What Lies Beneath (2000) - Drama, Fantasy, Horror

Hohum Score

77

Boring

The wife of a university research scientist believes that her lakeside Vermont home is haunted by a ghost - or that she is losing her mind.

IMDB: 6.6
Director: Robert Zemeckis
Stars: Harrison Ford, Michelle Pfeiffer
Length: 130 Minutes
PG Rating: PG-13
Reviews: 186 out of 669 found boring (27.8%)

One-line Reviews (665)

But it was extremely entertaining if you just want a fun movie and want to be jolted from your seat a few times.

And, it all ties in to a thrilling climax, which is executed well.

so-so acting from Ford aside,the movie succeeds because of it's supporting characters and also it's engaging intelligent storyline.

As formulaic and predictable as these tension-release episodes are, they work.

He seemed very tranquilized (yawn) until the "hahahahaha, I'm a killer and you're next" bit.

It is ridiculously cliche and an absurd concept.

Considering how many cool movies Zemeckis has created in the past such as the BTTF trilogy, Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Cast Away, plus his involvement with the 'Dark Castle' movies (House on Haunted Hill, Thir13en Ghosts, Ghost Ship-all graphic and way scary) and Tales From The Crypt for WLB to be such a boring affair is bizarre.

While the film certainly wasn't original, I found it thoroughly entertaining.

Talk about predictable.

Keep you on the edge of your seat kind of movie!.

the characters are annoying and predictable...

It even has it's moments in the begining for the people who are afraid that it might be boring at first.

The story is very predictable with no surprises.

After about an hour of this irritating and repetitive (and lazy) attempt at building a suspenseful atmosphere (which of course fails), it becomes clear that a dead lady is trying to communicate with Pfeiffer.

The truth is all psychological thrillers have to be formulaic to a degree.

As a result, another promising movie is dragged down to become merely ordinary, which is probably more disappointing than seeing a film that starts out average and stays there.

Other things to watch out for include plot holes (Pfeiffer retrieves a buried casket from underwater single-handedly), one moment of painful violence, and the crazy "chase" ending which really gets the adrenaline pumping.

Big bugdet, big cast, big waste of time.

And all the while, there was an edgy atmosphere that made you sit on the edge.

Also way to long, the ending being extremely drawn out, and just plain hoaky.

Yes it dragged in places.

The way he handles the camera is way too predictable as we see the camera going one hundred and eighty degrees around the head of one of the actors.

Slow creepy horror .

) Filmed largely in the Lake Champlain region of Vermont, near Addison, during a hiatus from shooting "Cast Away," the resultant picture, released in July 2000, was still another significant feather in Zemeckis' already crowded hat, and, like those other films named, features impressive yet subtly integrated FX to complement a highly intriguing story.

Predictable .

Masterful direction, tight editing and a stellar cast provide for a wonderfully entertaining hour and a half.

In fact, there is no storyline at all.

Director Robert Zemekis wants(stress WANTS)to make a Hitchcock-like thriller:he half succeeds in that he creates good mood and tension,but he fails miserably in making a slow,long,tedious and aggravating film where the plot takes WAY too much time to establish and the action to get rolling.

Wickedly twisted, superbly mystical and wonderfully suspenseful, 'What Lies Beneath' is a brilliant scary movie that doesn't have to rely on gore or run-of-the-mill slashing scenes in order to frighten you.

Its a bit predictable and the characters are a bit static.

The story was highly predictable about half way through, there was no suspense, the acting was dull and on the whole, totally unconvincing.

Contains spoilers I watched this with one question mind: what on earth was it about this choppy, inconsistent, & empty script that made such talented people as Pfieffer, Ford, and Zemeckis sign on?

While a Hitchcock film is usually so intense it leaves you on the edge of your seat, WHAT LIES BENEATH instead is so boring you might be falling asleep.

Very enjoyable!

Unoriginal, but nonetheless entertaining.

Zemeckis has created an entertaining classic thriller.

Rather boring and banal .

Although I did jump at certain scenes, the movie was slow and dragged from the get go.

Overlong and predictable, nothing special.

Michelle Pfeiffer is superb in this admittedly hokey but quite entertaining supernatural thriller that steals pages from a number of books and binds them together in a classy package.

Unfortunately, once that issue is decided for us, the film loses some of its intriguing quality and becomes a more standard issue horror film.

Essentially boring.

Director Robert Zemickis slowly and calculatingly builds up the tension and eventual unraveling of the plot,with involving,interesting characters and an entertaining script.

Waste of time and money!

The plot was a little predictable, although the predictable didn't happen.

I'm sorry if any of this did not make sense, see the movie and read this again, you'll understand that there's so much to be said for the movie that it cannot be expressed in words, just an utter sense of confusion

I'm just glad I waited until this came on HBO to watch this disappointing "thriller" that tries desperately to be scary and shocking but turns out to be formulaic and almost comical.

Go see this if you enjoy trite dialogue and plot twists, scenes that serve no purpose except to slow the film down and make it last twice as long as it should, or movies that build to absolutely nothing.

I think the movie was entertaining, not intending to blow your mind away.

While this movie is enjoyable regardless of whether it was viewed on opening weekend or whether it is the third or fourth viewing on television, it is more understandable that Ebert and Roeper had some issues with the film during its theatrical release (whether they have altered their views upon its DVD release, I do not know).

The entertaining parts of this movie were due to the different way it was shot (others liken it to Hitchcock - I wouldn't know) and due to Michelle Pfeiffer and Harrison Ford.

I saw this at a theater with my girlfriend and I can tell you her "reaction" was what made it an enjoyable experience for me.

To be fair, the trailer doesn't spoil everything (thank goodness), but it spoils enough to make the first hour seem a little slow in the build-up.

The suspense is breathtaking.

One of the worst movies of the year .

Because he borrows too many sequences, ideas from the master of suspense, he makes his movie dull and it loses of its appeal and its credibility.

Many segments seemed to be purposely drawn-out, to the point pf irritation.

The film is done with great style and has a much slower pace than what most people are used to.

At several points toward the end, I thought for sure I knew what was going to happen, only to be surprised by a sudden twist or unexpected turn.

The movie was entirely unpredictable, you never knew what would happen next.

Why see it, you'll waste your money!

For the film to achieve resoluton, it has to move from female time, which is repetitive, fluid, elliptical, enigmatic, open into male time, which is straight-ahead, no-nonsense, progresive, explanatory, closed.

However, the final 10 minutes were so contrived that I found myself shouting at the screen in disgust.

Even though it was predictable I still got chills and was scared.

It's not as good as most of Zemeckis' earlier films but I'm barely giving "What Lies Beneath" thumbs up because it's intriguing and suspenseful up until the climax.

A slow and easy fright fest.

There are any number of scenes that are undeniably scary or suspenseful, the most agonizing of which is the wonderful scene in which Claire lies paralyzed in a bathtub that is slowly being filled with water.

The writers also "borrow" heavily from Hitchcock rely on a series of tired cliches and everything becomes far too predictable.

With more than a few allusions to the old master himself (grabbing the shower-curtain when falling out of the bath, for example), the result, understandably, is stunning.

Michelle Pfeiffer gives a great performance (a lot better than Harrison Ford's cliché-good-father-and-husband) and that's basicly why this movie is so intense.

I whole-heartedly recommend this movie to those who enjoy a good, suspenseful scare.

But this movie bores you to the hilt!

And of the stars: Harrison Ford pulls off intense by way of bemused throughout, whilst Pfeiffer made me more uptight with each sideways glance.

I admit that I went along to see this expecting to be bored, yet hoping that Pfeiffer and Ford would be worth watching, so the intriguing plot took me by surprise.

Enjoyable movie .

For example, at one point about halfway through, a progressively more unnerved Claire [Pfeiffer] is inside her home peering intently at her neighbor's house, which we see in the predictable breathless pan from window to window, supposedly through her binoculars.

It was great also the music, the story, the x_efects, (remember that now a days most of effects are as boring as MI-2 effects) Husband, wife and Doctor characters are amazing...

terror and adrenaline .

Diana Scarwid also gives an enjoyable performance as Claire's best friend.

Every tedious minute is dragged out and every second is felt.

On the other hand, Harrison Ford's character is not very believable, and it is way too long.

Instead of using the slow buildup as in "The Haunting," I wish he had looked back to 1982's "Poltergeist" to see how a fast-paced, scary ghost story is made.

If done right, this genre really knows how to pump up your adrenaline and keep you coming back for more each time around.

The climactic bathroom sequence is exquisitely chilling and visually stunning.

All in all, "What Lies Beneath" is tedious, overlong (why are those two always together?

""Scares", such as they are, are thoroughly predictable.

Unfortunately, the "mystery" of the plot is revealed fairly early on, thus making the ending quite predictable.

Starts slow but build until you're jumping and on the edge of your seat at the end.

The movie starts off very good and is very exciting and interesting, but as the movie rolls on in over 90 minutes it all gets slowly boring and uninteresting pity enough.

When you watch this film, you really can see that there was a lot of effort made here, to make an entertaining movie.

Creepy, with a thrilling climax.

If he doesn't have a very original story in hands, he makes that into a film that is scarier and more intriguing than others.

The movie does have a very suspenseful bathtub scene.

The story is good, but takes way too long to get started.

Otherwise, a total waste of time for all involved, especially the audience.

The ending was a little cheap, the one computer animation bit a little contrived...

The one stand out sequence is when Pfieffer is paralysed in the bath as it slowly fills with water, it's one of the most tension filled & suspenseful scenes I can remember seeing in a modern horror flick.

What's worse is the fact that the movie starts slow, and grinds to a halt within the first hour.

A suspenseful film .

The point is, the movie's plot is too predictable.

Harrison Ford is kept subdued and nearly monotone throughout most of the film, providing great surprises later on when his true emotions burst to the surface.

Although it is absolutely not a slasher/bloodbath movie, it can liven up an otherwise dull evening at home, definitely.

the so predictable and cliché ending and the lack of plot throughout the whole film.

You always know what's coming next, not because of any heavy-handed foreshadowing, but because it is so cliche and formulaic.

Zemeckis spent the first hour boring us to death until we just didn't care how it was going to end...

I walked out of the theater highly impressed.

This is an entertaining sturdy thriller worth the 2 hours of your time.

With the `horror' being reduced to a series of talky conversations, it's just too slow burning.

Although the scariest scene in the movie flashes upon very late, and so does the most thrilling.

Despite some plot holes, which are a part of this genre, Robert Zemeckis brings us an entertaining film.

Goes overboard and falters at the finale, but it's intense and well-acted, with crafty, innovative direction from Robert Zemeckis.

I truly enjoyed it.

And the ending is predictable and ridiculous.

An enjoyable thrill ride .

While I'm glad that the people who have raved about this movie enjoyed it, I thought it was one of the laziest and most predictable movies of the last few years--not counting Mel Gibson movies, of course.

The beginning was slow, the middle crawled, and the ending, when the movie is supposed to be at its suspensefulest (I made that up), turned out to be another joke.

It is a bit predictable at times, there are a few jumps scares, and you better believe that they are as annoying here.

I enjoyed this movie it had some good intense moments in it.

Dull and very predictable.

The most breathtaking movie I've ever seen.

Instead, I think Zemeckis is using them to lull us into a complacency, into thinking, "Ah ha!

Predictable, slow, forgettable .

Robert Zemeckis' direction is banal at best.

Elements of, amongst scores of others, Rear Window, Rope, Notorious, North by Northwest, Vertigo and, of course, Psycho, combine in terms of plot and visuals to make a thoroughly absorbing story that is as classic in its narrative as its masterful cinematic style.

However, despite these flaws this film remains a pleasure to watch and is very suspenseful with some nicely designed sets and good performances.

This film has done mankind a true serice in finding a cure for insomnia.

Indeed, the only attributes of this movie are its two riveting stars, wonderful cinematography and a cozy old house in the scenic fall of Vermont.

Not much in the way of originality, but entertaining none the less.

Very very slow movie .

The plot is also incredibly predictable.

What Lies Beneath is a very intense movie with some great twists that I would recommend to anyone looking for a good thriller or horror.

I found it predictable, contrived, and lazy.

Outside of that, the movie was totally predictable, and the plot was un-original, copied from about 100 other "ghost" movies.

Boring, Long and predictable.

Over two hours of boredom spiced in the end with some good old fashioned slasher scenes.

" It is eerie and spooky fun and as suspenseful as a good Hitchcock movie.

Harrison Ford, who I don't think is a very good actor, gives an okay performance of an extremely boring character, and Michelle Pfeiffer steals the show as expected, with a good and solid performance of a complex character.

And actually, it is, but I was surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did.

Save your $8.50 - maybe rent it one day when you're completely bored.

If you like predictable make-you-jump scary movies, this could be the one for you.

This is a movie that takes its time, the suspense and tension are slowly, oh so very slowly, cranked up bit by bit until you find yourself fairly squirming in your seat and gripping the arm rests.

In fact, there are plenty of cliché moments in "What Lies Beneath".

Much too long, slow, cliched .

Masterful, stunning and terrifying ghost story that shocks you in all the right places.

A decent-looking film dragged into boredom by its weak script .

This pseudo-horror film throws in every possible horror cliché, and before the end you'll be so sick of pointless pop-up scares that you'll be completely immune (I was sick of it once Pfeiffer was scared by a car in a driveway).

Then when the real plot was revealed, you are treated to a host of nail-biting , intense and horrifying scenes.

Entertaining, but predictable.

Robert Zemeckis does a wonderful job here, with outstanding camera work, stunning angles, creating tons of creepy atmosphere, is great at doing boo scares, and managed to do homages to other directors as well (Hitchcock especially), and lots of other amazing shots as well, plus he kept the film at an extremely fast pace.

Moreover, Zemeckis' efforts to make the movie fascinating are ineffective, even by using some processes linked to detective movie such as the wrong track (the first sequences when Pfeiffer suspects her neighbor to be a murderer).

Very suspenseful movie.

boring, boring, boring .

But around the fifth time of watching it, it did get a little boring.

The movie was twice as long as it needed to be, the silence that some speak of as a plus was actually sleep-inducing.

But before very long, weird occurrences begin in the newly "empty nest.

They only have to be entertaining and how did H.

Still, with it's eerie atmosphere and largely effective jump scenes, What Lies Beneath is an enjoyable ride the first time, especially in the cinema.

Watchable, entertaining, scary and, ultimately, funny.

Most reviewers went out of their way to say it was boring, stupid, unoriginal, a waste of time, how Harrison Ford looked so old he should retire (more on that later), and one critic even went so far as to compare it to "Battlefield Earth" for Godssake!

Are you falling asleep?

Pfeiffer and Ford elevate slow moving ghost story .

A predictable plot with some geniune scares and a tip of the hat to Alfred makes "What Lies Beneath" worth seeing.

i like to see thrillers which full of mysterious air, restrained and not exaggerated scenes and expressions, unexpected suspensions insinuated in the details.

"What lies beneath" is as enjoyable now as it was ten years ago.

Scary, but predictable .

Good scares, but too long with a predictable ending .

Totally Predictable .

Harrison Ford is particularly disappointing, a shell of himself, and seems as bored with the story as I was.

This movie was so predictable, I was ready to walk out a half hour before the movie was over without any fear that I would miss anything.

The movie is definitely worth seeing, if only because the first hour is quite suspenseful and enjoyable.

Scary in a true way, with rare blood and gore, and little things like whispering, reflections, and a whole lot of Jumps makes this a Very thrilling movie.

This is easily 1 of the 3 worst movies I have seen this year.

) during the slow stretches of this thriller.

Luckily for us viewers, What Lies Beneath manages to escape these clichés and come out victorious as an original and engaging supernatural thriller all the way.

Boring, Passive-Aggressive Psycho Knockoff With Hints of Sixth Sense .

Too predictable to be scary .

The first hour-and-a-half or so of this film is fascinating, riveting, and compelling.

Every cliche turn in the plot was so easy to guess ahead of time it was painful.

This is a ghost story with a suspenseful, well-written script, great performances, and genuine suspense.

Eerie, Engrossing Thriller From Robert Zemeckis.

This movie was too slow for me.

I think he could have done better with a decent script, and so could the stars in what was some very dull roles.

The finale is OK for what it wanted to accomplish, but it comes off more like 'poetic justice' than the knock down, drag out, hell unleashed climaxes we are so used to with this genre.

ZEMECKIS-PFEIFFER-FORD: a perfect trio results an excellent supernatural thriller; a perfect production results a dynamic suspense; and a perfect acting results an exciting movie for the summer...

A DREARY, TEDIOUS WASTE OF TIME.

Most of many fellow cinema goers seemed to agree with me if the number of sighs of boredom and fidgeting were anything to go by.

>It was too long and drawn out.

So, so, so thrilling.

And at over two hours, What Lies Beneath is far too lengthy for this type of film, and includes some rather boring moments.

Very Suspenseful .

Plus the fact, as far as the story goes, I found it confusing and muddled: what sort of movie was it trying to be??

It was all so predictable and slow, I kept waiting for the film to grip me, it never did!

There are some scenes that are so suspenseful that everyone is the theater will be biting their fingernails.

She suffers from the empty-nest syndrome and even starts to see things that aren't actually there.

As i said, this movie is slow and put me to sleep.

There is some truth in that, but the finale is also thrilling and suspenseful, thus lessening any sort of true negative impact it might have had if the scenes were less competently executed.

Performances are all reasonable (Ford notwithstanding) but the load of cliches makes this a trite and lackluster blockbuster.

Again the camera work is brilliant, use of mirrors and different angles make it a very exciting, exhilarating film to view.

Robert Zemeckis knows how to add these unbearable moments without us really knowing what they're about.

But if it can put me on the edge of my seat with chills & shivers, I say "well done".

The ending was so unpredictable it actually made me say wow.

The use of mirrors throughout the film are both mesmerizing and suspenseful.

It's a well crafted, well acted, well directed, spooky, suspenseful and scary piece of modern horror.

What it is, is a derivative thriller only worth watching due to the direction and actors involved.

Predictable cheesy writing with a 90 million dollar budget.

The climax of this film is one of the intense in recent cinematic memory.

In a single take, Pfeiffer leaves the bathroom, the bath empty, walks around for a minute, and re-enters the same bathroom, now filled with steam, the bath full, before discovering a message written on the mirror.

This is the worst movie I have seen in quite some time.

I found it to be predictable and by the numbers at times.

Despite a predictable ending that lacks the punch of the rest of the movie, "What Lies Beneath" is a respectable rendition of the Hitchcock thrillers of the past.

It was entertaining.

If you like predictable, cliche and slow paced thrillers, this is your film.

) What a waste of money.

It was so tedious, I had difficulty in not yawning continually.

Well-crafted, suspenseful movie with fine acting .

Norman (Harrison Ford) and Claire (Michelle Pfeiffer) are the perfect empty nester couple.

This is exciting, thrilling, and superb.

A little boring.

The best thing is the suspense level in "What Lies Beneath" is quite high and I wasn't really bored, even though the story is rather cliché.

Sure it rips off some movies (The Sixth Sense and Rear Window) but these are great films so it just makes What Lies Beneath even more enjoyable to watch.

Don't waste your time because the answers to What Lies Beneath lie in the trailer itself.

This confused thriller tries to be many things and is way too long.

The first time I watched "What Lies Beneath", I was completely blown away by its engaging, mysterious plot and well-acted characters.

A scary, but very enjoyable, movie.

While I enjoyed that to a certain extent, it eventually becomes tiresome, as there was just too much of it by the end of the film and because of it the film itself ultimately suffers here as well.

This film is in the last term an insipid film, but anyway it's well done and it's entertaining.

It is also far too long, and flawed by the inclusion of a first section which is intended to mislead you into wondering whether Michelle Pfeiffer's Claire is going mad - is she imagining manifestations, did the next door neighbour really kill his wife, do the significant close-ups we have been subjected to since the opening titles really mean anything or not.

If the film was made thirty years ago, it would have an effect, but it's way too predictable.

I hoped that 'What Lies Beneath' would be, if not a masterpiece, at least good entertaining fun.

A thrilling thriller .

The amount of critical bashing What Lies Beneath received leads me to believe that some people view this movie with too much of a harsh eye and need to believe that every film of this sort absolutely has to be unpredictable.

I found this movie to be tremendously enjoyable!

This is a movie that will literally keep you on the edge of your seat trying to anticipate what will happen next.

Yes, I found this to be an enjoyable movie experience!

An insane woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) who starts out as a promising (if slow moving) character which halfway through the film changes completely.

First the film was slow going, that I wished for more supernatural scenes, and action sequences.

Based on an idea of Steven Spielberg, the movie starts going slow, building up the tension, thrilling here and there, until the end where it bombs us with thousands of revelations, horror, action, jumps and screams.

Save your money.

The performances are pretty good as both leads are memorable however it lacks a strong supporting cast and is a bit slow in its early stages.

Totally entertaining, edge of your seat thriller.

This film is made by Robert Zemeckis, the guy who is responsible for such classics as Back to the Future where a dolorian became a time travel unit, and Forrest Gump where a slow wit goes in an American odyssey to find love.

Because I agree with you, the plot is boring and has being used lets say…… just a little beneath 10000 times before.

watch the story unfold exactly the way you guessed it would, one dull, predictable scene after another...

What Lies Beneath made me jump on at least half a dozen occasions, and had me on the edge of my seat for the entire movie.

She carried the movie despite it's many flaws and made it worth watching, and she should do more movies now that I think about it.

The viewer would leave the theater feeling exhausted, even assaulted.

I just laughed and laughed the entire scene that I got disgusted for wasting 3 hours of my time watching on TV with an hour of commercials.

The slow story and the cheap scares really made me sick.

Also, the sub-plot about the creepy neighbours is nothing but a red herring and it is such a pity, because it could have developed into something intriguing.

The film gets really intense during the last hour when Pfeiffer starts trying to figure out what's going on, and the final half-hour is one of the most suspenseful 30 minutes ever constructed for a film.

Save your money (and your two plus hours).

entertaining, however a little of a slow start .

She is always beautiful, but at the age of 42, she is simply stunning and captivating as Clair.

It's was way better than Forrest Gump and maybe as entertaining (though completely differently) than Back to the Future.

The first part of the film is a decent study of a woman dealing with the "empty nest" syndrome as her only child moves out to college and she is left alone in her house while her scientist husband pursues some high-powered research, spending most of his time at the office and even when he's at home, he's usually working.

The characters were unintentional caricatures and the audience laughed at the contrived comic relief.

We are left with a slow and obvious thriller with minor chills.

Comes out victorious as an original and engaging supernatural thriller .

It is the type of stuff that writers feel a need to throw in just to make things more thrilling.

Great Beginning, Great End, plodding and painful middle .

Sure, this movie is no all-time horror classic, but it is a fairly intelligent, entertaining, thrill ride of a movie that deserves a much better chance than the critics are giving it.

I recommend waiting till it comes out on video so you can fast forward past the many uninteresting and unnecessary filler scenes.

As a refreshing change to more formulaic chillers, WLB takes its time to build the suspense.

In fact, he has become tiresome, as far as I am concerned; therefore, I shall avoid his movies in the future.

I remember how much I enjoyed this movie upon it's release, and I enjoyed it just as much watching it again recently.

So without giving too much away, it was exciting to watch Pfeiffer work her way through this mystery.

Though this film happens to be a little to long and drawn out plus it has a complex plot, it teaches us a lesson that our past secrets especially bad ones will come back to haunt us even destroying or taking our life for good.

So before you go on and on about how "predictable" a film is, how the screenwriter used poor "exposition", how the director doesn't know a good movie from a hole in the ground, etc etc ad nauseum, perhaps YOU should list your own screen writing/directing credits...

Clues lead her to the odd job couple living next door (James Remar and Miranda Otto) but soon it becomes clear the answers won't be as easy or obvious as that, and the cold, clinical nastiness of a thriller that knows what it's doing and won't compromise sets in, freezing us in our seats for a nice jarring third act of unexpected resolution that lets the actors go to some places they haven't ventured in their careers.

Slow, predictable, trite .

"What Lies Beneath", directed by Robert Zemeckis, is a pretty entertaining film for most of its running time.

It did, however, border on too long and drawn out.

There are so many lacks and cuts, stupid things happening without decent explanations, predictable scenes and a lot of poor distractions from the main story.

The slow pace of the film felt like the dredging of a lake bottom.

As for the other actors, the underrated Joe Morton is wasted as a pointless psychiatrist while Diana Scarwid is an exceptionally irritating friend of Pfeiffer's.

Not as complex as Sixth Sense, But more entertaining .

Well, like I said - not a bad film, just too predictable.

I just watched it last night and I have to say that actually this movie sent chills down my spine, I was really impressed with how intense it was.

This is the most suspenseful thriller I have seen in the past year.

Waste of time, waste of stars.

This is when the movie goes from fascinating and spooky to cheesy and shabby.

There is nothing new in this film, it takes a lot of clichés and puts them together in a way that tries to keep you guessing but just leaves you bored.

The spooky moments all add the mystery, Pfeiffer is convincing as the traumatised, Ford drops his lovable action hero persona completely to become a sinister and quite unexpected villain, definitely worth a look.

It has a solid cast and it had a fascinating trailer.

Of course it's all revealed in the end, in a solidly scary, thrilling and well-executed finale.

Scary, suspenseful, and very entertaining.

There are a lot of unexplained things, forced on the viewer, which are dumb, in effect, treating the viewer as someone, who can take any sort of crap, and be contented with the façade created by the horrifyingly thrilling special effects, to cover for the feeble story - line.

What I (and my thriller-loving wife) got was derivative and predictable.

Quite frankly this is the worst movie I have ever seen.

Skillful, old-fashioned thriller holds you with its intriguing setup and Hitchcockian nuances.

Not the greatest, but entertaining.

2) Some of the 'false scares' were really predictable and stupid.

Harrison Ford plays a small role in comparison to Michelle Pfeiffer's housewife with a bad case of empty nest syndrome.

), make this very dull to watch.

My wife and I found this movie boring to the point of being painful to watch.

"What Lies Beneath" is a conventional yet simple to follow film with a cliche script that doesn't require a lot of thinking.

Quite possibly the dullest ghost story, ever made.

it's supposed to be pretty intense and mysterious.

But if you go, take someone with you to cling to during the suspenseful scenes!

And the other scenes, there's the typical cliches that Zemeckis plays, (hint: the old "it's only the cat" cliche is used in this film).

This poltergeist suspense filled thriller does a great job of keeping a viewer on the edge of his or her seat.

In fact for a while watching it I was quite bored.

The means to achieve that end are efficient, if often trite and rarely original.

It's story is an unpredictable tale that evokes lots of tension and suspense, ultimately building to a nail-biting finale.

i loved watching harrison ford morph from his regular character to something unexpected (finally).

Creepy, and very enjoyable .

While this memorable chiller from Robert Zemeckis may recall every classic thriller from Gaslight (1944) to The Haunting (1963), including a number of references to Hitchcock's classics, What Lies Beneath is a well-done and engrossing modern tribute to the old-fashioned suspense thriller.

How dreary.

A few exciting moments are lost in a melodramatic mish-mash without sense or meaning.

I went into the theater expecting a real snoozer, but spent most of the time either on the edge of my seat or grabbing onto my husband's arm!

suspensefully unbearable .

It could have been so much better with just a little attention paid to it, but as it is, it's fairly poor, full of red herrings and unnecessary characters and slower than molasses.

Plus: Michelle's acting Creepy music CinematographyMinus: predictable story,Not so creepy after 30 minutes,Same old screenplay we used to see on & on & on...

I thought this movie was okay a few years ago, now I've seen it again and it's sunk lower for me, the cost seems to have gone to the two top actors rather than the story, which is lacklustre and bland at best, avoid this if you're wanting an actual creepy and thrilling ride.

From the opening credits to the stunning climax, the techniques of the master are unashamedly paid tribute to.

This is a far too enjoyable thriller for me to criticize substantially.

Considering the cast (Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer are among my favorite actors), I expected 'What Lies Beneath' to be an engaging, intelligent thriller.

Great talent involved in a watchable but very predictable movie.

This movie was a complete and utter waste of my time.

There are some frightening moments, but in general everything is predictable, specially the end.

First I saw it by myself and I interrupted and leave the theater.

What Lies Beneath is a wonderful film, It'll keep you on the edge of your seat all the way through the film.

The result was a very entertaining and in parts scary thriller for me.

Making smart suspenseful camera movements.

Michelle Pfeiffer is terrific in her role of the housewife and mother now facing an empty nest, as her daughter heads off to college.

When the film reaches it's surprising climax, you will most definitely be on the edge of your seat.

Coupled with the art direction, which provides some truly thrilling locations, this is bound to scare.

The other characters are just there to keep the movie going, but they're not interesting at all, they're all so cliché, so boring.

I came out of this feeling that it was a waste of time.

In these horrible scenes the sound volume was increased to unbearable heights (annoying), and the movie glitched from moderate level down to disaster level.

While I don't care for dead bodies that decay right before your eyes, or the violence that I wish hadn't been so graphic (though it could have been worse), the dramatic final scenes were wonderfully executed and very exciting for those who like that sort of thing.

The twist at the end was so unexpected and shocking and that twist made the film for what it is, and that is a decent thriller/drama.

Their are some great twists in the storyline which will literally keep you on the edge of your seat.

I know this movie will keep you on the edge of your seat until the very end!

Robert Zemeckis has taken what is undoubtedly a good (though maybe somewhat predictable) screenplay, and has lifted it to the level of Hitchcockian genius.

not that it would have been any better any way because it was still slow moving, and predictable, every turn i knew exactly what was going on, as did the people who is saw it with, it was all around a waste of $7.75 and 2.5 hours.

3) for long segments of the movie nothing happened.

If you ignore some of the siliness, it's an enjoyable spookfest that will make you jump to kingdom come.

There are some spine-tingling twists and nerve-wracking moments of suspense that will have you on the edge of your seat.

Why Did This Film get Marked Down as One of the Best Suspenseful Movies Ever Made.

Probably one of the most predictable and boring movies of this year.

Suspenseful ghost story of sorts with Ford and Pfeiffer (chemistry, baby, chemistry) as a happily married couple who face some twists and turns in their relationship when their house takes on otherworldly happenings that apparently only Pfeiffer bares witness, ultimately leading to some unnerving secrets.

Waste of Time .

It's so densely packed with obvious melodrama and genre cliche, that it could easily be mistaken for one of those dire conveyor-belt mini series that Steven King keeps pushing out (supposedly to make up for the shortcomings of Stanley Kubrik or David Cronenberg).

As predictable and hollow as many of them are, each is a definite seat-grabber, and it would be hard to "spoil" any of them, even with a detailed verbal description.

The problem lies in the fact that there's too much going on in each story that any attempt to connect them feels overtly contrived.

Moving slower than an old woman driving through LA traffic, the first hour and a half of the film is exhaustingly tired, and all the necessary cliches to annoy are in place: loud ringing phones, Pfeiffer over-reactions to everyday noises, wind blowing through windows, etc. The opening is especially out of place, with Pfeiffer and Harrison bidding farewell to daughter, a character who never again resurfaces except to use as a crutch to explain things or invoke sympathy at the film's climax.

The first hour of the movie is extremely scary, suspenseful, and has a genuinely creep atmosphere.

Cheap Scares and Predictable "Secrets" make this the Worst Attempt of a Suspense Film Ever.

While WLB was not the scariest or most exciting movie of all time, I left the theater glad I saw it.

From the very beginning I started realizing how poorly made this film was starting with the bland dialog.

A waste of time.

Insultingly Predictable Cookie Cutter Horror Movie .

"-- The most predictable movie I've ever seen (and, friends, keep in mind that I actually saw "3 Ninjas: High Noon on Mega Mountain").

There are a few good thrills in there, but overall I found it to be somewhat predictable.

A good film, but really predictable.

This movie used every single cliche imaginable (i.

'What Lies Beneath' is an enjoyable chiller thriller with supernatural elements.

But between these scenes, the pacing is rather slow, and I kept looking at my watch to see how much longer will this go on.

Suddenly, we don't seem to care about the story, what happens next, and it becomes somewhat boring.

anything more intriguing than the actual mundane revelation that occurred.

If you like suspenseful thrillers, such as Dead Calm, you'll like What Lies Beneath.

Relentlessly formulaic .

There was some cool back story added to her character that helped keep the movie from being predictable.

While some of the ideas appear fresh, it just turns into a tired, predictable mess of "let's just have Harrison Ford be the bad one and tie it up in ten minutes" proportions.

It is more boring than "Titanic," more irritating than "The Blair Witch Project" (and less scary), less scary than "Rosemary's Baby," and less funny than "Mission to Mars.

Don't waste your time.

The plot was predictable and stale.

All the elements of a very predictable thriller film are present: a mature couple decides to buy a detached nice house in Vermont and when her daughter decides to enter at the university both remain alone in such a big "haunted" house.

Oh Please, the cliché .

Hitchcock fans should stick to Hitchcock, and though there are a couple of decent scares and thrills through it's plodding three-quarters, the film really begins picking up steam towards its not-so-grand finale.

The subplot involving the married couple next door goes on WAY too long and undercuts the focus on some key story elements.

The key is to make the padding (or the `suspense') as intriguing as possible.

Its a very slow moving film, 99% of it is not scary...

especially watching it with a friend and screaming throughout the movie during intense intervals...

The first part was very slow, the last part just descended into silliness.

Worst movie I have seen this year, possibly worst in a long time.

A cliche' filled, New England gothic tale.

A very engaging and intelligent supernatural thriller.

However, it does have lots of suspenseful moments, which could be their reason for classifying this in the horror genre.

I thought The Sixth Sense was scary, but What Lies Beneath was even more exciting than I could have imagined.

But they're also entertaining and effective films, as is What Lies Beneath.

After a few climactic highs, I was ready for the end, but they kept trotting out scene after scene that was supposed to keep me on the edge of my seat.

I'm part of the horror fan database and this movie bored me.

(In the immortal words of John Belushi) they had to take a potentially classy tale of haunting and turn it into another dumb, boring flick about a brilliant man who has an affair and is somehow trapped in his crime of infidelity.

Then, it becomes a psychological drama about a lonely wife with an empty nest.

Watch Diabolique or any good Hitchcock film and save yourself 2 hours of this immeasurable bore of a movie.

5) the subplot about the neighbours was pointless (or did i miss something?

But you'll leave the theater wondering if John Wayne ever played a bad guy.

It begins real slow, and then goes on for far too long.

WLB is boring mostly, beginning waste of time, plot given away by trailers...

They waste far too much time on this portion of the movie given that this "big secret" was already revealed in detail in the trailers.

Zemeckis must have wanted to emulate Alfred Hitchcock: Dr. Spencer is Norman, some nicely suspenseful scenes take place in the bathroom, she spies on her neighbours through her indiscreet windows with binoculars, and one half expects Rebecca to appear on the screen at any moment.

A great deal of the first hour's viewing became irrelevant, and every cliche in this genre was trotted out to the accompaniment of loud music and bad acting.

Seriously, this was one of the most suspenseful movies I've seen for many months (including so called "horror" ones).

Put together a weak and predictable plot, some confusing neighbors, one of the worst endings in film history (up there with A.

To give you an idea of how scary some scenes were - I went to see it at the cinema with my mom, and there was a woman next to the aisle (an empty seat between her and my mom).

Too predictable (contains spoilers) .

Costuming, script, and a suspenseful direction all add to film's power to entertain, creepily.

It was an enjoyable horror movie, and I enjoyed it.

The story is great but is painfully slow all at the same time.

especially watching it with a friend and screaming throughout the movie during intense intervals...

"What Lies Beneath" is an engrossing, Hitchcockian horror mystery that centers on Claire Spencer (Michelle Pfeiffer), who is happily married to Doctor Norman Spencer (Harrison Ford).

I don't get why so many thrillers all end the same or use the same old tired tricks-two great talents-Ford and Pfeifer-Ford was given more to do then Pfifer,who gets chased a lot, but I still left the theater feeling Unsatisfied.

After you leave the theater, you rerun the movie in your head trying to put all the pieces together and the great thing is, all the pieces fall into place and make sense.

The thing is, with all the moments that are obviously acknowledging other films, it's hard to call these moments trite.

There is not one original thing, that I could find, about this thriller and though I found it watchable, there were so many clichés involved in the movie, Particularly the ending, and so many places it could have really shone in a more creative way,(especially with the talent involved) that I was disappointed and a bit baffled as to why this movie went by the wayside of the ever predictable.

I think it was the fact that the climax of the movie was about halfway through it, which meant the rest of the movie was devoted to an over-done, long, slow, and stupid chase sequence.

It was alright, there were some boring parts (like when nothing scary or weird was happening...

The suspense and tense energy that runs rampant thought what lies beneath is incredible, it's so creepy and unwatchable at times.

The attempts at inducing fear are predictable at best, and laughable at worst.

This intense film, has a powerful and intense soundtrack as well.

Their only child, a daughter, has just gone off to college and Claire, admittedly, is suffering from empty nest syndrome.

The actors actually seemed bored with their parts.

Night Shyamalan's understated 1999 The Sixth Sense demonstrated clearly how blood, guts and gore are ephemeral to successfully scaring audiences and keeping them on the edge of their seats.

The film however does pick up and has some intense moments.

In the second half, following the unexpected twist, the film becomes much better and the pace increases.

An engrossing watch the FIRST time .

My summary: boring first half, kickass suspense, some very strong scenes and very good acting, *very* well done and thrilling mystery bits, awesome score by Alan Silvestri.

Instead the truth is revealed rather lamely, and then, once we begin to know for certain what's happening and why, it all gets a big slow - in fact I'm sure I've seen most of this part of the film done better in a Creepy Tales comic book years ago.

Lifestyles of the Anxiously Bored and Wealthy!

Boring, predictable and not the least bit scary.

Boring, indeed.

The cons were: slow story, bad acting from Michelle Pfeiffer, cheap scares.

The premise of the danger came from within, or from someone unexpected.

The slow escalation of tension was applied with subtlely by Zemeckis and the para-normal element was presented with genuine ambiguity, which at first was intriguing and compelling.

If this is your idea of gripping terror you will love this movie.

I mean, if a movie is going to be suspenseful, it has to be at least believable, otherwise you're in "Scary Movie" territory, where you can predict exactly which bonehead move the victim is going to pull that's just going to make the whole situation worse.

I see that a few people have noted that the plot was predictable, the special effects not brilliant and the story has already been told a thousand times.

Most teenagers will think this is boring.

Its really a shame the nice beginning set-up is spoiled by the ho-hum revelation and the standard Hollywood ending.

The horror scenes are very much predictable and gets a way too far fetched.

The car in the water scene reminds me of a more gripping little ghost story simply titled "Ghost Story" back in the 1970s which was genuinely frightening and not quite as slickly contrived as this one is.

scary, it was fairly suspenseful and intense.

It's over long and very slow paced.

4) the ending, although entertaining and well done, was a bit too cliché.

And, I just love the scenes where she drains the tub, and the slow, eerie music as she's about to drown.

What Lies Beneath is not beyond redemption (it's still a LOT better than The Haunting), it still comes across as vacuous, predictable and generally unsatisfying.

His staring and fidgeting at the side of the bathtub as he tries to drown his wife is both pathetic and disturbing, just what you would expect from a sociopath.

An apparently dead villain comes back to life and unexpected grabs at the victim (in this case twice).

I am a Harrison Ford fan, and to see him play such a bad guy was exciting.....

Some criticisms that I've read about this film are that it is slow, or that it tries to be 'Hitchcockian'.

*** Some spoilers *** This film has the most wonderful opening and goes on to become incredibly predictable.

The end is too predictable that any spectator could write since the real beginning.

With awful dialogue, scenes out of nowhere that do not enhance the plot or the characters, and a pacing that is even slower than that of "Eyes Wide Shut," "Spartucus," or "Lawrence of Arabia," this movie's writer should be fired and banned from ever scripting again.

A bit of a slow starter but I enjoyed it.

Michelle Pfeiffer looks stunning and is holding up well for her age (or rather her magnificent cheekbones are holding her age up well!

The dialogue is kept to a minimum, letting facial expressions narrate the story for a more emotional and compelling effect.

Norman (Harrison Ford) a university research scientist, and Claire Spencer (Michelle Pfeiffer) are left with an empty nest after their only daughter went off to college.

The climax was unexpected though.

There are a lot of jumpy scenes, a thing I love, even if they are kind of predictable.

It holds on the Hitchcockian tradition, providing misleading elements, interesting characters, an atmosphere of mystery and an unexpected ending.

The entire ending was also extremely predictable; if you couldn't tell exactly what was going to happen, you must have left your seat for a few minutes to go buy another tub of popcorn (which was needed to stay awake during this film).

It´s scary and highly entertaining.

"What lies beneath" starts slow, developes the thrill from scene to scene, and keeps the big secret up until the final of the movie.

I remember going to see this in the cinema on a dull, chilly Sunday afternoon in October (perfect weather for watching a scary movie) with my late mother and my sister and we thoroughly enjoyed it.

While I really liked it, there were times when it got so frightening I wished I could leave the theater.

Although the movie did have its suspenseful moments, the movie as a whole was boring.

Utterly predictable (the worst sin imaginable for a horror/thriller)--even given the "twist" regarding the killer's identity--and amazingly confused, this ranks as the worst major release of its genre since "Sleeping With the Enemy".

It is very misleading with a very boring and very crap twist.

" Overall, it was exciting entertainment and I know I won't lose sleep tonight.

` What lies beneath ' is a thriller worth watching again and again.

Great direction,great acting and a thoroughly enjoyable watch.

It was absolutely predictable, conforms to every cliché a movie can conform to including but not limited to: predictable story lines, corny chase scenes, run of the mill scare tactics, long drawn out ending and a dull, overused plot-I think the two leads did this film because they knew it would be a hit-I thought the movie had a lot of creative paths to take then the one it ultimately wound up taking.

Very creepy and thrilling!

What lies beneath is that this is another entertaining film.

It's too long (the ending goes on FOREVER), the first hour has very little to do with the rest of the movie and it just gets dull.

I'm a bit of a horror movie connoisseur (well, not really, I just love them all), and the scares are just so damn predictable because you've seen them done in about a million other movies.

But Zemeckis rescues the film with an astonishing finale, as exciting as it is implausible.

Achingly slow.

Robert Zemeckis joins the club of directors who have paid homage to Hitchcock with this stylistic and suspenseful entry in the haunted house genre.

Overall, the movie kept me in suspense virtually throughout it's entirety, and the final 30 minutes were gripping.

The plot was awful, the acting was horrid, the scripting was worse, the rip-offs were obvious, and the scares predictable.

Though the starting was kinda dull and the film was slow at places on the whole the director has made a great effort in scaring us.

The music was so cliché that the audience even narrated that "Oh scary music!

It's 130 minutes long, and if you were to cut out all the boring parts, it would equal to about 100 minutes.

The film is very slow in the beginning and way too drawn out.

However this does make the entire movie suspenseful, which was probably the intention.

A big Harrison Ford fan as well as an aficionada of psychological horror, I was very disappointed in this very slow film.

I should have known better, when I saw it was Dreamworks, that it was going to be a snoozer.

My teenage daughter dragged me to this movie, and although I had to close my eyes during a couple of particularly suspenseful scenes, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The film was watchable, entertaining, scary...

'WLB' is a pretty exciting and well made thriller.

The way it was done creates about as suspenseful a scene as any good suspense movie has to offer.

Watching the film for the third or fourth time, the plot isn't new or exciting, the characters aren't complex, yet the film is still suspenseful.

While it certainly passes the time and is well worth watching, be warned that this is no SIXTH SENSE.

HORRIBLE movie..not only boring, but insanely predictable .

For me it was two hours and ten minutes of excruciating boredom.

A good scare flick, but too predictable .

The movie had an excellent story line and made me sit on the edge of my seat from the beginning to the end.

A terrible spoiling of a thoroughly enjoyable film in my view.

too long, too predictable .

There are subtle hints here and there for the observant viewer to pick up on, and it makes for an entertaining package.

It was very intense and creepy.

Robert's worst movie, by far.

The whole plot about the neighbors at first seems pointless.

This is a fascinating thriller, with the audience with Claire all the way.

For such a long, drawn-out and tedious affair to have a boring, tension-free ending is unreal.

Unlike most movies that are "supposed" to be scary, or suspenseful, this one actually pulls it off.

See "What Lies Beneath" expecting for a great suspenseful thriller and you'll get what you want.

It became corny, predictable, and worse still, boring.

The film is predictable and fails to compel the audience to make the necessary leap of faith required by all such spooky flicks.

Very enjoyable indeed!

Taking the present special effect technology, without taking it to a level which would give it a overly done display of cinematographical stupidity, in occurrence Star Wars...!!Pfeiffer is stunning in this drama.

The story is predictable.

The unrelenting predictability of its climax, trailer or no, really drags the film down, and it's underdeveloped coda bores.

But, to tell you the truth, without the pop outs, it wouldn't be as exciting.

Though the trailer is a little misleading and confusing, which is reason enough to see it, you soon learn that it gave you, more or less, all you needed to know about the first hour.

I found it way too predictable and sometime just plain boring.

Strangely enough, in the finale, the opposite occurs and about fifty mini scenes are packed into ten minutes - this is where all the excitement has been stored, and the sudden adrenaline rush seems a bit hurried and desperate in itself.

"What Lies Beneath" was overlong, overstated, and boring.

Overall, WHAT LIES is a entertaining film.

The falling action was exciting, which that was cool.

The writing given to her was lousy and the change of scenery and plot was boring.

Too much of a copy of many movies and too predictable.

So, just watch it alone, in the empty house (or flat), and you will be impressed, believe me.

The ‘supposedly' scary scenes are just too predictable at times, mostly because they are too cliché and have been used too often.

But the film is so beautifully and lovingly made that it is thoroughly entertaining nonetheless.

But after you find out about the women next door, every bit is predictable.

At first scary then totally predictable .

The worst movie ever made[Spoiler] .

However, it seemed as if all the good work of the first hour or so was squandered, as the deftness of the introduction made way for a truly predictable conclusion.

Perhaps the most over-rated film of 2000, this is one of Zemeckis' worst movies.

You see, Michelle, perhaps suffering from empty-nest syndrome (she's just packed off their only child to college), is starting to hear things...

Suspenseful and thrilling, complete with red herrings, this is a fantastic movie.

The first half was pretty boring (that's why I won't give it a 8.5 rating) and the acting and content seemed rather stiff.

Excellent 1st hour set-up that is truly intriguing and creepy.

What Lies Beneath is really exciting and of course has a lot of suspense.

Unfortunately there's one too many supernatural twist at the end which resolves the movie but is rather contrived in its level of coincidence and is rather ridiculous when you think about it in detailHaving said that I should just repeat that this movie caused me to jump a few times and we have the opportunity of seeing Harrison Ford in an unusual role .

What Lies Beneath directed by Robert Zemeckis, starring Harrison Ford, Michelle Pfeiffer, Diana Scarwid, Joe Morton, James RemarZemeckis' thriller about a wife of a professor who gets terrifying visions while living in her huge suburban home is neither as thought provoking or thrilling as it could have been.

Strong acting from Pfeiffer and Ford, plus a very suspenseful and eerie story, and some excellent scare scenes make this a must-see for genre fans.

If it is the purpose of such structural integrity to move a story forward with a crisp, compelling pace, this movie gets stuck in the mud, spinning its wheels with irrelevant scenes that race nowhere while we patiently sit and wait for the show to get back on the road.

Ho hum, Alfred robbed again .

Elements such as a twisting, turning plot, many-sided characters and several red herrings make this film enjoyable for the thinking man (or woman) as well as the thrill-seeker.

A waste of talent and time.

I started to get bored and stopped caring about the characters.

YAWN!

Very boring!

On the whole though great suspense Michelle Pfeiffer is very believable as a woman on the edge and nice to see Diana Scarwid (Mommie dearest, Psycho 3, Silkwood)in a feature movie again.

An entertaining thriller.

Michelle's beauty is always aggressively stunning.

It was alright, there were some boring parts (like when nothing scary or weird was happening...

Breath-taking utterly thrilling .

The final twist isn't too twisted, and in fact, is predictable with the race and gender of the villain as stereotyped as race profiling of any police force ever is.

I felt that the film was a fraction overlong and at times dragged unnecessarily.

Well worth seeing, especially if yo'ure a fan of the leads and of relatively "subtle", slow-moving horror pictures.

The problem is, you're waiting for a breathtaking, surprising or satisfying ending and you get nothing like that.

Harrison Ford, Michelle Pfeiffer, a music very (very) similar to The Sixth Sense's, suspenseful scenes, mistery...

Boring!

The finishing scenes (car escape and underwater) were really thrilling.

There is, as is typical, some parts in the middle that is unrealistic and therefore that make things confusing and less thrilling.

The first half of the movie was a bit cliche and predictable, not to mention SLOW, but some of the scares were totally unexpected.

I came in to this film expecting nothing more than a good, entertaining, supernatural tinged thriller.

These were the only semi entertaining scenes.

On the Hitchcock level, mainly because the script is godawfully predictable (even without seeing what must be the most spoiler-ish trailer I've ever seen) and because no matter how hard I tried, there just didn't seem te be any deeper psychological meaning (or even logic) to it.

But, you know, even if the surprises hadn't been ruined, the film still would have failed, since the story itself is fairly strong, but it collapses under it's own weight in the third act, resulting in a silly, contrived, Hollywood formula that makes you want to puke.

It is just about as Hitchcockian as you can get, and I rate the bath sequence as gripping (pardon the pun) as taking a shower at the Bates Motel.

Contrived, potentially good ghost story with too many false climaxes...

The story line was very solid and different from what the previews suggested, and it was very clever and made me think about the meanings behind several things (think about some of those confusing parts people, and you may like them MUCH more).

Add to that a totally pointless subplot about strange neighbours living next door whose actions are never addressed.

Because this movie is a waste of talent and time.

The movie had me jumping until near the end when things got so predictable in both dialog and plot.

It got cliche in the development.

It's just a pity that you have to suspend disbelief to such an extreme extent to find this movie enjoyable.

A movie that will keep you on the edge of your seats .

Entertaining but predictable hokum.

"What Lies Beneath" is a conventional yet simple to follow film with a cliché script that doesn't require a lot of thinking.

There are plenty of jump out of your seat moments, Zemeckis uses every trick & cliché in the horror film book with people & dogs leaping into the frame unexpectedly, loud music playing when you least expect it although it also has some nice modern CGI computer effects too.

Well, I think there had to be a better way to solve the problem then this slow moving, ridiculous embarrassment for all involved.

Michelle Pfeiffer plays a woman suffering from "empty nest" syndrome after her daughter leaves home for college.

It's a slow creepy horror from director Robert Zemeckis who isn't the usual suspect.

One cliche seemed to pop up after another.

" The breathtaking scenic backdrop, the beautiful house, the attractive couple, the normalcy of the daughter going off to college, and the family dog, all lend themselves to lulling the audience into a false sense of warmth and comfort.

I see dull people.

But this movie is worth watching over and over again.

This movie was wonderful--consistently entertaining and suspenseful throughout, not to mention a few good scares!

I thought this was genuinely creepy and I found myself gripping the arm-rest more tightly than was truly comfortable just to make sure I did not jump out of my seat.

I laughed a couple of times but after I left the theater and got out into the daylight, I realized that it had been a nervous laugh.

The plot is mundane and predictable, and since there are no interesting visuals to speak of, that's about all this kind of movie has going for it.

It's still very good, believable for sure and it has unexpected twists and turns, which caused this movie to stand out as unique.

The last 45 minutes or so, however, make up for the plodding beginning.

For example, the whole thing with the next-door neighbors: pointless.

The movie was way too long to start with.

At the same time, the slow pace of the action drew the viewer in, and allowed time to absorb the detail.

After Claire finds out the movie gets more creepy and more suspenseful.

This is the worst movie I've ever seen.

Michelle Pfeiffer stars as Claire Spenser, a happily married woman who is suffering from a severe case of `empty nest syndrome' now that her only child is happily ensconced at college.

Pfeiffer is excellent and looks stunning and Ford gives it gusto when the script allows.

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.

But everything before made me bored, and as a result this film falls flat for me.

I have read several reviews that act like this is the worst movie they have ever seen.

A rather mundane and totally predictable story of a woman haunted.

There are so many attempts to startle you that it gets humorous for a second, then extremely boring!

This movie paid great homage to other films (see others' reviews) and had several unsettling and subtly horrific shots, but was otherwise pretty bland fare.

Then you'll probably want to avoid `What Lies Beneath,' a slow, monotonous jog through the land of predictability and disappointment.

Quite the contrary because even though it's not exactly original, it is suspenseful and the events are well put together.

Director Robert Zemeckis uses every cliché shot in the book, every expected trick, and gosh it still grabs us.

Thoroughly enjoyable .

This movie had a good mystery, but the directing was fairly poor, too predictable.

I viewed this movie in a packed theater and during the intense Hitchcockian moments the entire audience jumped simultaneously-- an occurrence I find to be sadly rare with today's horror films.

"What Lies Beneath" is a loving tribute to Alfred Hitchcock's moviemaking style, right down to the riveting score.

The beginning is an utter waste of time, and THE TRAILERS!

while after this, too much cheap ostentations on the steaming bathtub and door-opened-without-hands-touching and etc, as well as Harrison Ford's more and more wooden face, untidily loosed as nonsense which persuade your mind away and away from movie and alas it is turn to the cliche set totally.

I think that the slow camera and actor movements were the best part to scaring the hell out of me.

Thrilling .

It has suspense, twists and turns and a very unexpected ending.

Things go bump in Pfeiffer's head as the camera lingers ad nauseum in one fabricated suspenseful moment after another and the perfectly perfect couple's encounter with the paranormal unfolds.

This film went on way too long .

It's terrifying, jumpy, intriguing and well-acted.

I feel more suspense watching Psycho for the hundredth time than I did watching this hackneyed, cliched, predictable piece of junk.

What lies beneath, which looked great in the previews, was yawn provoking.

A man i feel is more skilled at wasting high budgets on sappy over-emotional movies than actually directing something enjoyable.

It's slow enough to catch you with your pants down and give you the scare of a lifetime.

and the cliche's continued .

What Lies Beneath is a very thrilling thriller, with the bathtub scene (no, not sexual in any way) likely to stick to the mind for a long, long time.

Even the supposedly suspenseful ending was unsatisfactory as the viewer knew ahead of time what would happen in each sequence.

entertaining and suspenseful .

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen!

There are a few elements left unexamined, but the production has an engrossing atmosphere to keep us on the edge of our seats.

well-made but movie but too cliché .

the plot at first was done well, background, the neighbor, the picture, the smoke, etc. but i thought that once the movie progressed it fell back into that same old horror movie routine that is boring and predictible.

Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer are perfectly cast as a couple who experience surreal psychological terror that is both involving and suspenseful.

I found 'What Lies Beneath' to be a thoroughly entertaining thriller.

This story of a woman haunted by spirits is highly uninteresting.

wonderfully entertaining, as scary as possible and beautfully made.

A waste of time .

Though not perfect, I did find it entertaining.

There is one *very* big unexpected jump-trust me, you'll know it when you see it-that will probably end up on a lot of 'scariest moments' lists, I am ashamed to say I SCREAMED at the top of my lungs like a little girl, and so did everyone else in the theater, including grown men.

dull, comes as quite a surprise.

It was formulaic (if that is a word), and nothing really new happened.

Overall it was entertaining to watch despite it's slow presentation.

*SLIGHT SPOILER OVER*Anyway, in saying all this it's undeniably enjoyable, and there are one or 2 *reasonably* shocking moments.

For the most part, it was definitely entertaining and suspenseful.

Though the ending is predictable, it's still a good ride.

I was so bored....

I found it confusing and amusing.

Missing Something but Quite Intense .

Watch Michelle Pfeiffer playing a nervous, wealthy housewife, with a singular facial expression, and a ego-maniacal husband, as she putters around her big, empty house...

Other than that I thought the film was pretty spooky and quite entertaining.

"What Lies Beneath" is a conventional yet simple to follow film with a cliche script that doesn't require a lot of thinking.

a well executed cliche .

Though predictable right to the very end it did have quite a few scares to merit it watchable.

The opening is also kind of creepy, and it's never boring, always engrossing!

This was so contrived and utterly boring, I was saddened to see Ford and Pfeiffer putting their time into it.

I didn't care more for Diana Scarwid as Jody in this one for some reason, but that's not enough to mar a well acted, taunt, fairly tightly plotted engrossing thriller such as this one.

Good supernatural thriller offers excellent effects, evocative music and a great performance by Michelle Pfieffer.

This was an entertaining film that really did have some suspense for me.

if your into movies that give you goose bumps and have unexpected heart jumping moments then this is the movie for you!!!!

The slow unraveling of the story does the trick.

Besides the fact that it has little or no bearing on the true plot of the movie,but the amount of time devoted TO that MacGuffin is so tedious that it feels as if the director,producers and the advertising execs pushing this film weren't on the same page.

The subtle twists in the story at unexpected places is an added advantage.

I, being a big fan of Harrison Ford, was sure to like it, but I highly recommend it for any movie lover, of any age.

I can't take the suspense, during a good one I'm scared stiff that Mr. Bad Guy will pop out and do something really unexpected.

Robert Zemeckis has done it again, he successfully made an entertaining, well acted and well written creepy thriller.

those who said that movie is boring dont have viewing and music feeling, so they cant feel the movie.

It is an entertaining 126 minutes.

With a bit of obvious stealing from Hitchock's Rear Window (and even a little nod to Psycho, both in image and soundtrack) if you're looking for a originality, real terror, interesting characters, and compelling acting, you won't find any of it here.

I feel like Zemeckis gets bored a lot.

Harrison Ford is also amazing as always, and is incredible here, he is extremely likable, got to play a completely different character, and he did with it absolute perfection, he is also incredibly awesome in the finale, and was as always his usual intense self, plus he had wonderful chemistry with Pfeiffer!

Save your money folks.

It is so predictable that their is no suspense through the entire film.

I found this to be an enjoyable movie.

Zemeckis prefers long-shots so that the audience might pick up clues as to what is going on in this house through the elaborate and beautiful scenery, but includes close-ups to show the audience how the characters are feeling during intense scenes.

This is a good, edge-of-your-seat (yet overly long) flick that is marred by scenes full of fright gags and cliches that make most of the scary parts of the film far too predictable.

This movie was more predictable than death itself.