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

Robert Zemeckis, by dint of such phenomenally popular films as "Romancing the Stone," "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?," the "Back to the Future" trilogy, "Death Becomes Her," "Forrest Gump" and "Contact," was already a highly successful Hollywood director when, along with producers Steve Starkey and Jack Rapke, he formed the ImageMovers production company in 1998. As the company's first project, Zemeckis chose screenwriter Clark Gregg's "What Lies Beneath," a modern-day ghost story that, the director told his crew, he wished to bring to the screen as Alfred Hitchcock might have done, IF the Master of Suspense had had access to modern FX technology and computer graphics. (Never mind that none of Hitchcock's 54 films dealt with ghosts or the supernatural per se.) Filmed largely in the Lake Champlain region of Vermont, near Addison, during a hiatus from shooting "Cast Away," the resultant picture, released in July 2000, was still another significant feather in Zemeckis' already crowded hat, and, like those other films named, features impressive yet subtly integrated FX to complement a highly intriguing story. As both a horror film and an exercise in suspense, "What Lies Beneath" must be deemed a complete success.

In the picture, we meet an attractive, middle-aged couple, Norman and Claire Spencer, and indeed, as portrayed by Hollywood icons Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer, the Spencers might be one of the handsomest couples in the history of the horror film! Living as they do in a beautiful home overlooking a Vermont lake, the professional couple (Norman is a renowned geneticist; Claire, a retired cellist),although their only daughter has just left for college, would seem to have an enviable marriage. But before very long, weird occurrences begin in the newly "empty nest." Strange noises and whisperings, a broken picture frame, spectral reflections in the surface of the lake and (in perhaps the film's single scariest scene) bathtub water, all serve to convince Claire that the ghost of a young woman is haunting her abode...possibly the ghost of her new next-door neighbor, who Claire believes has been killed by her husband. But, as it turns out, the truth is considerably more complex, and the unraveling of this truth will go very far in unraveling the Spencers' marriage, too....

So, DOES "What Lies Beneath" strike the viewer as a Hitchcockian exercise, abetted by 21st century computer wizardry? I would have to say yes. There are any number of scenes that are undeniably scary or suspenseful, the most agonizing of which is the wonderful scene in which Claire lies paralyzed in a bathtub that is slowly being filled with water. Some of Alan Silvestri's score is reminiscent of Bernard Herrmann's classic music for "Psycho," while Claire's use of binoculars to spy on her neighbors at night cannot help but call to mind Jimmy Stewart in "Rear Window." Pfeiffer and Ford work well together and do have some screen chemistry; they make a credible couple, although Norman, as it turns out, might be one of the least sympathetic characters that Ford has ever essayed. For this viewer, however, the bulk of this picture's success must lie squarely with Pfeiffer, who appears in virtually every single scene and is simply terrific in all of them. Watching her in this film, in which she easily displays far more dramatic heft than her costar, and also reveals what an effective "scream queen" she can be, the viewer will most likely regret how few other horror vehicles Ms. Pfeiffer has appeared in. And really, besides 1994's "Wolf," I can think of no others, unless we stretch the point a bit and include 1987's "The Witches of Eastwick" and this past summer's horror comedy "Dark Shadows." One of the finest combinations of sensational looks and undeniable acting chops to this day (and Michelle is 54 as I write these words),she is quite simply one of the best we've got, and makes Claire Spencer and "What Lies Beneath" a character and a film to savor. The venerable "Leonard Maltin Movie Guide," apparently, does not concur in this assessment, concluding its lukewarm comments with the statement that the story "doesn't make sense." But the film DID make perfect sense to me...as long, that is, as one is willing to believe in spooks. And by the end of Zemeckis' highly effective film, most viewers, I have a feeling, will be uttering that famous line of the Cowardly Lion: "I DO believe in spooks, I DO believe in spooks, I do, I do, I do, I do, I DO believe in spooks...."

As the "haunted house" chiller seems to currently be in vogue, it comes as no surprise that all the big studios should jump on the bandwagon - after all, they're hoping for another SIXTH SENSE. This tale in particular is an old-fashioned ghost story free of the ludicrously poor CGI special effects which have ruined fare like THE HAUNTING remake. While it certainly passes the time and is well worth watching, be warned that this is no SIXTH SENSE. What it is, is a derivative thriller only worth watching due to the direction and actors involved.

Firstly, the bad points. As is the case with a lot of films today, this film desperately needs some originality. The story of a woman being haunted in a house alone is a very old one indeed and WHAT LIES BENEATH is content to rehash a lot of the clichés we associate with haunted house fare - the ancient creaking door scene for one. Another flaw is the film's bloated running time - at two hours and ten minutes, this one will give you cramp and for no reason, either. Some subplots and scenes - such as the psychiatrist interludes - could happily be hacked from the script with little effect. A lot of the scenes in the film are needlessly prolonged, and some careful pruning could have added some excitement. Strangely enough, in the finale, the opposite occurs and about fifty mini scenes are packed into ten minutes - this is where all the excitement has been stored, and the sudden adrenaline rush seems a bit hurried and desperate in itself.

Another problem is the so-called "horror" content. For me, this film works better as a thriller for many reasons. Every time there's a pause, or a potentially scary moment in this film, you just know things are building up to a jump scene, where somebody or something appears suddenly in the film and there's a loud burst of music on the soundtrack. The classic example of this would be somebody turning around and bumping into somebody else suddenly. This happens in WHAT LIES BENEATH a lot. A heck of a lot. While this kind of basic shock tactic works, it's just horror at its most simplistic and therefore rather disappointing. You won't find any of the creepiness of THE SIXTH SENSE around here.

The acting from seasoned veterans Pfeiffer and Ford is excellent, as to be expected. With Pfeiffer you would expect nothing less, and it's refreshing to watch a respected actress appear in a film like this now that it's fashionable as opposed to the wealth of TV actresses appearing in such fare in a television format throughout the nineties. As for Ford, he plays a deliberately boring character for much of the film but really comes into his own towards the end; he's cast against type and great with it. As for the other actors, the underrated Joe Morton is wasted as a pointless psychiatrist while Diana Scarwid is an exceptionally irritating friend of Pfeiffer's. James Remar thankfully pops up to put in a nice imposing performance.

Packed with red-herrings, lots of clichés, and enough references to Hitchcock to make you sick, this is a flawed but interesting film and a darn sight spookier than many previous offerings in the '90s. CGI is thankfully shoved aside in favour of more old fashioned scares, with the ugly computer animation only popping up a couple of times. One exceptional scene - this film's highlight - does for the bathtub what PSYCHO did for the shower, with a prone and paralysed Pfeiffer lying in a bathtub slowly filling with water. A horrific concept expertly done, immediately followed by the film's best scare. Other things to watch out for include plot holes (Pfeiffer retrieves a buried casket from underwater single-handedly),one moment of painful violence, and the crazy "chase" ending which really gets the adrenaline pumping. The ending of the film is predictable but effective. WHAT LIES BENEATH may not be a masterpiece in this particular genre, but it's well worth a watch.