--- title: "The Underneath: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/the-underneath/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/the-underneath" critics_score: 59 critics_reviews: 9 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # The Underneath (1995): what the critics said Critics' score 59 from 9 reviews: 3 positive, 3 mixed, 3 negative. The reviews divide almost evenly, three ways, and where the praise falls it is on what Soderbergh has done with the material rather than on the crime itself. Critics who admire the film find the interwoven timelines, the sardonic lines and the strained marriage between Michael and Rachel more absorbing than the heist, and most agree it wants to be a character study first and a noir second. The colour filters and one long, slow push-in during a love scene get singled out even by writers who otherwise shrug. The reservations gather around distance. The Los Angeles Times blames Peter Gallagher’s casting for a lead whose fate nobody much cares about; The Playlist finds the editing unfocused and the central heist without tension; The Ringer simply calls it dull. The spread is wide, and the pattern is plain: the 1995 notices are the kindest, while the later retrospective pieces treat the film as a rehearsal for the better ones that followed. ## Empire — William Thomas Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. Soderbergh reworks the source novel into a cool, interesting film noir variant with a complex structure of interwoven timelines focused on betrayals and relationships rather than the central crime. The film is praised for its sardonic lines and deeper thematic questions about trust and appearances. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/underneath-review/) ## The New York Times — Caryn James Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 28 April 1995. James praises Soderbergh for surfacing unspoken tensions in complicated relationships, noting the film's appeal lies in its study of characters caught in emotional disaster rather than lurid noir plotting. She highlights the vivid complexity of the central relationship between Michael and Rachel as what elevates it beyond a simple genre remake. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/28/movies/film-review-errant-husband-returns-big-mistake.html) ## Variety — Todd McCarthy Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 13 March 1995. Festival review. McCarthy sees Soderbergh's remake as an intriguing meditation on personal responsibility that downplays genre thrills in favor of psychological depth, though it may limit commercial appeal. He praises the film's thematic argument and performances but notes the suppression of sex and violence diminishes its dramatic impact. [Read the review](https://variety.com/1995/film/reviews/the-underneath-1200441059/) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 28 April 1995. Ebert finds Soderbergh's remake of the 1949 noir Criss Cross more intriguing in its early focus on neurotic characters and personal relationships than in its later crime elements and twists. He singles out the unreliable protagonist Michael and the complex dynamic with his ex-wife Rachel for particular interest. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-underneath-1995) ## The AV Club — Jesse Hassenger Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 30 September 2013. The Underneath is minor Soderbergh, a slim genre piece that serves as practice for later films but features bold experiments in visual style and narrative structure. The critic singles out the film's stylized color filters and a notable glacial push-in shot during a key romantic scene for praise. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/steven-soderbergh-s-the-underneath-plays-like-a-dry-run-1798240927) ## Los Angeles Times — Kenneth Turan Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 28 April 1995. Turan finds the film polished and intricately constructed but ultimately lacking emotional connection and audience involvement, making it distancing despite its visual shine and clever structure. He singles out Peter Gallagher's miscasting in the lead role as a key factor preventing viewers from caring about the character's fate. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-04-28-ca-59766-story.html) ## The Playlist — The Playlist Staff Rating C-. 5 February 2013. The critic calls it a messy and impenetrable oddity, Soderbergh's first straight noir and a testing ground for later stylistic flourishes rather than a solid standalone film. They single out the unfocused editing and lack of dramatic tension in the central heist as major flaws. [Read the review](https://theplaylist.net/steven-soderbergh-essential-films-retrospective-20130205/2/) ## /Film — Gino Orlandini Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 21 January 2022. The critic views it as an early misstep and Soderbergh's first foray into the crime genre via a niche remake, part of the director's development of his style after his debut but ultimately a commercial and creative letdown that lacks the punch of his later work. [Read the review](https://www.slashfilm.com/742499/every-steven-soderbergh-movie-ranked-worst-to-best/) ## The Ringer — Sean Fennessey Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 8 February 2019. The critic views the film as a clear misstep in Soderbergh's filmography, a convoluted studio noir that is formally impressive and lush at times but ultimately damned dull and sleepy. [Read the review](https://www.theringer.com/2019/02/08/movies/steven-soderbergh-movies-ranked) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/the-underneath.md