybe 90 one million dollar movies, each one of which could be a gem? perhaps 45 two million dollar movies, with a little bit of heart, or darkness? could it be 6 fifteen million dollar movies, and finding another woody allen with those budgets? do you see what i mean, harry? while we continue to go and see inflated ego trips that add up to something that's about as good as body double (?!) then that's what the norm will be/become. because that's what we want, isn't it? what would tarkovsky, herzog, jodorowsky, ashby, kusturica, ophuls, vigo (you get what i mean) have done/do with that kind of cash? it's two-thirds the budget of the lord of the rings . . . for a little chamber piece of a thriller. don't accept it. strike a blow.
-
I could easily see this movie (in full) for $5 or even free if I wanted. But I won't. Why bother? Somehow Harry enjoyed himself, why he never says, but he does say I should go see it. Screw that. Why give money to something I may not like? The reason this movie actually made some money is because of so many people just wanting to escape from reality. Jack Frost, The Kid and this are all examples of movies that (in majority) females are going to go, give money to, just because they have nothing else to do. Same goes for Gone In 60 Seconds, MI:2 and Shaft (in majority) males are going to give money to because they have nothing better to do. No one watches movies to be entained and to think, they go to escape.
-
Terrible movie, yet the audience I saw it with was lapping it up like Dreamworks drones. How the fuck can anyone be scared by this obvious hack job? If you've never seen a horror film or straight thriller before, that's the only possible explanation.
-
Jul 29, 2000 1:09:18 PM CDT
Another movie that changed gears midway: Has anyone seen this mo
by zeno
I can remember I saw a movie once where it seemed to go in a completely new direction halfway in. Maybe some of you have seen it. The movie was about this lady who worked in a bank. One day this lady decides to steal a deposit, and split town. As she takes it on the lamb, she encounters into all kinds tense situations, including a brief run in with a suspicious traffic cop. On her way, she stops off in a motel along the highway, and then, out of nowhere, she get's killed taking a shower. Suddenly the movie becomes about her getting killed and who did it, and the embezzling story turns out to be a red herring all along. This technique worked well in this movie because it allowed you to become comfortable with certain characters before it was later revealed that they would be brutally killed, or even turn out to be the killer themself. Anyway, I liked both movies, the one I described and What Lies Beneath.
-
Eberts argument about "Hitchcock's films having their root in psychology" has a false premise and is a red herring. Why in the world would we want to evaluate a movie on the basis of how well it resembles someone else's work. I think it may be interesting to not simply for comparison's sake, but not as a citeria for judging the movie. Futhermore, psychological and supernatural forces are not mutually exclusive. Although not as complex as Vertigo in this respect, What Lies Beneath does have psycological components, i.e., Pfeifer's own complex feelings towards Ford seem to manifest themselves *as* the ghost. Regardless of whether it turns out to actually be a ghost does not diminish this.
-
I disagree, while his reviews are often positive without being an entire kiss arse, I think it reflects a broad familiarity with film, thus making an appreciation for good bits in crap material easier.
This is the ecsuse I use to make myself feel better about liking Godzilla and Armageddon. -
This is a strange case here. A film that before I saw, I'd been truly biased against by the Online Geeks. They all hated it, hated it. Then my friend (an avid filmgoer, with good taste) saw it and said it was good. I checked it out. A hell of a lot of fun. A great audience movie. The sold out crowd was totally involved, screaming and jumping the whole time. Everyone else I've talked to in "real" life thought it was at LEAST pretty good too. I just don't get the taste of the Online Geeks sometime. People, this is Robert Zemeckis. He is a very talented filmmaker. He also is the guy who produces Tales from the Crypt (not to mention The Frighteners and House on Haunted Hill). He loves B-movie type horror. Take away the big stars and the huge budget, and imagine "Tales from the Crypt Presents: What Lies Beneath" and enjoy on that level. It's a fun movie. Nothing classic, but I don't get the hatred you guys have towards it.
-
I was almost scared away from this movie by all of the usually reliable critics(Ebert and whatnot),but went anyway.I WAS on the edge of my seat as was EVERYONE ELSE in the theatre.The place was full and hardly anyone made a sound,because they were all pulled in by this movie.It's no masterpiece,but it achieves what it set out to do.
-
I have to disagree with Harry here! Brian DePalma's BODY DOUBLE? Okay, but I think this was way more of an attempt to pay homage than that film was (and at least BODY DOUBLE was original in more ways than this one)! Sadly I think WHAT LIES BENEATH is one of the worst films of the Summer. Piss-poor script, bad plodding plot with little in the way of revelations, pointless sequences that go nowhere, and a waste of three major talents -- Harrison Ford, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Robert Zemeckis. It's everything wrong with big HOLLYWOOD -- special f/x with nothing behind it. I think the detractors are right. Save your money and your time!
-
I'll be the first to admit this isn't a great film- but it sure is wild as hell. I don't understand the arguments most people have about this flick (it rips off Hitchcock, the red herring story is a waste, etc.)- let me ask you all a question. When was the last time you saw a film where the entire audience was screaming and squealing? When was the last time you sat in a theater next to a stranger and turned to him/her and just smiled after jumping out of your seat? THIS IS A FUN MOVIE! It's not Rear Window, or Vertigo, or whatever else. It's Harrison Ford, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Robert Zemeckis all having fun. And you know what? So did I! This film deserves to be a hit and I'm glad it's looking that way.
-
I know I will get flamed with this, but I really feel I should speak my mind. I think Hitchcock is a highly overrated director, just as I think Francis Ford Coppola, Spielberg, DePalmA and others...mainly the reason why I think they are overrated is because their work lacks heart (that's my perception, I'm sorry if you don't agree...) and its horribly dated. You can tell the movies created by those directors don't speak to people now, because they seem naive, preposterous and most importantly, they have this air of self-importance that makes them look really ridiculous. In the other hand, the work of, say Stanley Kubrick, is still valid (at least for me) and it's far more relevant and risk-taking than anything that those directors have done. I think Zemeckis' What Lies Beneath suffers from that same self-importance. Plus I think Hitchcock was an arrogant asshole. Stanley Kubrick called young directors and congratulate them on their work when their movie impressed him. I don't remember Hitchcock ever doing that. I personally believe that many people say Hitchcock is great because other people say he is great. Like Andy Warhol's Campbell soup painting, IT IS ART BECAUSE I SAY IT IS. Forgive me if the topic is way out of subject. I'll give What Lies Beneath a chance because I trust Harry's reviews, even though he did say X-MEN was better than the original BATMAN, which it wasn't.
(Excuse my english, I'm from Mexico) -
Hoo-boy. Come one guys, try backing up your arguments with a little explanation for a change. Brett C, you get picked on because you were last. I really think you can do better than just pronouncing something is bad with generic criticisms. Piss poor script? How? Bad dialog? Like what? Bad plodding plot with little in the way of revelations? What the hell does that mean? The story lacks build? The situations in the film seem to develop logically enough, even growing in tension. Revelations? You looking for enlightenment? (I don't recommend Hollywood.) Pointless scenes that go nowhere? Name one. Ford and Pfeifer both gave performances you can believe, nothing false; what more do you want? MI2 is everything that's wrong with Hollywood my friend, i.e., reaching for the dough, not What Lies Beneath, an honest attempt to make an adult thriller. And finally, Body Double original? Have you seen Vertigo? A guy manipulates his phobic friend to spy on a hired woman so he can witness the staged death of the friend's real wife. Body Double? A guy manipulates a phobic friend to spy on a hired woman so he can witness the staged death of the friend's real wife, with some Rear Window thrown in for good measure.
-
You want explanations from someone who hated the film? Here goes. I'll address Brett C.'s points first, because you ripped on them and they're fresh in my mind. Piss-poor script? Yes. Any script that transforms a loving husband (after all, Ford spends the first two hours pawing Michelle endlessly) into a merciless killer with no more explanation than "it's for my career" is piss-poor. This revelation is supposed to be "shocking", and it is--because it is a 180-turn from everything we've been told thus far. It's as if the screenwriter realized that he only had two real characters in this film, so one of them HAD to be the killer. Point 2: you want an example of terrible diagologue? How about the scene where the battered wife is whimpering "I just love him sooo much!"? I know that I was cringing. Point 3: You say there are no scenes that don't "go anywhere". Did you see the first half of the movie? There you go--that's a scene that goes nowhere. The whole Red Herring situation is not only bullshit if you've seen the trailers or the poster, it's also deathly dull, and it has NO BEARING on the last half of the film. None at all. If you took out the Red Herring parts, you would have the same film, only 30 minutes shorter. If that doesn't fall under the category of a scene that doesn't go anywhere, I don't know what does. There are other scenes I could go into in detail--the CGI dead Amber Valleta at the bottom of the lake (right where they crashed their car! How lucky!) was so ludicrous that I laughed out loud--but I'll wrap this up. My biggest problem with the film is that it was a horror movie that wasn't scary. Simply because an audience of moron 13 year old girls were jumping and shrieking does not justify a movie's existance, no matter what any of you say. Go watch the Exorcist, and then walk through a darkned parking lot. You'll be scared shitless, and genuinely unnerved. Go watch WLB and you might jump a few times when the violins go nuts (bum bum bum bum BAM! BAM! BAM!), but you won't emerge from the theater feeling uneasy or jittery. Someone brought this up earlier--for the 90 million it took to make this egotistical and calculated "scare machine," we could have had ten nine-million dollar horror movies that could have scared the pants off audiences. Yet since all of you seem to love WLB so much (at least judging from the box office receipts), guess what we're gonna get in the future? Low-budget scary movies, or big-budget "scare machines"? I'm glad that so many of you enjoyed it so much, because you'll probably also enjoy most of the horror movies that will now be greenlighted for the next few years. Congats.
-
I really don't know what people are complaining about. I'm a huge Hitchcock fan, and I really enjoyed this film. It's not trying to be a Hitchcock film, but it's obviously inspired by them. Sort of like how Chinatown was inspired by films like The Big Sleep and The Maltese Falcon, but wasn't trying to copy them. Now that What Lies Beneath is as good as Chinatown.... But is it entertaining? Yes. Would I recommend it? Hell, yes. It's fun. 8 out of 10.
-
opinions seem to be like assholes and belly buttons....everybody has one. so here is mine. its a great moive, very simple mind you, but good nonetheless. word of mouth does get around and it creates wonderful intrugue. hmmmm....i seem to remember a little movie last year (around this same time) that came from the deep and got into conversations (not to mention a huge box office take).
a packed house on a saturday afternoon matinee seems to shake any bugs i had previously going into this show. -
Jul 29, 2000 6:48:56 PM CDT
Clear Evidence of Darth Slater's Drug Problem, Mental Instabilit
by zeno
Ok, Darth. I see you schwartz is as big as mine. On guard! Let's talk about Ford's character. It's no accident that Indiana Jones was chosen for this role. Watching Ford try to kill Michelle Pfeifer is a very uncomfortable thing. So uncomfortable, that you feel it comes out of the blue. But does it? Ford's character is clearly wound very tight throughout the movie. He has a VERY unhealthy relationship with his father, who was a research professor just like Ford. This aspect of Ford's character is returned to again and again throughout the movie. Each time his father's name is mentioned, he bristles. The reason why Ford is so serious about his career is that he's working out his competition with his father. But how wacky is he about it? While recounting a mix up that Ford had with a woman regarding his father in a scene fairly early in the movie, Ford displays an undue amount of anger and angst, and the camera stays on him while it plays out. This is a tip off that there's something wrong in Fordsville; subtle, but effective in retrospect. Of course, the don't spell it out for you, they want it to be a surprise. Apparently, it was a bit too much of a surprise for you. Moving on: "I love him soooo much." No, that's not me descibing my feelings for Harry, but the quote you lifted from the movie as being an example of particularly bad dialog. Speaking of loopy, this woman was pretty loopy herself. You're right, that was a very corny thing to say, and neither I nor Pfeifer's character was completely blind to that. In fact, it only compounded Pfeifer's humiliation that she had been duped over such an obviously silly woman. But this unnerving woman acted as a counterpoint to what was going on with the ghost; namely all out, unhealthy obsession: her for her husband, Pfeifer for the ghost, the ghost for Ford, Ford for his father. As for point three, if you check upstairs for my comments regarding red herrings and the movie Psycho, the first half of that movie is a red herring as well. This can often be an effective tool for establishing emotional connections between the audience and characters, only to sever them later for effect. Granted, it would have worked much better if the movie had been sold as a "the neighbor's wife is haunting Michelle Pfeifer" movie, but I think they wanted to sell the shocker that Ford could be culpable in the shenanigans. I don't think you can blame the film itself for its ad campaign. Actually, the first half of the movie really focuses on establishing Pfeifer, letting us get to know her relationships, and establishing the tensions that exist between she and Ford. I don't know what to tell you. I wasn't bored. Sorry, no car chases, no admantim claws. Perhaps if the film had had more lightsabers during the first half, some of you would have liked it more. About the car and the lake: Would it kill you to suspend your freakin' disbelief a bit? Like all ghost stories, the narrative has a circular aspect to it, which, although fantastic, is in the context of the supernatural. Slater: "My biggest problem with the film is that it was a horror movie that wasn't scary." I don't know. I don't think it was supposed to be a horror movie, although it definitley did have aspects of horror. Dead pale babes in the bathtub are pretty horrific. Was the Twilight Zone a horror TV show? Slater: "Simply because an audience of moron 13 year old girls were jumping and shrieking does not justify a movie's existance, no matter what any of you say." As a 13 year-old girl, I resent that sir. Slater: "Go watch the Exorcist, and then walk through a darkned parking lot." After eating an apple, go eat an orange. The Exorcist was trying to say much different things than WLB, and unfortunatley, some of the horror in that film may have actually gotten in the way. Your diatribe goes on to distinguish the difference between "scare-machines" and "shock-fests" or what have you. Look, this movie had expensive talent, and they tried to make a solid thriller. I belive they did. Obviously, this is not a perfect film. But it was quite enjoyable, especially if you allow yourself to enjoy a little complexity in your entertainment. If you want the Exorcist, go rent it. If you want an intelligent thriller that is edgy, unnerving, and yes, a bit horrific, I recommend What Lies Beneath.
-
(Music cues) Who can make the fun shine(dum duh dum DUUH duh dum), Harry Knowles can (buuum buuuh), who can make the geeks and all the comic fans come, Harry Knowles can oh yeah Harry Knowles can (doo doo)... Well Harry Knowles can cuz he does it for a living and he likes to eat SPAAAAAM (Doodaly doodaly DOOP doodoop duh) Who can take a rumor (dum duh dum DUUH duh dum) sprinkle it with joy, make it sound all juicy to please all the girls and boys... (little boy) The Harry Man?? (Me) YES! The Harry Man caaaaaaaan (chorus of children) Laa laa laa laa! Well Harry Knowles can cuz he's 750 pounds of love and leg of LAAAAMB (bum buh dummuna DUH!) Well Harry Knowles, it's true, can't wait for Episode II, he's always putting every rumoooor, and tries to fill it full of humoooooor, so it ain't annoying as a tumor! (bum bum!)(Whoo can, whoo can, whoo can, whooo CAN)Who can run a film site (BUM BUH DUM BUUUH BAH DUM) Top it with some fudge (BUH BUH BUH DUM DUUH BA DUM)Type for 16 hours straight and barely even budge, THE HARRY MAN!!! (LAAA LAAA) Yup, the Harry Man caaaan (LAA LA LA LAA) Well, The Harry man can cuz he does it for a living and he loves to eat SPAAAAAAAM!! (BUHH DUH DUH BABBA DOO WOW!!!) Thank you, I'll be here all night. I'm also writing a song called "Lord of the Rings", to the tune of Abba's "Dancing Queen". MOVIEWATCHERS.COM Go there. Enjoy. I write for it. Really? Yes. Ahem... This has been a Song and Shameless Plug from User ID Indeed! (Pointing to Pfeiffer and Ford) I see dead careers!!!
-
What Lies Beneath had way more problems than the fact that it cost too much and it ripped off Hitchcock. It was just plain boring. The only reason that it's doing so well is because there's nothing else to watch that's targeted toward adults right now. This is just a tame "scary movie" for adults with all the usual (and cliched) marriage drama between a man and a woman. It wasn't scary at all, there were just a bunch of cheap jolting visuals with a loud musical sting. Did anyone actually go home and find themselves frightened by any of the things in this film (aside from the sheer horror involved in watching it)? If you did go home scared, why? There was nothing haunting to linger around in the mind after walking out of the theater. There were only cheap little "moments" that only my mom would jump at. An effective horror movie creates a ghost of image that will haunt your mind after the film is over. An effective movie would have you laying in bed at night, afraid to open your eyes to see a left over image hovering above your face. What Lies Beneath lacked this entirely.
-
What Lies Beneath had way more problems than the fact that it cost too much and it ripped off Hitchcock. It was just plain boring. The only reason that it's doing so well is because there's nothing else to watch that's targeted toward adults right now. This is just a tame "scary movie" for adults with all the usual (and cliched) marriage drama between a man and a woman. It wasn't scary at all, there were just a bunch of cheap jolting visuals with a loud musical sting. Did anyone actually go home and find themselves frightened by any of the things in this film (aside from the sheer horror involved in watching it)? If you did go home scared, why? There was nothing haunting to linger around in the mind after walking out of the theater. There were only cheap little "moments" that only my mom would jump at. An effective horror movie creates a ghost of image that will haunt your mind after the film is over. An effective movie would have you laying in bed at night, afraid to open your eyes to see a left over image hovering above your face. What Lies Beneath lacked this entirely.
-
This movie is a shit-fest and a half. Yes, it is refreshing to see a movie take it slow in this age of MTV quick cuts but just because a movie isn't from the Michael Bay school of editing doesn't automatically make it intelligent. Harrison Ford is godawful in this movie. Can someone wake this guy out of his stupor long enough so he can SAY his lines instead of mumbling them? If he downplayed things any more, he'd be unconscious. And the transition that the movie asks his character to go through is a joke. He goes from having some understandable motivations - a guy who felt he was backed against the wall - to being totally evil - outright taunting his wife as he prepares to kill her when the character as established would've been in a state of anguish even as he forced himself to do what he felt he had to. And why? So the film could have a cheap, woman-in-peril climax. And more likely so the scriptwriters would've have to be bothered with coming up with any real dialogue. And the girl's car at the bottom of the river? Suspension of disbelief can only get you so far. Usually when a girl vanishes, the local law at least takes a pass at dragging the river. Here it is a year later and this car is just sitting there with a dead girl in the front seat. And why do these people even have a daughter? Why introduce this character and never go back to them at all? Just so Pfieffer's character could blame her neurosis on a bad case of empty nest syndrome? Not really worth the effort. And the red herring is a waste of time because it doesn't distract from what's really going on like a red herring should (In Psycho, audiences thought for the first half-hour or so that it was a movie about a girl stealing some money - when it turns out that the movie was much more than that, THAT'S what made it so shocking - the way it abruptly pulled the rug out from the audience.) and it doesn't bring anything to the characters that couldn't have been accomplished in a more direct way. All it shows is that Pfieffer is becoming convinced that there's an entity in the house. Did we really need to see an hour of her on the completely wrong trail to get that? This is to a Hitchcock film or a classic horror movie what a paint-by-numbers would be to a real painting. It may come out looking very similar to the unastute observer but to anyone familiar with what they should be looking for, the brushstrokes are all wrong.
-
Jul 29, 2000 9:44:20 PM CDT
REAL fright....the MOST FRIGHTENING THING IN THE MOVIE....
by xthecrovvx
the most frightening thing...i just saw it....it was horrible...my breath was caught in my throat.....my blood pressure jumped when i saw it...i was sick...i wanted to leave, but no...i couldnt...i was forced to sit there till it simply faded from the screen...the SHEER HORROR OF IT!! wanna know what it was?...right before the movie...i saw a little tidbit....::gulp:: NSYNCS DOING A MOVIE!!!! AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! ::gasping:: dear god...this cant be happening...ohhhohoh, this cant be happening..this cant be--oh, What Lies Beneath? oh yeah, that.... still sucks...hehehe....oh, but, in all seriousness....anybody see the trailers and pics from The Cell? man, im SO hoping that movie turns out great....and even if it doesnt, i have a feeling that its gonna be one of those those flicks that will have images that will stick with me for months...kinda like that scene in Event Horizon where a possessed Dr Weir shows Laurence Fishburne what happened to his crew...if you have balls, watch that fast collage of scenes in slow motion...now THAT'S some sick shit...much better than watching Michelle Pfeiffer's toenail for 6 minutes...Revolution is my name...P.S.--User ID Indeed is a psychopathic, sick minded, demon spawn of a human being...:;sigh:: this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship....
-
Buckle up, boyos, this is gonna be a long one. First of all, the two guys below my post (sorry, forgot your names--Veidt and kakaroff or something? Maybe? Sorry), anyway, they elaborated a few of the points I wanted to make very well, so I'll skip those. Second, congrat's User ID Indeed, that was one of the funniest fucking things I've read on these boards in a long time. You're great, man. Third, my mental instability is progressing just fine, and my only drug problem is that I don't have enough. Now, on to Zeno. You did a good job of laying out your arguments and points, and its obvious that you put some thinking into this (as opposed to a "TheWarrior" "fuck you ya fucking furry fuckball" flame), so I'll attempt to respond in kind. Okay, I'll buy the WLB/Psycho comparison as far as Red Herrings go, but I didn't like Psycho very much, so that doesn't do much for me. Love the hell out of Hitchcock, but everybody's got one clunker in them, and Psycho is most definitely a clunker. Interesting the first time you watch it, but the first half is deathly boring the second time. Does anybody really get a kick watching Janet Leigh go through the bank vault for the 20th time? I usually grab the remote and scream loudly, "Get to the fookin' hotel, ya dippy twat!", but I guess that's just a personal problem. But in a nutshell, that's the problem with Red Herrings--they don't hold up in second viewings, and second viewing are one of the true tests of how good a film actually is. Plus, after "The Burbs", it's really hard to take a "creepy next door neighbor who may or may not be a murderer" ploy seriously anymore. Moving on, I DO think that my comparison to the Exorcist is a valid one. Sure, content-wise, the two flicks are apples and oranges. But any true scary movie--be it a thriller, supernatural horror, or monster movie--needs to have a soul, a heart for us to care about. The Exorcist wasn't so scary because the little girl puked on the priest--it was scary because we LIKED the little girl and we felt sorry for her. We LIKED Father Karris, and Regan and her mother, and Father Merrick. The same goes with "Jaws". The ending is so suspenseful because we don't want ANY of these characters to die or get hurt, yet we have a sneaking suspicion that at least some of them will be. The same goes for "Alien", "The Shining", and yes, even the slightly cheesy but still cool "Poltergeist." This soul doesn't exist in "What Lies Beneath." It just isn't there. There are definite attempts to humanize Michelle's role (and she does a terrific job with what's been written), but it ultimately falls flat because there's no suspense. Even the mentally-retarded mongloid six-year-old with the mishapen head in the front row of the theater knows that Michelle is going to survive this movie--that's she's never in any real danger. And if you've seen the trailers or read the poster, most people will figure out that Harrison is actually the real bad guy, and thus the ghost is no longer scary. "He doesn't want to hurt me, he wants to TELL ME SOMETHING!" Oh good, how ever-so-fucking thrilling, Mr. Zemekis. Thanks a bunch, babe. The other main character, the esteemed Mr. Ford, plays his entire role on autopilot, and if anybody empathized with his character at ANY point in the movie, I'd like to take this opportunity to club you over the head with a decapitated baby seal. Ford goes from a loving husband to a man who trys to murder his wife of twenty years without showing ANY VISIBLE SIGNS OF EMOTION! No tears, no regret. "Oops honey, sorry about that. Now get yer ass in the bathtub, dear." He instantly stops being a character and starts being a cartoon. This man has obviously been taking "How to Play a Psychotic Killer" acting lessons from Keifer Sutherland, yet some strange and probably unholy facial perservatives have apparently frozen every single muscle in his face. Pimples on my testicles have displayed more of an acting range than Ford does in this movie. So, after fifteen mintues, I had correctly surmised that A) the ghost was friendly, and thus nothing to fear, B) Ford was responsible for the ghost's death, and thus would probably go crazy and end up getting killed, and C) I already wanted my money back. There was no suspense left for me, only slow tracking shots that would end in cheap psuedo-scary "money shots", accompanied by blaringly loud music. On an aise, jump shots can be effective only when YOU DO NOT REALIZE THEY ARE COMING (Jaws, Jurassic Park, and Alien all come to mind)--when jump shots are built up for fifteen minutes, they become redundant. The thing which most distubs me about this movie tho, which I guess you didn't get from my first post, is that "What Lies Beneath" is now what passes for a horror movie in Hollywood--carefully calculated, endlessly manipulative, and ultimately hollow and soulless. And I think that as long as we keep making movies like this into blockbusters, this is what we're gonna keep seeing summer after summer. I'm sorry if this post is overly long, but I've personally written two horror screenplays that have both been rejected for not being "commercial enough", and so I am rather biased and sensitive about this subject. Audiences today want "feel good" horror movies, and I know that I can't be the only one who feels that this phrase is an oxymoron. Okay, that's all. Peace to the ejaculating monkeys, folks. Slater out.
-
Harry, I began to doubt you. I thought you were getting that big head about "HARRY KNOWS ALL. FOLLOW HARRY, HEED TO HIS EVERY WORD" but when you clsoed your review with basically saying, see it for yourself... I loved it but you may or may not, etc. I was impressed. Now we have to get Moriarty off of his kick. HARRY, YOU DIDN'T JUMP ON THE BANDWAGON... ATA BOY
-
Harry writes: "It
-
Harry,..NO. FUCK NO!! You can't be serious about that peice of shit. It was pure shlock without the B-movie fun. A real B-movie is filled with low rent filmaking and no talent actors. For the love of GOD! THIS IS ROBERT ZEMEKIS! MICHELLE PFEIFFER! HARRISON FORD! You can't say that this movie was intentionally made to be a modernized B-movie. There is no fucking way! You want to see a really great ghost story...Go rent LADY IN WHITE!! it came out about twelve years ago and stars Lucas Haas. Now that's a ghost story!
-
.... I appreciate him bein' honest when he knows he's gonna' get flamed. And UserIdIndeed, you rock!
-
Why would they do this? I'm sick of the big studios pulling these summer safeties. It's like since they're using these big stars, this big budget, they're making this movie that is patently not Challenging or Offending anyone. Is it just me, or after all of the great movies last year, does it seem like they're intentionally trying to lower our expectations? When's the last time anyone even thought of MI:2, Gone in 60 Secs, Shaft, or the Patriot? None of these movies are even sticking. They're like these 'kamikaze' get-in, get-out pull in your 100M the first weekend then jump out of the way. I hate to sound like the crazy kid ranting, but this trend really disturbs me. I think the main problem with What Lies is this: Zemeckis is brilliant at translating offbeat screenplays into something palatable, but he's not someone you call to punch up the mediocre ones. (I'm really not meaning to throw such a bitchfest) but, it's kind of sad how Ford has just acted so..... tired in his last couple of outings. But I really don't know. Maybe it's not my place to say
-
The overzealous critics and the dipshit geek fanboys on the net are the only people I know who have been trashing this film relentlessly (probably because they think it creates the illusion that they know more about quality movies than everyone else). I for one thought it was quality summer entertainment, and blatantly superior to all of the films I mentioned in the title thread (PS had cool storm scenes and that's it, Patriot was overlong and an abomination of history, XMEN was great the first time I saw it, but a second viewing revealed a definite lack of character development--all of the dialogue in the last half is used primarily to move the story along). WLB had a fantastic performance by Michelle Pfeifer (who has got to be the most beautiful and classy actress working today), superb direction by Bob Zemeckis, and a story that held my attention until the final frames. Harrison Ford was ample, but his character was underwritten and misguided. I think this movie is a step in the right direction for his ailing movie career, it's refreshing to see him play a character who isn't a mickey frickin' boy scout. This film could've been on par with Gladiator (the only above average movie this summer) if it was rewritten by Scott Frank, rated R, and more consistently structured. I think Hitchcock would've been a fan of this movie, and he wouldn't of been nearly as critical as some of the detractors, who bashed it aimlessly because it wasn't The fuckin' Godfather. The point is, anyone couldn't find something to admire in this movie (namely Drew McWeeny) needs to lighten up and realize that overly cynical people never get laid (I know this from personal experience).
-
Despite the fact that the first 45minutes has a red herring that is dispelled by all commercials and trailers for the film, this movie is a bad Tales From the Crypt.
Does anyone else see the similarities ?
From the bad EC title to the Revenge of the Swamp Thing ending?
Did Robert Zemeckis just pull this script from the leftover pile of Tales From the Crypt scipts he exec produced? -
What Lies Beneath was stylish and brainless fun, with an awesome performance by Michelle Pfeiffer.
There i said it...I think this movied rocked. I saw it twice.
So whatever, jump all over this and tell me how wrong i am i could care less.
Obviously i'm not alone because the movie made 22 million this weekend, just a 25 percent drop from last. Not bad for a "steaming pile of shit". heheh :)
Anyway, Ed 209, not to nitpick or anything :) , BUT they did explain where the wife went. She told Michelle Pfeiffer that she tried to leave him by going to her mothers, and that he came to get her with some of her clothes (ie.: the big body bag looking thing she saw him putting into the car at night in the rain)
And your comment "(as no one knows they had an affair)!" Well Michelle Pfeiffer's friend did.
Seems like you did a little selective hearing to prove your point.
just kidding
But for what it's worth i really enjoyed this movie and I'm not in the middle aged female demographic this movie clearly aimed for in it's advertising.
And for the record The Haunting was WAY worse than this.
"I'm home GRANDPA!" (in a tiny chiuaua in heat voice) Gimme a break :)
That's it for now.
Aint it cool news rocks harry
-
Ok, Roger has been in the Biz forever.... Roger has a newspaper column..... a tv series, etc.. He lectures during Cannes.... and Sundance...
While in general alot of his reviews explore facets of the movie that some other critics overlook (his review of Dark City, and it's comparison to Metropolis are WONDERFUL and dead on), some of his reviews are so off, it's embarrassing.
Take for example his review of Gladiator... All he could do was compare it to Titus (a completely different type of movie, hardly a COMPARISON at all, except for the focus on ROME). Also, he criticized it's "dark look"... Roger was on crack: The dark parts were dark, because, well, IT WAS DARK... When they were in the desert, it was bright.... Does Roger think they had indoor lightbulbs back in Rome? He's old enough to KNOW that ;)
As for his review of What Lies Beneath, I see him off target yet again.. Sure, it was cheese, but I can't count the number of times I heard people shrieking out during the scary parts, because I lost count.... Most "horror/scary" movies out nowadays are neither, this was at least scarey in part, and fun to watch for me. -
BARI and all the other freaks that doubted me on this website. I hate to tell you I was right the 15 year old kubrick was right what can I say. LONG LIVE HARRY!!!!!!!!--he knows a movie you fuckers don't know anything.
Its the second best movie of the summer. GOD BARI I HOPE YOUR READING THE REVIEW HARRY GAVE.
PEACE OUT-------- -
I can't understand why so many people hate tis film with such a passion. When I read the scathing reviews for this movie a few weeks back, I swore I would not pay a dime to see this film. But my girlfriend really wanted to see it, so I caved. I'm so glad that I was dragged kickin' and screamin' into the theatre.
I really had alot of fun with this film. It was by no means perfect, but I found it very entertaining, and great way to cap off a saturday night.
I don't think that the nay-sayers are giving this film a chance. Forget the hitchcock comparrisons, the aging Ford. Let go of the freakin' "Back to the Future" trilogy. It's just a movie, and a pretty good one at that.
-
Jul 31, 2000 1:29:43 AM CDT
I really get tired of hearing all these fangeeks beetching about
by geekbasher 3.0
If a movie is really godawful, it drops out of sight immediately, like The In Crowd will or Battlefield Earth, I suspect Nutty Proffesor will too soon, that was awful, but a brilliantly made film that is fun, suspenseful, good performances, who says a script has to be perfect??? No one that I have talked to that has seen this film has hated it, It is definatley raking in the cash from word of mouth, it's refreshing to see a movie that uses SILENCE to stir up your nerves and not a teenybopper soundtrack and generic horror temp tracks! Hey I love to jump out of my seat, we all do! This reminds me of Blair Witch, Everyone hated it? yet it climbed to $140 million and more??? Hummmm, oh well, The majority of people go to the movies to be entertained, they really don't go home and write 7-8 pages of why they really hated the film, what was wrong with it, you try making a film of WLB quality and then lets compare, but until then everyone shut the fuck up! Until Hollow Man that is.....p.s I have seen WLB three times and have been throughly entertained each time, it is definately a audience movie! Those are rare to come by nowadays!
-
I get SO fucking frustrated reading your reviews now, Harry. I used to love them. I used to read them all the time. Now, I can't stand reading them, because all they are are comparisons to every fucking movie ever made! Doesn't this bother anyone else? WHAT LIES BENEATH is its own movie. If it has clear references to Hitchcock movies (which it does) then let it be that. Don't compare it to how De Palma (fucking hack) references to Hitchcock, or any other movies of the same genre. Let a film be one in itself and not compared to any others. It's wrong. And it also makes me crazy to read "This movie isn't a great film, or a good film, it's just an OK film." What the fuck is that? State clearly and carefully what it is YOU thought of the film. Don't make a general statement and say that this film IS what it is and nothing more. It's driving me fucking crazy. I need an opinion I can trust, man, and you a last hope. Farewell.
-
In an earlier post, Lord Bullingdon said Harry didn't know the difference between "It's" and "Its". Harry said "It
-
Jul 31, 2000 10:00:20 AM CDT
Critics hate WLB, but Ebert and what's-his-name give Nutty Profe
by ziranova
The world has gone mad. IT'S A MADHOUSE.... A MADHOOOUUUUSSSE!!!!! (oops, wrong talkback). I liked WLB, but I *highly* recommend CROUPIER.
-
Jul 31, 2000 12:27:04 PM CDT
WHERE CAN I GET SOME OF HARRISON FORDS AUTHENTIC ASS RAPE JUICE?
by dick dickman
The concoction Ol Indiana uses to get Michelle face down and immobile, is this a real substance? Seems like ol' Dr. Do Little had used this on a more than one co-ed in his day. Now where can I get some? (no pun intended.)
Punch it Chewie! -
I forgot to add...
It seems like Harry doesnt even review movies anymore. The reviews are either (like this one) a 2 page commercial begging you to go see it, or a rambling of what he ate, where he sat, who he talked to, and what flavor is Slurpee was. At least Ebert has some technical analysis of direction, actors performance...something. Harry is too self absorbed to even talk about the movie. I love the site, I too am starting to hate the reviews. Too little, way too late and always BORING. I did agree with XMEN though..........Come on Harry put down the hot pocket and WRITE! -
"The Untouchables" was an ode to Sergei Eisenstein. Sure, Zemeckis morphs into a couple of "looking up through a glass floor" shots (ala "The Lodger"), and it wastes a good half-an-hour on a Hitchcock-inspired red herring (which is the biggest example of characters going off on a completely useless tack since Maurice Chevalier, in "In Search of the Castaways" (1962), spent the first hour of the movie looking in the wrong continent).
Where they went wrong with this movie was the title -- it should have been called "Tales from the Crypt Presents What Lies Beneath". Then at least we would've known what we were getting when we went in: The biggest, best cast, most expensive EC comic ever. -
On the off chance that anyone gives a flip what I thought, here goes. This wasn't a terrible movie, it wasn't a good movie, it was just there. Frankly, it bored me more often than not, although the scene with Pfeifer in the bathtub at the end and after the truck had gone into the lake were pretty damned good.
The real b*tch of it is that it could have been so much more, there's a germ of a good idea there. However, it just missed the mark on a lot of occasions.
First, if I didn't already like Pfeifer the actor, I wouldn't have cared at all about Pfeifer the character. We establish that she's depressed about her daughter, likes banging Ford, cries in her garden, and has an eccentric friend (every movie female gets one, I guess). However, the role never had her do much to make me feel for her. If you don't care about the character, the movie won't work.
Second, the red herring. I know that it's been beaten to death, but it really is a poor one. A good red herring pays off in that, even though the viewer was misdirected, the events of it take on a new significance later when we figure out what happened. This one could have been excised entire and not hurt the movie at all. It added nothing but running time.
Third, the husband. Actually, I thought Ford dropped some good clues early on about his temperment. Unfortunately, it didn't pay off at the end. The Ford at the beginning of the film would have done the same deed at the end, but regretfully. At the end, killing her was a box check. Hell, Ford is playing with the dog, for heaven's sake!
Lastly, the end was just silly. The movie tried to play itself as a smart movie, and then ends with a Friday the 13th style ending where an unconscious and concussed man gets up (we see him in the window) and dashes out of the house, gets to the boat trailer, opens the knots that we see him so carefully tying earlier, gets in, and then closes it behind him in the 10-15 seconds it takes Michelle to run the last 10 feet to the open truck, get in, start it without fumbling, and drive away. A friggen Navy SEAL would have been hard pressed to do this, much less a 50 year old guy with a major head injury. Then we have the obligatory smash with a hammer and in he comes. Ever try and smash safety glass with something non-pointed? Pfeifer could have called the police, driven there, and read War and Peace and Ford would have till been thumping away.
It's not a bad movie, I just don't see it as a good movie. However, my wife, who's smarter than I, thought it was great. I'd go with what Harry said, if you're interested, go see it, but I'd say go to a matinee. It's sure as heck not the Sixth Sense or The Birds though (on AMC last night, now that's a movie that makes my creeped out). -
Why can't anyone realise that Harry's sold out to the movie studios now and he gives good reviews for any old shite except in circumstances when it'll ruin him (read Battlefield Earth and Sixty Seconds). If you were being wisked around the world on the studios behalf and had a site being hit thousands of times a day, hell if you were the one held in such respect because some idiots think you ruined Batman and Robin, then you're not going to bite the hand that feeds you. He's pandering to the powers that be in the hopes of getting some sort of a career (you think he'll get work anywhere else?) It's so obvious, he doesn't even bother to review most new movies anymore, he's so busy crawling up some other directors ass (which must really hurt the director becasue he's not a small guy). This is a site for seeing second hand news now, and being enterained by the monkeys who've learned to type. Bunch of Arse!
-
Oy vey. Listen up, brother. Step one: go to school. Step Two: buy a Handbook of Style (Little, Brown; MLA; whatever). Step Three: look up listing on apostrophes. Step Four: Read. If these steps are to burdensome, on Step Two, just go to a English teacher and ask him or her about it, and I advise that you suggest that "a friend" thought that a possesive "its" gets an apostrophe, so it's not too embarassing. "It's" ONLY GETS THE APOSTROPHE WHEN IT'S A CONTRACTION. It may seem to make sense for "its" to get the apostrophe considering how apostrophes are used in other words; in fact, it's a classic Jr. High level writing mistake (sorry Harry). But a posessive "its" is ALWAYS without an apostrophe, no exceptions. Lord Bullington is right. This is BASIC ENGLISH here. I would have let it pass, but you were so freaking adamant about being right, I was afraid somebody might believe you. Oy vey.
-
Good call Harry. WLB was a fun, flawed film. The performances and direction were good, the script was less than fantastic. It was fun, but for some reason lots of critics have chosen to try and rip this film a new asswhole. I almost feel guilty for enjoying this movie, but it was a helluv a lot of fun, so what can you do?
-
Ugh! It's disconcerting how much more this movie made the 2nd week-end. WLB is a mechanically produced piece of drivel that goes nowhere fast. The screening I attended had none of the screaming and jumping in seats that's been written about; can't possible imagine why that was happening anyway. The huge mack truck of a red herring is a total insult considering how slow and meandering the whole movie is and how much more they could have done with that premise if they had respect for the audience's intelligence. The acting and dialogue are uninspired. All of the seduction scenes, whether possessed or unpossessed, fell flat with none of the sensuality from an adult perspective. Just Hollywood schlock at its drabbest where even in better fare much of the human element is missing these days. **Begin spoiler** A scene where the character of Claire does the same bit with the shower curtain as the character of Marion in "Psycho" is just a silly ripoff. And, as mentioned before, ending up in the very same spot as the ghostly victim was too much of a stretch - guess they were transcendently summoned. **End Spoiler** That is just one of many plot holes we are expected to swallow in this jolts-by-number rote piece. Sometimes though, you'll forgive anything if you're being entertained - this was just slow and boring.
-
Most are giving Ford a bad rap for his part in the film, but what they fail to realize is that he is one of the main reasons that audiences are flocking back to the theater to see this one again. It's not because of his great acting(sarcasm here) it is simply because of the great casting. Audiences today can't remember when Ford last played a bad guy or even had a death scene for that matter, which makes his transformation from a regular joe to an all out killer just that more frieghtning for them. It threw audiences off which is the reason for good word of mouth(the main reaon not the sole)and his initial casting with Michelle makes it a -a hate to say it - but a good date movie. The film is bringing in money and dropped a small percentage the second from the first. If you hated this film fine, warn the world-although you should be warning them about MI2, but in the end the movie was pretty good. Let Dreamworks make all the money they can on this, which wah the obvious idea, and let's hope they take that money and put it to good use on more daring films.
-
The fact that anyone could offer such a blatantly wrong explanation of "it's" and "its" - GOOD LORD.
-
Aug 01, 2000 7:14:37 PM CDT
25% box office drop in 2nd week: The proof is in the pudding
by obscure homage
In the long run box office means jack shit for film longevity, but I just want to remind all the WLB bashers (namely the ones who trashed it on a Godzilla or Armageddon level of cruelty) that this information is proof that audiences are hip to Bob Zemeckis' entertaining supernatural yarn, and the word of mouth is spreading like wildfire. Your beloved XMEN has suffered 50%+ drops every week since it opened (I like the movie alot, but WLB is blatantly superior). To be honest, I was shocked that WLB was met with such fierce hostility from critics and the majority of cinephiles on the net. I realize that everyone has a right to their own opinion, but the people who couldn't find SOMETHING to admire in this film are being a tad critical. I enjoyed it thoroughly for what it was, but I can imagine an air tight version that could've manifested a Sixth Sense esque phenomenon--and I wouldn't be surprised in the least bit when the same angry, desensitized know-it-alls brazenly declare that it's a "steaming pile of horse shit" because there were no zero gravity kung fu scenes between Harrison Ford and Michelle (aka my future wife) Pfeiffer
-
This is the kind of slick swill that mainstream audiences always make successes out of. It has that professional veneer that $90 million dollars will inevitably buy you. This is nothing more than the fast food version of a Hitchcock movie and the average movie goer doesn't know - and doesn't understand why they should know - the difference. At least De Palma brought panache and wit to his Hitchcock riffs. This should've been an original production for the Lifetime network starring Joan Van Ark and William Devane, not a major feature film. On the other hand, just watch as this pushes past the $100 million mark. As for The X-Men having steep drop-offs - the reason's simple: this is a cult property that was always going to have a niche audience. Period. As much as I liked X-Men, I couldn't honestly endorse it to non-comic fans. It just didn't have the same crossover appeal of a Batman, Superman or even Blade. The mythology of the comic is too convoluted to really enjoy the film without having at least a working knowledge of these people and their shared histories before going in. And on top of that, the action and FX scenes were a giant let-down (thanks to the studio not only keeping the budget in check but also taking six months of post-production time away from Bryan Singer).
-
I loved this film. I will buy it on DVD and watch it endlessly. After seeing it three times, I'm happy to say that the audience hasn't degraded in size, and everyone always seems to have a good time. What Lies Beneath is not only well-written, well-acted, and beautifully filmed, but it is one chilling flick! The last twenty minutes are masterful. This film is not a "piece of shit," but rather a piece of art. It's also a very new kind of role for Harrison Ford.
-
I've seen WLB twice and both times I saw the audience jumping in their seats and shrieking from the last half hour's scares. Now, that makes a good scary movie, and nothing can change that. Harry agrees that the movie was a pretty entertaining summer popcorn scary type flick, and him being the brilliant critic that he is, I KNEW this would be the case, otherwise I wouldn't waste all of my spare time on this site. Thank you, Harry, for restoring my faith in Critickind. And thank God you didn't launch into a huge diatribe on poor Harrison Ford's crappy career and crappy choices and crappy old age, which is all I ever read around here.
-
*** Spoilers ahead ****
I can see Harry's comparison to "Body Double." It's closer than the Hitchcock comparisons. WLB is only Hitchcockian in a very surface sense in that you have some "Rear Window" action.
What this movie really is is "Ghost Story." The description of the plot:
One or more of the main characters has a secret. A ghost keeps haunting those around this person or persons to bring out the secret. The secret is that a young girl was murdered by this person or these persons because she reacted strongly or badly to a lover. When the truth comes out, we visit the car that the girl was drowned in, and the corpse magically animates and comes out of the car. Secret is revealed. Movie ends. Get a refill on your popcorn and leave.
- fits both movies exactly.
So, "What Lies Beneath" is really a retread of "Ghost Story."
Yahmdallah
-
During opening weekend, I talked my mother into going to see this film, despite the horrible reviews. We both came out saying "We really liked it, why did the critics hate it so much?" I had to remind her that last year's spooky film, 6th Sense got equally scathing reviews (though the critics will argue otherwise) and that film not only had repeat audience, BUT got Academy nods. I agree, see it for yourself: its a fun date movie, way better than the Klumps (can I call it "The Dumps"?) WLB is a good ol' fashioned ghost story for pre-teens, all JANE mag readers, and anyone who wants a fun "Don't make me think, just entertain me" kind of movie. The Witch has spoken...
-
I went to see this film on its opening night in Downtown Brooklyn at the neighborhood's brand new state-of-the-art stadium theater. The show was sold out, perhaps due to the free popcorn and soda they were giving out for the grand opening. The audience was... did any of you see 'Scary Movie' when the African-American girl spoke through the entire showing of 'Shakespeare In Love'? Well, this theater was packed with that same girl... nevermind that they were men and women and people of every race/ethnicity, but the point is they all liked to talk, yell, shout at the scream... throughout the entire movie. (It was so bad that my friend, a die-hard movie fanatic, had to leave a half hour into the movie.) Luckily, Robert Zemekis had the insight to put in the bathtub scene which was so eerie and absolutely captivating that you could actually hear a piece of popcorn hit the floor. Of course it's not Hitchcock, but it was a great scene in a better than average movie. I would recommend it to friends and I think they will enjoy it, just as long as they don't go to that particular theater.
-
I am about to see the movie what lies beneath. I was wondering what Hitchcock movie he "spoofs" or whatever. Thanks
-
I have to disagree with the posters that claim that the first 45 minutes of Psycho are a red herring. The fact that the rest of the movie would not have happened if the first 45 minutes did not occur makes it impossible for this to be the case. Why does Lila Crane go to see Sam Loomis? Because she was looking for her sister. Why does Arboghast go to the Bates Motel? He's looking for Marion. Why do Sam and Lila go to to the Bates Motel? Because that's where Marion was last. I agree that the movie changes gears after the first 45 minutes, it becomes a murder mystery. In What Lies Beneath, the whole "rear window" section only leads to a sight gag, not a very good one at that. The movie would have been the same (much shorter, granted) without this. However, Psycho does not work at all without the opening 45 minutes. I also didn't like WLB, but the main reason was that godawful ending, if it had ended so stupidly I would have not been so disgusted with the movie to dissect the other annoying facets of the film. It was like eating a tasty dinner and finding a cockroach at the bottom. Ruins the whole meal.
-
Why must people say a movie sucks just because it's "trying" to be a Hitchcock movie, but the problem is that Hitchcock would never had made a movie like this? What kind of stupid-ass complaint is that? Who cares if it comes off as a Hitchcock-esque movie? You should critique the movie on it's own, not constantly compare it to others. This has nothing to do with movies, but this whole thing reminds me of a review i read in rolling stone about the live Pink Floyd album "Is There Anybody In There?"
In that review the reviewer said that the album was pointless because Pink Floyd's live performance sounded so close to the studio version. The reviewer in now way addressed what was good and not good about the album. Was the sound quality good? Was the perfomance good? None of these types of questions were answered. This is the exact thing i'm seeing with reviews of this film. Hardly anyone addresses whether or not the acting is good, or if the story is good (on it's own, not compared to other movies), but instead everyone just keeps saying it sucks because it's a Hitchcock wannabe. Please if you're going to review a movie, analyze the good and bad points, not just compare it to someone elses movies. -
We live in an age of second-guessers, nitpickers,and so-called early adopters (AICN is as guilty as anbody in this department) who spoil the spontaniety and excitement of experiencing a movie fresh and unfiltered through the cynical eyes of screening moles and web-gurus. You bastards get masturbatory thrills out of saying "I saw it FIRST" instead of "I saw it." I couldn't give a shit less if you saw a first cut with no sound effects and 25% ADR completion before 99% of the known world and thought the movie sucked. You don't want to be entertained. You just want to pseudo-entertain all of us web-geeks by showing "Ain't I So Cool" for being one of the first privileged to see this movie. You're not about celebrating, praising or appraising films. You're about self-promotion in an industry that is bigger and more important than any of us and you simply want to bake in its glow. Because we all know the industry would never accept you as one of their own. So you bash them with a computer and an Internet connection from the safety of your hovel (don't point out my hypocrisy for doing the same thing because I'm well aware of this). I really love how you guys get personal in your damn "reviews" and "talk-backs" of these movies. Admit right now that you are all film-wannabe's but since you're film-can't-abe's, you try to cause waves with this self-important website. And I shame myself for perusing these damn pages but this message has to be heard to those who will listen, from the inside of your circle. You bastards take the fun out of going to movies. You try to stay a ten steps ahead of film when you should be riding along with it. You're not film-review pioneers, your a mutation in the evolution of cyber-journalism and will only help a jaded population become more jaded and cynical and disinterested in great entertainment. You sqawk-backers are entertaining no one but yourselves with your stupid tirades. You're like a group of dust-mites arguing back and forth on a piece of dung that no one gives a shit about. Especially, normal filmgoers who want to see the movie and be entertained by it. Those people aren't reading this site. They have lives. They do shit besides rant. They do shit that you, me, and the millions of web-geeks don't do. When I talk to people about Ain't it Cool, I am given blank stares because nobody has ever heard of it. I tell them about the founder, Harry Knowles, and they tell me they don't read children's books by JK Rowlings. We are all a disservice to filmed entertainment with our postings and our need to fill our time by reading these so-called reviews. And this web-site should either be banned or seriously consider changing its mission statement.
-
No No No, Harry! I can't believe you compare this to BODY DOUBLE. What Lies is NOT LIKE A DEPALMA MOVIE AT ALL!!!! Depalma Suspense movies are wild, absurd, brilliant deconstructions of Hitchcock themes that explode...implode...and writhe about every which way on screen. They are brilliantly pornographic comic book satires. WHAT LIES is a very straight forward suspense film. Just because it riffs on SCENES from Hitchcokian movies does not mean it IS Hitchcokian. There is a differance. What Lies is stylish, like depalma...but not subversive like Depalma. I thought the movie was OK, but not great or even very good. Enjoyable, but entirely inconsequential. Now, I don't think inconsequential is a BAD WORD, but when you are comparing it to Hitchcock or Depalma (who I think is an immensly relevant filmmaker)I must say..NO WAY! My major problem with the movie was that the first hour was completely useless. Had you cut it out, the film still would have worked. Now, sometimes DEPALMA does something like this (the extended dream sequence in Raising Cain) but his point is to play with the audience...destroy their expectations of what is to come and what is real. Here it's just a way of filling up a not too clever mystery with some red herrings to make it seem more intricate. But it's really just an hour of filler. So go see WHAT LIES BENEATH. It is an enjoyable 2 hour 20 minute spook. And it's DREAMWORKS' best genre release to date...But please don't confuse using SCENES from REAR WINDOW and PSYCHO with using THEMES and TECHNIQUES from Hitchcock or Depalma.
-
WHAT LIES BENEATH is Zemeckis' HOMAGE to Hitchcock. Do you all really think that Zemeckis is stupid enough to STEAL things from Hitchcock films? De Palma, on the other hand, rips off of Hitchcock and, whelp, everything else for that matter. De Palma doesn't have anything to show for himself when it comes to originality. Zemeckis has BACK TO THE FUTURE, WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP, ROMANCING THE STONE, etc, etc. It's not like he's lost his talent so he rips off of a classic filmmaker. It's not like he's trying to get it by everyone who sees the movie that it's his own style. It's strictly an homage. And another thing... all of you who are complaining that the end to WLB ruined the movie... WLB's not to be taken seriously. For me, it's not about the twists, it's just about a master of manipulation manipulating his audience and bringing them along for a ride. Have fun. Because that's all that WLB's good for.
-
There are just some people who get typecast as heroes. Others play heroes to a tee. Harrison Ford makes the worst villian because he is the best hero. I'm sorry...To most of us he is the bad ass in Star Wars and Indiana Jones. God, a father figure to some...The anti-hero with the gun and the broads running to catch him.His only other villian character i can remember is from American Graffiti and he was still kick ass in that. I mean, when he was trying to wack Michelle I was routing for him...
Talk about jackal syndrome.
That's why this movie is a piece of steaming shit (amoung other things: like, why the hell would he let her labor for 5 minutes to slip her toes around the bath tub cork to play dead on the floor downstairs just to show renewed vigor to catch her driving on a redneck ass truck, why not just throw a clock radio in the tub?).Not to mention sub-charecters explained for the point of forshadowing why and how Harrison's going to try to kill her bunk ass later... Including a punk ass mouse in the first half hour that basically gives away harrison's villiany...and for villians, why not show villiany.He's about as mean as your mother until the last 15 minutes where he turns into a raging pyscho faculty guy to save his job.snd seriously would any real man kill 2 hot chicks in one lifetime over a job?!
Also the screenwriter was smoking crack, the story changed gears halfway through. Why not a ghost mad at a man she loved and commited suicide for? That would be new. Instead we're running back to Stir of Echoes (where everybody is biting)...A ghost out for revenge.
This film was extremely scary for the first half-hour or so before the ghost took second to the gay ass possession stuff and fake deaths. If you watch this film i suggest you leave after she sees the dead women in a reflection in the tub, you will leave thinking damn what a great scary movie.
Anyway I lost my point...Harrison Ford is a god to comic book geeks and star wars fans.He is the most convincing hero in Hollywood.In this he is the most uncovincing bad guy.amoung other steaming shit reasons... -
I think the people that enjoyed this film did so because a master director like Zemeckis can make almost anything LOOK good...emphasizing the word LOOK because it looks great. Pfeiffer and Ford are very good, but the story is CRAP! When did Hitchcock ever do ghost stories anyway? He would have rewritten this to focus on the real elements rather than the dumb, supernatural stuff. I am actually only referring to the final climactic shot, which really pissed me off. If you have seen the movie, you know what I am talking about--pure cheese! Now, you know the script isn't that good when.....SPOILERALERTSPOILERALERTSPOILERALERTSPOILERALERTSPOILERALERT.....the only way the audience isn't in on the twist is because the film casts Harrison Ford as the villian. We are conditioned to see Ford as the perinnial good guy, like Tom Hanks. That means the script isn't good enough to have someone like Kevin Spacey, who has played both good and bad characters, to pull it off. Ford does fine. I have no problem with him playing a villian, but the only reason he is in the movie is to divert our attention. This is unlike, say Kevin Costner in No Way Out before Field Of Dreams turned im into a all around good guy. Also I would change one thing. We find out Ford had an affair, then we find out he killed the girl, then we see that he has to kill Pfeiffer too. He has been backed into a corner by both women, and he sees no other way out. Why then, when he puts Pfeiffer in the tub does he turn into a psycho who looks like he's enjoying what he is doing? In my humble opinion, it would have been more powerful if he sat there by the tub literally sobbing as he watched her die. That would have made him more real, but instead he seemed to be getting off on it. Bad decision.....SPOILEROVERSPOILEROVERSPOILEROVERSPOILEROVER....Silly movie, to be sure, but it could have been better, even good, with just a little tweaking.
-
Aug 10, 2000 6:09:48 PM CDT
When will people stop taking movies like this so seriously?
by two hours
When will you all learn not to take movies like this so seriously? Sure, it would have been more effective if it wanted to be a story of humanity and morality, but it's purely an audience movie that people are supposed to have fun with. The whole movie is ridiculous if you want to compare it to reality. But it's not reality. It's a movie. It's a second reality. An escape for people like myself. It's fun. That's all.
-
time for spell check, buddy. It's means "it is" not the possessive form of belonging to it. other mistakes too numerous to mention.
-
First, I liked What Lies Beneath. I liked that Michelle Pfeiffer was practically in every scene. I liked when she was poessesed she reverted to a little bit of her slinky Catwoman persona. Second I liked...SPOILER WARNING SPOILER WARNING SPOILER WARNING SPOILER WARNING the fact that Harrison Ford was a bad guy. The perfect bad guy is one that does not reveal his intentions until the end. It makes it more suspenseful. As for the comments that it was such a bizzare change, it's a movie. If you were with this guy 24/7 you might start to see he has a bad side to him. Even Norman Bates starts out very kind, but then you all know what happens to him. I liked the ghost stuff, it freaked me out, the way sound and camera angles were utilized. I liked the red herring beginning that was really spooky too. Now what I didn't like was the ending. Yes I know it's a cheesy horror cliche and not to take it seriously, but it was just a little too much. We haven't had a really good ghost story in a while. The Sixth Sense was close as was Stir of Echoes, but we haven't had a really good scary ghost movie. I liked The Frighteners, and I thought Zemeckis did a good job of setting up the ghost angle here, but the cliched ending made it fall flat to me. One other thing that went through my head. Have any of you read Stephen King's Bag of Bones? That's an excellent ghost story, and the location in WLB is almost the perfect locale for the film. When I saw the lake I was like killer! REad Bag of Bones! I think that's all I have to say...
-
Sai-Gon-Jin, dude you are SO RIGHT ON in your rant about what's wrong with most of the cynical wannabe film geeks populating the forums of AICN. Your essay should be future required reading for one and all.
-
Beneath What Lies Beneath... was the somber atmosphere found in 6th Sense. The lighting, the dark New England air, the buildup and surprises you already expect but don't mind expecting, were executed very well, and that made this film a great time for me.
--James Prince
NiteFlyer@aintitcoolmail.com -
Test
-
Oct 01, 2002 4:23:45 PM CDT
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
by ufatselloutbitch
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts