WHAT LIES BENEATH

The Question Should Be...Who Cares?
by Ed Owens

Supposedly Robert Zemeckis has always wanted to do a Hitchcock film. Based on his latest effort, What Lies Beneath, he's obviously talking about a different Hitchcock. I will save you the plot summary, as the trailer has already revealed far too much (imagine a trailer for The Crying Game that included the scene). The movie begins with some of the most obtrusive exposition in recent cinema. Characters and their relationships, both social and geographical, are presented multiple times (and each one more obvious than the next) so as to eliminate any possible doubt as to who these people are or where they live. In the first five minutes alone, the full name of Harrison Ford's character is spoken repeatedly: not Norman, Norm or Mr. Spencer, but Norman Spencer, Norman Spencer, Norman Spencer, as if Zemeckis and writer Clark Gregg didn't think audiences would catch it the first five times around. Once the people and places are established, the plot kicks in, or at least the film's poor excuse for one. The next hour is so full of cheap scares (things bursting into frame as noise erupts from the speakers) and phony surprises (Tee hee--it was the dog after all...) that only the most naive of movie-goers will continue to jump or even maintain interest. The various tricks and "treats" grow so tiresome that by the time the narrative actually finds a direction, most people aren't going to care. The midpoint of the movie is perhaps the film's scariest revelation--that the hour plus you've just sat through all leads up to...everything you already knew from the trailer, and that Zemeckis, et al, had essentially done a better job of setting up the film in three minutes.

It was at about this point that I debated leaving, wondering what could possibly be gained from sitting through the rest of the movie. My reasoning was that, having gotten this far, surely the film would now do something with the premise it had so tediously developed. I was wrong, and in this case, I don't mind admitting it. The payoff of What Lies Beneath is so absurd (and poorly done) as to be laughable--and not intentionally. Suffice it to say that Zemeckis, despite some nifty camerawork towards the very end, relies far too heavily on the cliches of the genre. Ford and Pfeiffer are wasted (not that either of them has done anything decent in years), as are the talents of Zemeckis, who is certainly capable of better. Part of the problem is the film's estimation of the collective IQ of the audience, an estimation that can only be viewed as ridiculously low. Another is an inherent misunderstanding of the material--both the conventions of the genre and how best to explore the script (which itself is no masterpiece, but could have worked in the right hands). The new ads include the spoken phrase, "Don't go near the tub." My advice would be to not go near the auditorium, at least not the one playing What Lies Beneath.

CineScene, 2000