Apparences

Le métier de réalisateur est correctement exécuté par Robert Zemeckis, mais le scénario est tellement usé par les clichés du thriller que cela en devient exaspérant ! Et le pillage musical de Silvestri sur la musique d'Herrmann de Psycho est vraiment flagrant ! Certes, Silvestri et Zemeckis ont conçu What Lies Beneath comme un hommage à Hitchcock, leur réalisateur favori, mais ils ont oublié la différence entre rendre hommage et faire une copie bon marché. C'est honteux. (12/04/2002)

I saw it in the darkness of an empty cinema, and I was scared. The last time something like this happened was two years ago with Raimi's The Gift. Zemeckis is a great director who plays with the viewer like a cat with a mouse and although I don't like ghost stories, I enjoyed this likeable horror film, including the final half hour, which blew me away. Just when you expected the climax, there was another and another, and surprisingly I didn't feel like I was being set up at all. Whether it's an homage to Hitchcock, or a rip-off of Hitchcock and all that blah blah blah, I don't care. PS: Years later I watched it a second time and it didn't have the same power. But still, very good job Mr Zemeckis! (15/06/2003)

The most entertaining thing about Zemeckis is that you never know if his next work will receive the loudest applause and enchant the viewer with perfect filmmaking or if he will embarrass himself in a genre shootout and suddenly lose the respect of his fans with a gaping flaw. A horror without atmosphere, with an unfinished twist ending and several rather disturbing jump scares. Everything here is for the sake of effect, and unfortunately, completely out of place. (24/03/2005)

Decent, but too routine thriller relies on quality star cast led by Harrison Ford and professional, experienced direction by R. Zemeckis. Good entertainment at first glance, but I don't feel the need to revisit this film. In this case, I also disliked the combination of a criminal case with supernatural elements. Overall impression with squinted eyes: 70%. (14/06/2006)

Unlike the rest of the world, on the other hand, I enjoyed the ending, where the film suddenly started acting like the delivery room attendant in a Monty Python sketch who brought in the most expensive machines for the sake of the visiting boss. After all, shelling out 100 million (about the budget of one LOTR installment) to have the camera drive around an overacting Pfeiffer crawling around the house isn't the best way to disguise the fact that we're watching a film that was made primarily as a fat paycheck for the cast, because otherwise there's not much reason for it to cost that much. I remind you that Contact, three years older, cost 90 mil and Forrest Gump, six years older, cost 55. Somehow, that's how millionaire hubris oozes from this movie. And unfortunately I don't have the ability to connect with a spoiled middle-class housewife who drags herself around the really hideous white interior of a giant house and makes gift baskets in her spare time. I'd give the film a Best Bathtub Scene award, although maybe not so much. (13/06/2021)