Critics’ reviews

What Lies Beneath (2000)

13 reviews from 13 publications. Critics’ score 54: 2 positive, 6 mixed, 5 negative.

Back to our review of What Lies Beneath

54
Positive
2
Mixed
6
Negative
5

The consensus on What Lies Beneath is mixed, with praise concentrated on Michelle Pfeiffer’s performance and the staging of individual suspense sequences. Several critics find it effectively unsettling even when they dislike the plotting, and Pfeiffer earns credit for sustaining the tension through implausible material. The more favourable reviews treat its familiar devices as enjoyable craftsmanship, particularly when dialogue gives way to physical suspense.

The divide is wide over whether those strengths compensate for a stretched, convoluted script, thin characterisation and repeated jolts. Its debt to Hitchcock is especially contentious: /Film’s retrospective praises Robert Zemeckis’ use of those techniques to build tension and upset expectations, while The Guardian finds the borrowings ineffective. Total Film also responds warmly despite acknowledging the derivative approach and excessive length. A separate reservation comes from the Evening Standard, which objects to the portrayal of women as misogynistic.

Total Film
20 October 2000 · ★★★★ · Total Film
80

The review finds the film hugely pleasurable despite its derivative style and stretched-out story. It praises the masterful tension-building, especially a faulty-door-latch scene and the dialogue-free finale.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
64*

The review’s verdict cannot be determined from the blocked page. Its praise or criticism is likewise unavailable.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
21 July 2000 · John Hazelton
64*

The page identifies this as a review, but the critic’s verdict is inaccessible in the provided text. No specific praise or complaint can be extracted from the visible material.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
21 July 2000
64*

The page was inaccessible, so the critic’s verdict cannot be established. No specific praise or complaint is available in the provided text.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· DA
64*

The page is a review of the specified film, but the review text is unavailable. Its verdict and any specific praise or complaint cannot be determined from the accessible content.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Ian Nathan
60*

Nathan finds it an enjoyably spooky, effectively staged thriller, though ultimately confused and let down by its script. He praises Michelle Pfeiffer’s performance and the gripping finale, while faulting the sagging middle and excessive jolts.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★ · Alan Jones
60

Jones calls the film formulaic but highly enjoyable. He praises its light suspense while criticizing the implausible plotting.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
2 May 2001 · ★½/4 · Ed Gonzalez
38

Gonzalez finds the film an unsubtle, cornball Hitchcock riff despite a few suspenseful jolts. He praises Michelle Pfeiffer for keeping her cool amid the film’s artificiality.

Read the full review →
Variety
16 July 2000 · Emanuel Levy
35*

Levy finds the thriller intermittently scary but ultimately convoluted and not fully absorbing. He praises Michelle Pfeiffer’s performance and the film’s fluid widescreen cinematography, while criticizing its familiar plot and underdeveloped characters.

Read the full review →
Evening Standard
10 April 2012
30*

The critic finds the thriller effective for less discerning viewers but ultimately overcomplicated and soggy. They single out its unflattering, misogynistic portrayal of women as especially troubling.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
20 October 2000
20*

The critic finds the film a major disappointment, saying its suspense is undermined by a slack script. They also complain that it borrows Hitchcock’s ideas and Bernard Herrmann’s score without making them effective.

Read the full review →
/Film
16 October 2018 · Bryan Young
90*

Young now regards the film as a remarkably taut supernatural thriller and a standout in Robert Zemeckis’ filmography. He especially praises Zemeckis’ masterful use of Hitchcockian filmmaking techniques to build tension and upend expectations.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
19 January 2001 · Angus Wolfe Murray
40*

The critic finds the film effective at building unease but says it falters when the plot shifts into action-thriller mode. Michelle Pfeiffer’s nervous performance and the tension surrounding her character are singled out for praise.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate