What Lies Beneath (2000) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)
|Theoretical question. What would
a movie be like if you took one of those grade-b
supernatural thrillers that they usually make for less
than the cost of a typical pop-up toaster and remade it
with big box office appeal - lavish effects, Robert
Zemeckis directing, Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer
starring, hundred millon dollar budget, cleaned up for a
Not so theoretical, really. This very movie would happen. Actually Zemeckis missed the boat. I would have worked in cameos from Mel Gibson and Tom Hanks as the charming gay couple next door, and maybe Julia Roberts as The Ghost of Christmas Past.
Oh, well, the shameless profiteering worked. The movie made a zillion dollars. Critics hated it. Normal people liked or even loved it.
I'm going to completely ruin this movie for you if you keep reading, since I don't abide by the code of "surprise ending omerta" that obsesses real critics.
|I was whining aboiut how bad the ending to
"Sister, Sister" was, and this movie has the
same frigging ending. Pfeiffer and Harrison Ford are
underwater, trapped in a car, and she's about to drown.
Along comes the ghost, like Aquaman. Ghostie breaks the
window, saves Pfeiffer, and takes Harrison to his
well-deserved watery grave.
Oh, no ................................
Before that it was an OK thriller where Pfeiffer gradually identifies a dead person who has been communicating with her, and tries to determine why her new dead buddy is so talkative. The plot limps along predictably, but there are tons of those 'boo" moments that are always kind of fun, especially if you inhale, and it has plenty of Hitchcockian tribute moments and red herrings to mislead the characters and us, so I was at least paying attention for a while.
But I have to admit that I fast-forwarded through nearly 30 minutes of it, and that dumb-ass ending pretty much ruined it for me altogether, so I'm glad I wasn't one of the 6.1 billion people who paid theatrical prices to see it.
that studio chiefs don't ask a lot of questions when
directors make them a lot of money, and Zemeckis makes
them pretty much more than anybody. He made this and Cast
Away at the same time, and together they brought in more
money than the entire economy of Canada, so nobody will
ask this, but .....
I'd like to know exactly what they spent that hundred million dollars on. I mean there are no casts of thousands, no monumental effects, no battle scenes, no recreations of ancient Rome, no period costumes, no special sets, no wild animals, no trips to Europe. Just people hanging out in New England in regular 20th century buildings.
And they sure didn't spend the money on lighting.
Return to the Movie House home page