Robert Zemeckis’ “What Lies Beneath” was made earlier than he immersed himself deeply (maybe too deeply) into CGI overload and was nonetheless making movies about individuals confronted with unfathomable private obstacles.
I don’t imply that to sound like bitter grapes, solely that Zemeckis’ present work looks like an off interval (extra on that later), whereas motion pictures he made a long time in the past are among the many highest of the post- “Jaws” (1975) late-Twentieth-century-through-today mannequin of blockbuster filmmaking.
Norman (Harrison Ford) and Claire (Michelle Pfeiffer) discover themselves empty nesters for the primary time, as their daughter heads off to school and leaves them alone of their scenic, lakeside house. That permits them to rekindle their intercourse life and revel in solitude, till Claire begins to suspect one thing questionable is happening with their neighbors (James Remar and Miranda Otto, each great).
Claire’s mounting suspicion unsettles her husband, who fears she could also be shedding her thoughts. Even worse, Claire believes that her home is haunted.
Zemeckis kicked off the twenty first century with two motion pictures that had been made in an uncommon, dynamic style:
Zemeckis famously shut down manufacturing of “Solid Away” (additionally 2000) for a number of months, to ensure that Tom Hanks to shed extra pounds, develop a beard and grow to be a believable islander. Throughout the hiatus, Zemeckis made “What Lies Beneath.”
I preferred “Solid Away” (regardless of the non-island scenes seeming so pointless and routine compared with the quiet, tropical portion of the movie), however I’ve at all times most well-liked the pulpy thrills of “What Lies Beneath” extra.
Whereas not often talked about in the identical group of movie artists who push f/x boundaries as James Cameron and Peter Jackson, Zemeckis deserves to be. His decisions as a filmmaker contain materials that’s troublesome to adapt to the display and he creates the know-how wanted to make the unimaginable doable.
Along with his reward for guiding his f/x crew, Zemeckis has at all times had a energy for bringing out nice, shocking work from actors and making even bubble gum movies have an edge and playfulness of their design.
Twenty-five years since its launch, I used to be shocked to see that the screenplay is by “Marvel’s Brokers of S.H.I.E.L.D.” star Clark Gregg, and that the movie not solely holds up however is even darker, and richer than I remembered. Many will recall that the movie’s studio was criticized for releasing a trailer that gave away far an excessive amount of of the twisty, surprise-filled plot.
For the reason that movie was a large hit anyway, nobody appeared to have cared about this oversight, because the too-much, too-soon strategy to movie advertising and marketing has hindered many movies subsequently.
Right here is the uncommon film star car that calls for actual appearing, not mere star posing, from its leads. Pfeiffer is strong, making her probably hysterical character sympathetic and layered, however it’s Ford’s film. It is a aspect to the actor not often tapped into, in a flip that’s underrated and amongst his greatest.
Seeing the movie greater than as soon as, there’s a depth and constant darkness to his tortured character.
Clark’s screenplay is filled with Alfred Hitchcock references, visually and thematically, as there’s a lot of nods to “Psycho” (1960) and “Rear Window” (1954) although there’s additionally slightly “Ghost Story” (1981), “The Shining” (1980) and “Diabolique” (each variations), too.
Zemeckis has created as meticulously designed a Hitchcock tribute as the very best of De Palma. It’s additionally not with out its flaws: at 130 minutes, it’s overlong and has an prolonged finale that it doesn’t want.
What Lies Beneath (2000) – Directed by Robert Zemeckis pic.twitter.com/7A7NPGZn1k
— Pasquale Marco Veltri (@PMVeltri) January 10, 2024
Whereas the over-the-top climactic scenes don’t derail into CGI oblivion, just like the remake of “The Haunting” (1999), they comes shut. Alan Silvestri’s nice rating, sadly, has some heavy-handed nods to Bernard Herrmann, which appears pointless (as if we wanted reminding that this can be a homage to The Grasp of Suspense).
What unquestionably works is the bath sequence close to the tip, the place a personality finds their tub is not a spot of tranquility. This masterful set piece, using top-notch modifying, sound and cleverly positioned digicam angles, places us in the identical terrifying place because the protagonist.
“What Lies Beneath” (1981) could lack Wilson the Volleyball, however it serves up massive scares and an unsettling theme of questioning every little thing you suppose you understand about your partner. This is able to make a devious double function with “Gone Lady” (2014).
The final time Zemeckis made a movie I cherished this a lot, it was “Flight” (2012). I admittedly watch “The Polar Categorical” (2004) each December and dug the pulpy thrills of the 2007 “Beowulf” in IMAX 3-D (cherished seeing it that method, haven’t seen it since), however I’ve been a grumpy fan since.
His final trio of films that drowned unhealthy screenplays with oodles of busy particular results had been “The Witches” (2020), “Pinocchio” (2022) and “Right here” (2024), all of that are so terrible, they really feel like self-parody.
The Zemeckis of my youth used particular results as a storytelling device, whereas the Zemeckis of immediately appears a prisoner to the pixels he helped usher in. That sucks. I like most of his motion pictures, however can’t assist however surprise if he’s misplaced his method. I’m wanting ahead to a comeback that I think will arrive in some unspecified time in the future.
For now, I flip to “What Lies Beneath” for the sort of lavish blockbuster that Hitchcock may need made and most actually would have loved.