The marquee value of the star's names is all that keeps "What Lies Beneath" from being a well made (but certainly not exceptional) TV movie on the "Lifetime" network. The performances from Ford and Pfeiffer are solid, even above their norm in spots... but the thin, predictable plot, unnecessary red herrings and overly long running time make their efforts seem as labored as the characters they play, trying to escape from the submerged truck cab in the final scenes. Still, I wanted to like the film... it tries to be spooky and succeeds in that area best with good use of atmosphere, silences and small disturbances in the house. Adding a bit of horror, we get some nice touches with reflections of images, misty fog and ghostly messages (electronic and handwritten), But ultimately this is not a horror movie. When it moves into the suspense mode, the film is less effective. There are elements of suspense and some suspenseful moments, but they rarely add up to more than "Boo!" or "Gotcha!", as in typical fashion a character moves warily about the house, looking around the corners with an appropriately frightened expression and finally gets the jolt we audience members are prepared for. The ability to properly build and maintain suspense is perhaps the hardest task for a director, and therefore only a handful in cinema history have held any claim to being a "master" in this endeavor. There is no threat to their achievements in this film. The weakest area (not trying to give anything away) is the add-on feature of the Action sequences. Not that Harrison Ford is any stranger to Action movies, but when he is transformed into a "Jason" type of unstoppable maniac, it is almost laughable. All this aside, I think thirty to forty-five minutes could have been cut out of the movie, improving it in the process. It is not a good sign when you are just waiting for the credits to roll so you can stop watching. I'd say if Blockbuster has already rented out the last of the classic Horror/Suspense films and you just HAVE to have something to entertain you... this is a choice.
Reviews
4 Reviews
House on Haunted Hill
(1999)
House on Haunted Hill.
25 September 2000
When I was a kid, the original version of this movie scared me tremendously. In fact, I thought it might be the ultimate haunted house film... right up there with the classic Universal films of the 30s and 40s. Seeing it years later though, it didn't hold up very well at all. In fact, the scares, special effects and dialog looked campy and even silly. Time reveals all.
That being said, the new film is bound to fare even worse. To say that it is a bad remake is just to scratch the surface. Here are some of my main complaints: 1) The dialog is so stilted and full of unnecessary and repeated epithets and obscenities it sounds like an HBO "original". Throughout, you have the desire to see all these people chased out of the house and out of the film by a pack of hounds. 2) A haunted house movie should give you a good view of the house, shouldn't it? Well the few "exterior" shots that are used seem to be of a faceless monolithic structure high atop a mountain. There are no distinguishing characteristics or even a closeup. I thought it looked like a computer generated image from a Batman movie. 3) To follow the suspended disbelief and logic set up by the film: A house that is "alive" and so intelligent that it can connect online with a computer and alter a party guest list to invite whom it wishes, should be able to tell if those guests are the ones desired when they arrive... shouldn't it? I nominate the line "I was adopted!" as the stupidest line in a horror film ever. 4) The plot is not new, of course. But it has been done better by "The Haunting" and "The Haunting of Hill House" to name a "Make/Re-make" combo. This time, however, the cartoonish character portrayals are an albatross around the already feeble attempt at a story. This doesn't create the illusion of reality, suspense or even interest. 5) Blood. You like it? You want it? They have it here by the bucket and bathtubful. Do filmakers actually think this creates a good horror movie? I am certain that someone somewhere has measured audience shock response to the sight of blood and the number of time it is shown per minute and calculated down to the last drop how much to slosh across the screen to maximize box office attendance. For me, I was disgusted and angry after about 15 minutes. 6) Inconsistencies. All movies have some. This one is no exception, but these are too obvious to mention and pale in comparison to all the other problems.
If you like slasher movies, this has the blood but not the payoff you want. If you like horror, this is a horrible move but doesn't really scare. If you just like good movies, find something else to rent.
That being said, the new film is bound to fare even worse. To say that it is a bad remake is just to scratch the surface. Here are some of my main complaints: 1) The dialog is so stilted and full of unnecessary and repeated epithets and obscenities it sounds like an HBO "original". Throughout, you have the desire to see all these people chased out of the house and out of the film by a pack of hounds. 2) A haunted house movie should give you a good view of the house, shouldn't it? Well the few "exterior" shots that are used seem to be of a faceless monolithic structure high atop a mountain. There are no distinguishing characteristics or even a closeup. I thought it looked like a computer generated image from a Batman movie. 3) To follow the suspended disbelief and logic set up by the film: A house that is "alive" and so intelligent that it can connect online with a computer and alter a party guest list to invite whom it wishes, should be able to tell if those guests are the ones desired when they arrive... shouldn't it? I nominate the line "I was adopted!" as the stupidest line in a horror film ever. 4) The plot is not new, of course. But it has been done better by "The Haunting" and "The Haunting of Hill House" to name a "Make/Re-make" combo. This time, however, the cartoonish character portrayals are an albatross around the already feeble attempt at a story. This doesn't create the illusion of reality, suspense or even interest. 5) Blood. You like it? You want it? They have it here by the bucket and bathtubful. Do filmakers actually think this creates a good horror movie? I am certain that someone somewhere has measured audience shock response to the sight of blood and the number of time it is shown per minute and calculated down to the last drop how much to slosh across the screen to maximize box office attendance. For me, I was disgusted and angry after about 15 minutes. 6) Inconsistencies. All movies have some. This one is no exception, but these are too obvious to mention and pale in comparison to all the other problems.
If you like slasher movies, this has the blood but not the payoff you want. If you like horror, this is a horrible move but doesn't really scare. If you just like good movies, find something else to rent.
The Collector
(1965)
SEE THIS FILM
29 March 1999
I should have commented on this excellent film long ago. I first saw it in the late 1970s on television and was immediately entranced by both Stamp and Eggar whose performances are are simply riveting. It is an almost "Hitchcockian" film, in that tension and suggestion are used to maximum effect keeping the viewer on the edge of their chair. This is a film that I'd love to see re-made or re-discovered, but again like Hitchcock's best, it owes a great deal of its impact to the time in which it was made and would likely suffer at the hands of a lesser director than Wyler. Fowles work is captured (like Miranda) and viewed with microscopic clarity through Freddy's watchful eye. It has also inspired a song called "Chastity" from The Raves CD, "Past Perfect Tense" which relates the whole of the story. SEE THIS FILM.
Psycho
(1998)
Interpretation or Imitation?
10 December 1998
A film of a book is an adaptation or an interpretation. That is pretty standard practice. Anyone who has read the Robert Block novel, Psycho, knows that Hitchcock took great liberties with the characters and story to make his movie. This is often a dis-service to great literature, but in this case, Hitchcock found in this unremarkable little thriller the elements of a great suspense film and added a touch of terror he'd never attempted before. His decisions to make a black and white film using the crew from his television show and actors with little or no box office draw had as much to do with atmosphere as economics. But all that aside, he took a calculated risk to make this his new vision of horror. That is the hallmark of creativity and of an artist. Psycho 1998 is not a film of a book. It is a film of a film of a book. There is nothing here to indicate that this group even knew about the Bloch novel. Regardless of the technical attention to detail or the updating of characters, this was not a book that was "discovered" and brought to life or the long awaited adaptation of a best seller. Ultimately it is only what it is... another assembly line film made for $$$ only. A year after it hits video it will be a catalog item at Blockbuster and then a $1.00 rental. Hitchcock's film stand alone.
Tell Your Friends