Rish Outfield's reviews
Of all the movies, Horror or otherwise, coming out in 2000, What Lies Beneath was the film I was most excited by. Harrison Ford is my favourite actor, Robert Zemeckis is my second-favourite director, and Horror is my favourite genre. I had a lot riding on this one, and so, as usual, I set myself up for disappointment.
If you saw the trailer to this film, about 70% of the film has been given away. Unfortunately for me, I had at least 20% more given away for me by an interview with Harrison Ford I read yesterday. Michelle Pfeiffer stars as Claire Spencer, who, after her daughter goes off to college, begins to suspect that something unnatural is going on in the Vermont home she shares with husband, Norman (Harrison Ford). There's a rather lengthy red-herring about just what that unnatural thing is, but just between you and me, it's a ghost. All in all, the movie is very scary. The fact that it was rated PG-13 allowed several tykes into the screening I attended, and they were screaming up a storm. There are several scenes where I jumped or gasped and a couple more where everyone else did. When the film was a spooky ghost story, it worked wonderfully. When the truth finally comes out, well, then the film seems to shift gears and become something else. At over two hours, it moved very slow, which I didn't mind as I enjoyed the performances and ambiance, but might not have been entirely necessary. When it was all over, though, I wasn't at all satisfied or pleased, and that may be due to my high hopes going in. I didn't hate the movie, but I realize now that I wasn‘t having any fun, and that's a let down in itself. There are a couple of similarities between this film and my favourite film of last year, The Sixth Sense. But as The Sixth Sense is a scary but optimistic ghost film, this was a scary but ultimately downbeat, almost-unpleasant ghost film. And that's too bad. Bob Zemeckis has a talent for making audiences feel damn good, and I have to admit that after What Lies Beneath, I didn't feel so good. It was well-made, but I don't know how up I'd be to seeing it again.
Best Scare: Things are always appearing and disappearing to scare Michelle Pfeiffer and us. Pick one.

The tyranist's thoughts
I love ghost stories. As little as I probably really undestand about anthropological linguistics, I believe that I am correct in stating that urban legends are the last of the American oral tradition, and most of those are ghost stories. There is something about a tale centered around things that aren't quite there and objects that seem to perform of their own volition. Creepier than even the goriest Italian cinema and scarier than any psychopath are the ghosts. Most of the time we aren't sure what they want and that is where they are worse. A psychopath just wants you dead. But a ghost? They may torment you forever just because they like you being uncomfortable. I love it.
When I heard that Zemeckis was going to dabble in horror, and let's be honest with ourselves here, it is horror, I got excited. While I may not love all of his films the way Rish does, I do appreciate his art and he has produced more than one classic of modern cinema. Add to that everyone's hero, Harrison Ford, and Ladyhawke and hey, I'll see it. I say that now anyway. It did take me a while to get to it. No special reason, and on at least some level, I'm sorry I waited.
I found the plot to be intelligent and the scares subtle at the right times and blatant when they should have been. The acting was nice. They were trying for something Hitchcockian and achieved it nicely. The movie did run a little long, but when has Zemeckis been known for his brevity?
I'd recommend it to ghost story afficianados and anyone who just likes a good "thriller." There is plenty here for all.