In the evening, there was nothing to do, so I started flipping through the movie catalog and found that I hadn’t seen it yet. Robert Zemeckis, who for many years pleases his masterpieces, this time shot a thriller. In the main roles took eminent actors. The budget of the picture is impressive, but even more enjoy the fees, so you definitely need to look.
Claire and Norman live a happy life, they have a cozy house, from the outside it seems that their relationship is perfect. But suddenly Claire begins to see strange things. Norman doesn't believe her, so she decides to figure it out on her own.
The cast is one of the film's strengths. Michelle and Harrison perfectly got used to their roles, their characters came out interesting and colorful, you can see their interaction with each other, you feel sincere emotions, there are no complaints about their game, from my part, for sure.
I would like to note that before this film, actor Harrison Ford played exceptionally good, who could know that the role of the villain suits him so well, I am delighted with his performance.
And what about the script, everything is really not unambiguous, the whole idea of sleep. But the plot is not intriguing and not as captivating as the viewer expects. And all due to the fact that the plot is stretched, for 30 minutes so for sure.
A movie begins slowly if you’ve been watching it for an hour and wonder when it’s going to start.
An hour to watch actions that lead to a plot twist that doesn't affect anything, well, it's not interesting. They try to keep the viewer’s attention, scenes in which they hint that everything is not so smooth between Claire and Norman, that there are secrets and secrets.
If you didn’t turn it on after an hour, that’s great, because the movie is starting to surprise, and here it is the dynamics, the fascinating plot, forcing the viewer to look closely at what is being done on the screen.
The desired atmosphere of the film is created by competently selected music, color background. There are many beautiful and large frames, interesting angles. And by the way, the dialogue is emotional, interesting.
And so, in the end, the film can not be called a masterpiece, rather an amateur. This is such a light thriller that you can safely turn on at night. Emotions from what you see are mixed, there are worthy moments, but there are also enough shortcomings in the form of an unreasonably stretched plot. I will say right away that I watched it several times, but already ignoring the beginning, but you will want to turn it on, not known, but interesting.
I can recommend it.
Movies of the 2000s or late nineties have always caught my attention, even saying that I sometimes get nostalgia for those times.
This film ' What hides lies' can be attributed to the genre of thriller, mysticism, fiction and even to the genre of horror. Unremarkable at first glance, the story of a married couple turns out in the most unpredictable way.
Scientist and explorer Norman (played by Harrison Ford) and his wife Claire (Michelle Pfeiffer) live in a country house that his late father left him. Over time, Claire began to appear the ghost of a girl who was declared missing and her body was never found, and from that moment Claire was not herself, Norman even considered her crazy (given that Claire had suffered an accident in the past), but Claire’s madness led her to the right path and, unfortunately, she learned the bitter truth about Norman and about the missing girl.
Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer made up a good screen duet (given the fact that the film is from the 2000 period, and these actors can be attributed to the past generation and are already experienced actors with experience). Michelle Pfeiffer managed to express her emotions well as a person who seems to have psychological problems. Harrison Ford played an exemplary husband until then.
By the way, I forgot to say that I would even classify this film as a detective genre, since Claire conducted her investigation through mysticism.
In general, the film has a very leisurely slow narrative, but from this the film has not become less interesting, but on the contrary has acquired an even more mysterious character and unpredictable shade, by the way, and about unpredictability, films of this kind are always interesting for their unpredictability and intrigue, so the film with its task coped and pleasantly surprised, and here you and a little mysticism, and thriller, and detective.
The film Robert Zemeckis, in which the main roles are performed by Michel Pfeiffer and Harrison Ford. High marks on the Movie Search. A huge budget and a huge cash register. So there were some aesthetic expectations before viewing. As one famous footballer once said: 'Your expectations are your problems'
'What lies hidden' a modern adaptation of Gothic, with a clear feminist overtones.
Executive techniques Robert Zemeckis, in terms of building horror, quite monotonous. As the story progresses, the music begins to signal: ' so, boy, wake up now something is going to happen', a sharp chord flies out. There is nothing wrong with this, but only when it is one of the methods of influencing the viewer, and not the only one. Music does not enhance the effect, it is the effect. Although it seems obvious that Robert Zemeckis studied or drew inspiration from Alfred Hitchcock for this film. There are scenes and some techniques that are very reminiscent of 'Psycho' and 'Window to the yard' .
If we talk about the script, then the plot itself is not a problem, although the threads of the narrative are so thin that they break much earlier than their creators intended. My problem with the movie is its pace. Very slowly moving history, which also has a large timekeeping. I also want to look at the psychiatrist scene that upset me. In general, the scene with a psychiatrist in different films often emphasizes the negligence of the story. Such a small trick of the director. After all, it is much easier to dryly summarize the internal state of your character to a psychiatrist than to show through expressive techniques. This is exactly the case.
The effects should also be mentioned. In that regard, the film is delightful. Many interesting moments with 'moving camera', interesting ' drowning' cameras under the floor, etc.
'What hides the lie' still stretched in timekeeping, so for thirty minutes. If you are not familiar enough with horror films, then the film, purely as a horror, can make a lasting impression on you, and fans of the genre have already seen it. And we saw much better.
Robert Zemeckis as a director makes films of different genres.
In the film ' What Lies Hide' at the beginning we see a happy couple: Norman Spencer (Harrison Ford) and his wife Claire (Michelle Pfeiffer). They seem to be doing well. But now Claire begins to see ' some quirks' - the silhouettes of the girl. From the point of view of common sense, she visits the doctor. How to explain her strange ' fantasy ' science?
Michelle Pfeiffer in the image of Claire in this film embodied the type of women who are distinguished by vulnerability, sensitivity, emotionality, the tendency to try to find an explanation for their visions. What is the reason for these visions: are they true or false? Is there a disorder in something with this place where there is mystery, or a disorder in the woman herself, in her misperception of the world?
Harrison Ford is the greatest actor in the world, starring in three iconic franchises. And since childhood, it is customary to see him in one role - the hero of the action movie. There can be historical cinema (' Indiana Jones'), where he masterfully, deftly, dynamically overcomes the trials, unraveling mystical mysteries. It can be a fantastic movie (great 'Star Wars' or 'Blade Runner'). But the role of heroes is about the same range: a clever action hero. Why did he prefer Al Pacino, who, according to the creators of that film, is able to play a more subtle psychological game, a more complex psychological image?
But in this film, Harrison Ford played a difficult role, showing that he can play the contradictory, psychological type of the hero, the abyss of his emotional experiences, contradictions.
This film is deep, because on the verge of different genres, it deeply matches each claimed genre. It's a detective because there's a crime. This is a high-level thriller, because the smooth and soft beginning turns into such a tense action that it is impossible to come off the screen at the first view. The atmosphere of tension is created. These are mystical horrors. Because the shadow of a mysterious ghost is not secondary here.
And again we observe the confrontation of good and evil, justice and meanness, until the very end not understanding how it will end.
10 out of 10
Watching your neighbors, you miss what’s going on under your nose.
The thriller of Robert Zemeckis with Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer in the lead roles at first seemed extremely interesting and tense, but after a while the next viewing of the film did not bring such impressions, appearing slightly boring and not particularly dynamic.
Dr. Norman Spencer (Ford) and his wife Claire (Pfeiffer) live in a lakeside country house. Claire’s daughter went to college, which is why the woman falls into a mild depression and tries to entertain herself with household chores while her husband is engaged in science. One day, Claire hears a curse in a nearby house and begins to suspect that the woman living there is in danger. In addition, within its own walls, it begins to feel the presence of an outside force.
At first, the film develops exclusively as a detective thriller, offering the viewer a quite useful story about what the neighbors are hiding. The theme 'spying next door' reveals quite well - Claire finds an outlet for herself and gets carried away by those who live nearby, feeling a rush of adrenaline from what becomes like a real spy. However, it is not possible to share the obtained information with the husband, because Norman Spencer is very skeptical of the observations of his wife. And this is quite understandable, because he, as a man of science, is passionate about it, and not family life.
Gradually ' What hides the lie' acquires the features of a mystical thriller with elements of horror and at this very moment (in my opinion), the film begins to lose its appeal in the sense that the narrative sags slightly and the mystical theme is a little boring.
Yes, the screamers are not bad, and the creepiness adds to the fact that the woman is alone in a large empty house and it is unknown what will happen next. The fact of the presence of a certain force next to Claire looks somewhat faked due to the fact that (again in my opinion), the woman very quickly and simply collects one puzzle after another and builds the whole picture, thereby giving the viewer a reason to doubt herself. That is, she too quickly unraveled a complex mystery concerning her husband, although before that she behaved like her husband’s wife, let’s say, not burdened with increased deductive abilities.
The final third of the film is a more spectacular event, offering to recall the scenes of persecution a la & #39; The Shining' and watch how quickly a person can transform into a murderous beast capable of committing a cold-blooded and calculated act to save himself.
The feeling of protractedness and boredom is obviously caused by the fact that this project was a kind of side effect of another picture of Zemeckis - ' Rogue & #39; with Tom Hanks. Then the director had to wait for Hanks to lose weight by two dozen kilograms to match the image of a man who lived on a desert island for a long time and, in order not to sit idle, Zemeckis took up '. I think that’s why this movie didn’t turn out the way a director could. It could have been more exciting and more frightening, even more exciting. If you want, then the definition ' in a hurry' for ' What hides a lie' fits most.
As the main actors, Pfeiffer and Ford were not bad, although Michelle still played a level higher than her partner on the set. Harrison Ford as a scientist was more interesting than in the image of a caring and loving spouse.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
“Someone will die, but maybe not us!” – Paul Kashin
A brilliant film for a thoughtful viewer. Almost all screen time, the main character is looking for a corpse, but from the first frames it is obvious that the main corpse is of course she. All her living impulses have long ceased. She's dead. But, as usual with zombies, looking for some external dead.
Zemeckis with his associates masterfully turns the entire gut of American prosperity. If you extrapolate the title of the film “What Lies Hide” from the scale of a single family to the entire American way of life, you get a film about what lies hide, about an American prosperous family. Zemeckis has always been a large-scale director.
The film clearly shows that in every right family there is a medallion around the neck. Is it just in the US?
Ford and Pfeiffer perfectly play caricatures of their heroes, they periodically flash something alive and bright, and then go out again, sinking to the bottom of their own lies.
“Which of the heroes will be able to surface, and which of the lies will drag to the bottom?” Look from this perspective at your own life. That, in my opinion, is the main message of this story. Let those who have eyes see...
Robert Zemeckis is such a versatile director that he can make a strong movie in almost any genre. He has already tried himself in adventure fiction, heartbreaking drama, thriller and many other cinematic offshoots, and decided that he should also pay attention to the complex family detective drama with elements of mysticism. Taking on the script of Clark Gregg, the same agent Phil Coulson from “the Avengers”, Zemeckis shot one of his best films, namely “What hides the lie”.
The plot takes place in a cozy house by the lake, where a happy married couple, a successful scientist Norman Spencer and his wife Claire recently moved. Everything seems to be nothing, but Claire is constantly cared for by neighbors, also a married couple, whose everything is not so good, and strange things begin to happen in the house itself.
Claire feels that someone invisible has appeared near her and he wants to show her something. The woman herself will not understand what the ghost needs from her. As for Spencer, he himself does not see anything strange at point-blank range and simply refuses to accept his wife’s stories as truth. Now we have to understand what is really going on here. Maybe Claire really feels something otherworldly, and suddenly she has problems with her psyche. We will know the answers, but in due time.
The director holds the story with a strong hand, he skillfully confuses us and tries not to reveal all the cards for the time being, for the time being. We observe a kind of real family idyll of elderly people, and then we see how their measured everyday life is replaced by something disturbing and strange. Credibility films give and excellent play actors who look simply chic, and someone even unexpectedly.
Magnificent Michelle Pfeiffer plays a housewife who has absolutely nothing to do and it is no wonder that she can think of something superfluous. She doesn’t look crazy, and she just feels good. Harrison Ford, who played the wife of Prieffer, is a tougher, but also very interesting character who knows what to surprise us.
The film of Zemeckis is worth watching in any case, because it is a real detective thriller and drama, which from the first minutes captures attention and during viewing you do not want to be distracted, so as not to miss anything important.
General impression: I wanted to see a mystical thriller here, and my eyes fell on What Lies Hide. As it turned out, Robert Zemeckis shot this film between the shootings of the film “Rogue”, as Tom Hanks needed to lose 20 kg and grow his hair. It was pretty good.
The unhurried narrative envelopes its mysterious atmosphere, it seems that the slow development of events can lull, however, the film on the contrary looks with interest. Because what is happening is a whole set of secrets. Skillfully spread the plot, you need to collect a puzzle and understand what is really happening. It won't be hard, trust me. The film is simple and easy to understand, and the suspense enveloping story alarmingly saturated the entire tape.
The husband and wife (Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer) live in a small house, in principle, all the action takes place in this location, except for some nuances. But due to the detective investigation, which is available here, there are no significant saggings. I would even say so, pay attention to the details, they emerge further along the plot, skillfully waltzing between episodes and even starting from previous moments. This creates a certain effect, the viewer delves into viewing, absorbed in history.
Of course, the Ford-Pfeiffer tandem is good! They will show each other their marriage and keep secrets. Very interesting.
Well, a little about the mysticism of the film: in the film, the heroine Pfeiffer sees the ghost of a girl, which causes not only concern, but also a lot of problems. This definitely shades the picture and mystery only for good.
If you want a fascinating story, then definitely pay attention. Musical accompaniment, acting and multigenre are proof of this.
Was it worth $100 million? Really? Eleven years later, the Cloud Atlas will cost the same amount. Compare the picture. At the same time, a great film Vanilla Sky came out, it cost about 60 million and looked as spectacular as this Shchidevre.
A scene under water? God, yes, in the Soviet old film Through Thorns to the Stars in the Water filmed space scenes, and they look no worse.
Script. There is a great director, great actors, smart cameraman. But what if the script does not pull even on the term paper (not to mention the thesis) negligent student-writer? The script was stuffed with cheap screamers, fake suspense and devilishness, which is frankly not enough. A false lead in the first half of the film is only annoying. If you take it down, what will the movie lose? It will only gain some dynamism. The main claim is that the writer himself has not decided on the genre. And their confusion in this case causes only fury. It turned out something vague in a banal, predictable plot.
Director at the level. Zemeckis squeezes everything he can from the script, while constantly looking at the clock. The ending was filmed as if the director and the entire crew were in a wild hurry somewhere and wanted to run away. It is possible to leave inconsistencies, but even uncertainty must be justified and talented.
Acting is what makes this strange, overrated movie worth watching. Harrison Ford is interesting here, curious to see him in an unusual role. He created an image and you believe him. It didn't seem like Indiana Jones, Han Solo or Deckard for a second. In the end, it is particularly convincing.
Pfeiffer also pleased, plays well and sometimes brightens up script failures.
Conclusion. The film would have been much better if it had not been for the secondary, unfinished script. However, the director and actors almost turned it into something watchable.
Robert Zemeckis’s film What Hiddens Lies is, in my opinion, one of the best mystery thrillers of the 2000s. Perhaps most of all, I liked such a non-standard for the movie technique, when it seems that the truth is already clear, but after a while, it becomes clear that this is not the case. In this case, the lie was threefold. And every time, I thought that this was the end, but each time it turned out to be a trap that became a passage into another lie.
A middle-aged couple moves into the home of the late father of the protagonist Norman Spencer (Harrison Ford). His wife, Claire (Michelle Pfeiffer), feels uncomfortable in the new home from the start. She begins to see strange things, and soon Claire comes to the conclusion that the cause of unusual phenomena is nothing more than the spirit of the deceased girl. It was not immediately possible to identify the ghost. The personality of the spirit was the cornerstone of everything that happened in the second part of the film.
Zemeckis managed to create an impressive atmosphere of mystery and gloom. Of course, there were blunders. The main mystery to me was how the corpse, lying at the bottom of the river for a year, remained in the same condition as it was, rather than decomposing. But on the other hand, this move of the director is understandable, since the genre of the film is a thriller, not horrors, where one should resort to playing “skeletons”.
Of the features of the film, I would also highlight that I had never seen Harrison Ford in films of this genre, which, however, once again proves his extraordinary talent.
Perhaps the only drawback of this film is its protractedness, although perhaps I just really wanted to sleep.
You won’t know anything new by watching this movie. Don't look for psychology in intricate dialogue. Forget about philosophy in the capacious conclusions of the main characters. You will not feel the moment of a sharp awareness of the horror of what is happening, the sharp change of roles that often happens in detectives.
Be honest with yourself. You wanted to see a good movie. Sit down and watch. And if you have a wife or girlfriend with whom you watch together, the film will be doubly good.
In the first frames of the picture, an insistent thought arises: “The old people burn off!” Although nothing is happening yet, but this thought with the development of events more and more captures the mind and already firmly settles in you at the time of the appearance of the final credits.
There's nothing special about the movie. It is a conscientious project that does not attempt to convey any significant social or philosophical problems. And there will be no inefficiencies here. Don’t think about what the authors wanted to say. This movie is like the new iPhone. It works – everyone likes it, everything is clear.
Sharp appearances under terrible bow sounds. Strange little things like an unlocked door or an unturned TV. Yes, in life so constantly, but without bow sounds it does not seem so terrible. Classic.
Chase. Espionage. Breakup. Talk to a psychologist. The treasure is underwater. Classic. Classic. Classic.
The man had boards and nails. He built a good shed, because it is not necessary to make a masterpiece of art from every material. Such films are also needed.
A low bow to the unconceited Robert Zemeckis. A man who doesn’t give up a good job with good actors just because it’s a purely commercial project.
8 out of 10
Once again I am convinced that Robert Zemeckis is a talented director! For what genre he would not take a masterpiece and his characters remain in history, their phrases are quoted and they slip more often in speech. Are you interested in your friend?
- Cool.
- Cool again. And everything in the future is cool. Do you have anything in common?
Or else:
- It's impossible!
- It's science!
Everyone knows the trilogy “Back to the Future” and the immutable Marty McFly.
Show a man who didn’t watch this amazing movie and didn’t dream of such a DeLorean DMC-12!
It’s hard for me to imagine Zemeckis as the director of a thriller, but “Ghost Ship” and “What Hiddens Lies” are vivid examples of how he managed to create films that make blood chill in his veins! The best part is that it does not use creepy sound effects, there are no monsters hidden in the corners, or crowds of angry zombies. Everything is based on human psychology. What could be more terrible than a man and his vices?
After first seeing What Lies Hide, there was a state of numbness and horror at the thought that someone else’s soul is actually dark, even if you have known the person for many years. Claire (Michelle Pfeiffer) and Norman (Harrison Ford) begin to change their lives when Claire encounters a ghost that pushes her to find the truth. Whether we believe or not in the existence of otherworldly forces, but when watching the film, we are convinced of the truth that everything, as V. Dragunsky wrote, “The secret becomes manifest.” You have to pay for everything. The actors did an excellent job, they shone. With what coolness and prudence Norman made decisions and believed in their correctness. After watching, you begin to think about your actions, words. Very bright and strong work!
To be honest, it is fifty percent my fault that I was disappointed in this supposedly inimitable thriller. The synopsis was read and safely forgotten, and the plots where the authors of the film product skillfully explain the chilling episodes with evil spirits (cunningly invented, nothing can be said), I prefer not to see or hear. I have nothing against horror movies and ghost movies in general, but when you are presented with a detective story, in my opinion, mysticism is the last thing that can be present there. Simply because then it is no longer a detective, but a vinaigrette, where genres are mixed and it becomes unclear what to pay attention to: either the mystery of what is happening, or the criminal to look for. This is the main disadvantage of "Lies".
At first, I liked the movie. The first half are strange events, crazy neighbors, who need an eye and an eye, the dog always disappears somewhere, the doors open. I was sitting in anticipation of a pretty tight end that would meet my expectations. “Lie” was somewhat like “Paranoia” with LaBeouf, where the neighbor was also monitored, and “Paranoia” I love. But time passed, and the climax did not come. I started to worry that nothing would happen like... Like nothing happened. The whole intrigue, in which the viewer was held on the edge of the chair at the beginning, waved a pen to me and sailed safely from the shore in search of what appeared to be a normal film. And the devil, the labuda and the cacophony of genres began. In general, what happens when a horror story is weaved into a detective story. Deciding that maybe the director would be merciful and give us a real ending where it turned out that mysticism wasn’t so much of a mystery, I watched the film to the end, although I should have turned it off right in the middle. Because there is not even a human denouement, and the ending is so primitive that when you sit down to watch and think about this kind of logical completion of the throwing of heroes, you feel like an idiot without imagination. Like, how would such a director make a film with such an idea? This is stupid.
Yeah, comrades. Look, evaluate, marvel at the idiocy of the script or admire it. And I, perhaps, will not even remember, and it is better to include “Shelter”, “Island of the Damned”, “Paranoia” or “Premonition”.
4 out of 10
One wonders why Robert Zemeckis needed to work in a completely uncharacteristic genre of a mystical thriller. To broaden your horizons or look for new ways of development? However, when you learn that the director just waited for Tom Hanks, growing a beard and losing weight for the filming of “Rogue”, then everything falls into place.
There is an opinion that a talented person is talented in everything. And judging by the box office figures, the experience of Zemeckis flirting with mysticism met the expectations of the filmmakers. A powerful budget of $ 100 million (which was a decent amount for 2000) successfully fought back at the box office, justifying the giant fees of stars, actress Michelle Pfeiffer and actor Harrison Ford. For two, this pair earned more than $ 30 million.
But again, let us ask ourselves, were the hopes of the audience who longed for new, unexplored horizons from Zemeckis justified? That's unlikely. Shooting the film “between the case”, Zemeckis did not particularly try to surprise his fans. And after “Back to the Future” and “Forrest Gump”, he had a lot of them. Therefore, “What hides the lie” in the career of the director looks like an optional, passable and, we can say, relatively weak link.
... When the Spencer couple escorted their only daughter to college, Claire Spencer had a minor psychological breakdown. As they say, life has cracked. And into this crack, as through the fingers, all that was dear Claire leaked. The house was empty and the soul of the woman with it. Her beloved husband Norman could save the situation, but, alas, he is mired in his academic reports and is still too busy to portray the role of a loving husband.
And in this most troubled moment, Claire begins to see strange and frightening things. Like the reflection of a dead girl in her bathtub. Agree, not every hard-hearted man is able to adequately respond to such a phenomenon. And Claire's already poor health was shaken not in a joke. Norman, of course, tries to help his wife and find her fears a rational explanation, but ghosts continue to wander in the bathroom against any scientific facts.
Desperate to find help at sessions with a psychiatrist, Claire decides to find out who and why is so persistently breaking into her house. Having arranged a spiritualistic séance with her friend, she tries to summon the spirit of the deceased, without assuming that the answers to the questions tormenting her can cost her life.
Could the millions of satisfied viewers who volunteered money to the box office of the film be wrong? Practice shows that they can. Box office fees as an indicator of the quality of the material and its presentation have long been discredited. Today, I’m sorry, every fool can cry on the lap of a movie and even get millions of dollars in profits from it. But Zemeckis is clearly not one of them. And this seditious idea, even if it could creep into the brains of the audience, dutifully going to an engaged thriller with stars, would hardly find external confirmation.
Who knows, perhaps the director, who is now up to his ears in experiments with a three-dimensional picture, always dreamed of shooting something in the style of Hitchcock. For American filmmakers, Hitchcock is an icon, an idol and a cult in one bottle. Everything that is filmed in the thriller genre, with or without elements of mysticism, is inevitably compared by the writing brethren with the classics of old Alfred. It is impossible to step, so as not to plunge headlong into some long-invented techniques or methods of pumping suspense. And Zemeckis, being a true son of his homeland (after watching Forrest Gump, only the prototypes of the main character can claim the opposite), of course, could not pass by the work of the master.
The problem is that Zemeckis was too diligent a student. He so skillfully copied all the nuances of his invisible teacher that nothing remained of him in the tape. As if not the author of the enchanting “Roger Rabbit” was engaged in the production, but some average Hollywood director under the sensitive patronage of tenacious producers. And it seems that there is nothing to complain about, but also to admire the style does not pull. For style as such is not. There is a professionally and well-told ghost story with a full set of stamps and clear acting. It is no coincidence that Zemeckis initially implied that Pfeiffer and Ford should play in his picture. For there is nothing better than to hide the lack of original idea behind the star faces on the poster.
Everyone praises the atmosphere. They say it's a household thing, but damn it, it's scary. Imagine, you are going after a hard day to calm your nerves in a warm bath, and you from the enameled bottom of the face terrible looking. This is not to calm down, here it is as if from fear of horses not to move. And, given that the heroine Michelle Pfeiffer generally has a psyche shaken by the plot, it turns out a solid vinaigrette of reality and virtuality. Whether the woman is going crazy, in fact, a quiet suburban house has become a haven for otherworldly forces. This psychological and mystical mix, in fact, is the basis for intrigue. But there is one "but."
Despite the fact that since the time of Hitchcock, a lot of water has leaked, Zemeckis suspense is achieved by traditional and outdated methods. Technological progress has only allowed authors to diversify the ways to intimidate the audience, but not the principle itself. The habit of scaring the viewer with sharp camera turns and unexpected cries of music would be an honor to any Italian horror film of the 80s. Where did the skill of one of Hollywood’s film geeks go, who does nothing but slam the doors loudly, artificially inflate the musical background and make the characters jump out of the corner like devils from a snuffbox?
The general feeling is Zemeckis spiloned. And ten years with his thriller late, the fashion for such paintings subsided in Hollywood somewhere in the mid-90s. The most interesting thing, despite the positive critical reviews and decent fees, the director himself also realized that he had climbed into foreign territory. And more to this genre in his career did not even approach.
Sometimes we can’t explain to ourselves what is suspicious or unclear, we avoid it or try to fill a given cell with other information – so we look for the cause and then it is easier to put everything in its place. But what we once heard, saw, felt, what we may dream will haunt us, and until we find out what else hides this or that cell, built by us, it can turn our heads, and we will constantly think about it, build other reasons, invent something new, and how we do not want to lose everything old and understandable. In this intricate labyrinth, our illusions travel in search of truth, and there's no way we can get it unless we want it. Are we crazy when otherworldly voices and visions appear in unexpected places and leave their fingerprints? Who is worth listening to – the person next to us, an honest and responsive companion, or what worries us for this caring nature?
In the films of Robert Zemeckis, there are constantly disputes between negative and positive characters about the value of life, even in different concepts, different differences and forms, but what they do not have to do, they always find time to figure out the relationship, or one character understands his mistakes on his own and therefore no one prevents him from delving into his subconscious and thinking about everything as it is. So with the truth - what is the truth for heroes - the essence of life or another barrier to cross? Is it easier to speak out, or is it easier to live with this lie, cunningly pretending and deceiving your friend or spouse? The phenomenon of the director is not to investigate everything in detail, detaching himself from one source to another, but to practise philosophical life, equating life egoism and tragedy with this, such is his phenomenon - to be a playwright and comedian and not to change his traditions.
Hero Harrison Ford does not open all the cards to his wife, because he is afraid to lose another lover and do the same as with the unhappy woman he met. He does not want to pour blood on his hands again, avoids any explanations, does not get into unnecessary disputes, tries to please his beloved in all relationships, so that the truth does not surface. But will the curious Michelle Pfeiffer guess immediately without his help about everything hidden, or will she sit idly by like a nun in ignorance and only forgive and forgive? No, she will inquire until the final voice subsides and the mysterious signs disappear. It seems as if everything was simple, the husband lied to her and hid everything, and she did not know anything (how skillfully he calculated everything), well, this is a misfortune, mysticism is taken up, and then everything turns out new. Then the question is asked what Dr. Spencer heard when he went on a dreamy deed, what he heard when he was alone in the house with his wife and quietly fell asleep under the grinding of doors, and he too is haunted by conscientious phenomena and is not released, even more than his poor wife. What really hides the lie and what remains clear to us and what does not?
I was attracted to the only final scene and some mystical episodes of the pale coming of the spirit of the deceased girl. Debts are never forgiven, no matter what they are, you can decide everything to the end. And listen, even if you do not follow their advice, but sometimes listen to what the truth says and what lies conceal.
9 out of 10
“What Hiddens Lies” is a delightful detective thriller with a budget of $ 100 million, and it captures the imagination. I like this movie very much: it is mystical, psychological and keeps the viewer in some anxiety all the time. This film is like one big mystery, to the solution of which everything goes. The thriller turned out to be interesting, original and creepy, although there is nothing terrible there, but the film itself is shot in an interesting, enticing and mysterious atmosphere, invented by director Robert Zemeckis. I love this movie, and what makes it so action-packed and appealing is the charming actress Michelle Pfeiffer, who was the heart and soul of this film. She is an interesting and good, strong dramatic actress who was born to play such roles. I love Michelle and this movie is one of my favorites. Harrison Ford is a good actor who can play absolutely any role, and in this thriller he plays a very controversial role, and he plays believably and without falsehood. I liked the duet of these actors, and the movie turned out to be an impressive and high-quality, mystical thriller.
We see a couple living in a large country house by the lake, and their daughter moved to study in a dormitory. Now the spouses are left alone, but the main character always imagines something mystical, and she is convinced that there is a ghost in the house that wants to tell her something and warn her, and we see a spectacular and psychological story and a dynamic and extremely unexpected ending.
I liked this movie for a long time, it is a worthy and interesting thriller. “What hides the lie” takes the viewer into a mysterious and mystical story, the truth of which is deeply buried, but the main character recognizes her, and an incredible cleansing wave of truth awaits her, which shocks and opens her eyes to the truth. The thriller balances between mysticism and mystery, love and betrayal, life and death, forgiveness and revenge and all that makes this movie such an unusual and interesting gift of Western cinema. The movie really turned out to be intriguing and alluring, and I believe that it deserves without doubt attention and positive feedback.
Good to see you!
I can’t say that the film turned out to be sloppy, but it can’t be called a masterpiece either. And how it started out well, a country house, a nice family, cozy landscapes, and I was willing to bet what would happen on the screen next, otherwise you can not call horrors. Isn’t that how horror movies start? But, this film did not become such for one simple reason, there is nothing to seriously scare the viewer. Yes, there are disfigured ghosts, the effects of surprise, but all this is not new, all this I have seen a hundred times in similar paintings.
As for the plot, it is not very original either. A quiet family lives outside the city in a nice house, everything is quiet and calm, but suddenly strange things begin to happen in the house, and from that moment you begin to understand how this film will end, of course not exactly, but in general terms. In such films, the action takes place according to the same script, only with the addition of some different moments. The ordinary play of actors, which, like a baton, is transferred to another American film, is also not admired. This only suggests that the directors have exhausted their imagination, they simply can not come up with anything new. Of course, I understand that since this film was made in the year 2000, there is no need to demand something new from it, because it is more likely that new films are based on it than vice versa. Therefore, my review is neutral. It is a pity that the progress of cinema in the direction of horror has not changed since 2000, because personally to me, “What hides the lie” did not seem old, because such films are made in abundance now.
I can recommend this film to people who are not very familiar with the horror genre, i.e., have watched a little horror in a lifetime, because if you are a fan of the genre, most likely this film will disappoint you and will not seem scary, as it did not seem to me. It's a one-time movie. On the basis of all the above, my assessment is even slightly overestimated.
In 2000, Robert Zemeckis made the film “What Lies Hide” starring M. Pfeiffer and H. Ford, a film that I liked.
The film itself can be divided into two parts. The first is the life of a family with suspicious neighbors (Her God, Paranoia 2007) and the second (The Call 2002, Dark Water 2005 and Uninvited 2009) is the life of a family with a paranormal phenomenon nearby. These two parts, Zemeckis, tried to tie together, in order to intrigue the viewer and, as I think, most of them, the first part of the film was really interesting, but with the transition to the “mystical track”, the film lost a lot of viewers. The reason is the lack of communication between the neighbours and the ghost, so the question is, "Why did the ghost begin to manifest itself then?" What was he waiting for?” This is a very serious miscalculation of the picture, especially from such a director.
As for the actors, they played like real pros, I liked their game, I believed them.
“What hides the lie” is woven mainly from the boom-moments that often appeared on the screen. Personally, I liked it, but of course it was necessary to create some kind of “visual flesh”, I lacked that. They tried to confuse the plot to the limit and it turned out, but still some moments spoiled the viewing itself due to the unnatural course of events (like the one that took place in the bathroom - with a dose of paralyzing substance, "reviving legs" and in the end - stabilizing the movement, as if nothing had happened - it was very fake).
If you compare this film to a ship, it has, to me, two huge holes: the first is the middle of the film (the transition from thriller to mysticism – there is simply no connection) and the second is the ending of the film (too many childish, ridiculous characters mistakes, such as choosing the keys to the car or phone, choosing the car on the right or left, unnecessary stops, etc.).
I also note that the timing of this film is more than two hours, and this is another reason to criticize it, really - too much.
I liked the movie, and I liked it despite the many flaws. I watched it without reading the descriptions for the film, just found out who was shooting, who is acting and what genre of this film. After watching, I decided to read the description and was just surprised that the description simply told most of the “chips” of this film, which, in my opinion, is wrong. Either way, that’s one of the reasons why, for some, the movie might seem boring.
If you love mysticism and famously twisted plots, and are not a principled and ardent opponent of films with "errors", "What hides the lie" you will like one hundred percent and I advise you to watch this film.
It is not always the gun that hangs on the wall at the beginning of the story that will shoot at the end.
The film interested me with its excellent cast, brief description and, of course, an outstanding director, who shot many masterpieces. I even watched the first third of the film with great interest, tormented by the question of how the strange family next door to the main characters is connected with the deceased father of Dr. Norman, whose cause of death is not mentioned once during the film. Turns out I didn't. Neither the storyline was logically finished. This begs the question: “Why was this mentioned at all?”
Suddenly, out of nowhere, a ghost appears in the middle of the film, which has nothing to do with either the neighbor’s abnormal family or the deceased father of the protagonist. When you realize that there is no connection, you get the feeling that the director simply deceived you by slouching your head the whole first part of the film.
The general impression: despite the good performance of good actors and, in general, an interesting idea, the film has a lot of unnecessary porridge, unrelated events, characters who do not carry any semantic load. The plot lines are roughly broken, not brought to the end. The denouement is long, from the banal pursuit of the criminal after the victim in the style of cheap horror movies you get tired after five minutes of watching. I give the film a strained 4 for an interesting idea that could not be properly implemented.
There is no fog from which there is no escape. The main thing is to hold on and move forward...
Claire, after leaving her daughter for college and after a year as she got into a car accident, begins to see a ghost girl. The husband does not believe her and thinks that his wife is trying to get his attention. The main character decides to find out who this girl is and what she needs? But the truth can be quite unexpected.
In my opinion, this is an interesting thriller of the early 2000s, and now it looks pretty good. The tense atmosphere, the sudden appearance of a ghost and the corresponding musical chord makes you shudder with surprise, also in the film an interesting plot and of course an excellent acting. The main character Claire in my opinion is trying to understand what is happening around her and with her, while she has to act on her own and rely only on herself, she will not retreat from her goal.
Michelle Pfeiffer, Claire, played perfectly, a woman who decided to find out a secret that was beginning to become clear, in the thriller genre I saw her for the first time and in my opinion she did a decent job with her role. Harrison Ford, Norman Spencer, the husband of the main character, played not bad, the character who tries to understand what is happening to his wife and help her deal with what is happening, turned out to be quite an interesting character.
In general, this is not a bad thriller with elements of mysticism with an interesting setting and a rather unexpected ending. I will give the following assessment...
Every time I accidentally stumbled upon this film after the first viewing in the cinema, I tried to switch, so it negatively cut into memory. The same feeling was experienced only after the first Japanese Call. The only explanation for me of the Secret of this film is the realism of scenes that occur in everyday life with everyone against the background of life crossroads (treason, betrayal, etc.) and a constant reminder of the presence of paranormal forces in our lives.
The unpredictable transformation of Harrison Ford’s character is simply astounding, Michelle Pfeiffer is a dream woman, beautiful, fragile and beyond brave. Stunned Amber Valletta beauty not afraid to show themselves in a completely unsightly light. Attraction and disgust are one of those feelings evoked by this psychological thriller.
Good viewing and easy steam!
Everything secret becomes clear... much earlier than the due date.
Why is this happening? A film with a good cast, a well-established director, is such a miserable sight? . .
The beginning of the picture, I must admit, is intriguing: suspense on suspense. Sorry, not like that. Or rather, it will be: a sharp moment at a sharp moment, that is, there are no real frightening, chilling moments, but in an abundance of moments that will make a person who does not have the strongest nervous system shudder. And for that, thank you, good that for the modern viewer this is quite enough. The plot is simple, uncomplicated, although the authors of the film tried to twist and wrap it: from a certain point everything becomes so obvious and clear that you can safely twist to the end of the film, and - a 9 to 10 chance - it turns out that your assumptions and the development of events on the screen coincide.
True, it is worth noting the good performance of the actors, but this is the merit of the actors themselves, and I am very sorry that they showed this game in such a mediocre film.
This film is not frightening - there is not a single truly terrible moment, although the genre of the film - a psychological thriller - such moments suggest; The film does not intrigue, does not keep the viewer in suspense (and so I wanted!), but the picture “What hides the lie” again makes us remember that there are so few good films now that under a beautiful wrapper you can find a product far from the first freshness. It's just like Bulgakov, if you know what I mean.
The music towards the end of the film somehow entertained: a kind of reminiscence with Hitchcock’s films, but where there – one music will not be fed.
The film has a good cast, so it can not be called a complete failure, but everything else is so bad that it can not even be called a good film.
4 out of 10