The Underneath

This is a very well-crafted suspense drama of intrigue and double-cross from Stephen Soderbergh, arguably one of the best North American filmmakers of today.Unfortunately Soderbergh is ill-served by this release. It says that it is in 2.35:1 ratio - which is true. This leads the unwary buyer to conclude that the video pixel dimensions will be somewhere in the 1.78:1 range ( thus having a video display of 16:9).What you get is a film frame ratio of 2.35:1 squeezed into a video pixel dimension of 4:3 (720 pixels by 480 pixels). Hence the frame container is a square (4:3) not a rectangle (16:9) and the resulting image is a very small frame in a square box.Whether the DVD distributors are wilfully deceptive or just plain ignorant is anyone's guess. If you want this film though, I would say that you should wait until there is a true widescreen release. Don't buy this one.

I love Peter Gallagher and I enjoyed the movie. The sound was kind of low and had a little trouble hearing the dialog at times, other than that It was a good late afternoon movie.

Brilliant stylized directing effort. Highly recommend to all film buffs, and aspiring filmakers.

This is a great movie. I last saw it when I was in the U.S.A six years ago and now I have it on DVD, I can watch as many times aas I like. Thank you so much Amazon even though it did not came with the first order I placed with you.

A very cannily-constructed and well-paced neo-noir, with a plot so tightly woven that I won't risk spoilers by going into it. So let me just mention a couple of stylistic features that seem to me to work very well. First, there is the framing of many shots of the characters through windows or doors, so that they seem literally framed. It might seem like a Soderbergh mannerism, but it has a point that I think has to do with a certain tunnel vision of many of the characters -- that is, they don't see all there is to see about the situations they get into, and the frame also suggests perhaps that they have less freedom of action than they think they have. If I'm right about that last point, then you'll see that the fate of the main character, Michael, played by Peter Gallagher, is absolutely appropriate. It's a pretty bleak movie, though -- most of the characters are unlikeable, with the exception of Susan (Elisabeth Shue), whose purpose in the movie seems mostly to be to remind us that just about everybody else in the movie has ulterior motives, and Michael's mother (Anjanette Comer) and stepfather (Paul Dooley).The other feature that is well-handled is the double time-frame. Michael has returned to his home town after having left under a cloud, shall we say, and the narrative of what follows his return (i. e. the main story) is intercut with a narrative of the circumstances that led him to leave. The fact that Michael is clean-shaven in the "present" and bearded in the "past" makes the two interwoven stories easy to keep distinct, even as it allows the audience to judge whether or not Michael has or has not changed. There are two kinds of suspense, I should mention -- one is a typical "caper" that ends up with complications, as capers often do in noir movies, and the other regards the identity of a mysterious man behind the caper -- will we ever know? Will the characters most affected ever know?So -- very well put together, with moody camerawork and good work by the actors, with Joe Don Baker, William Fichtner, Adam Trese, and Alison Elliott all deserving mention.

I watched "Underneath" again last evening. What a great, truly underrated film.Michael Chambers (Peter Gallagher) is the black sheep of his family. He returns home to Austin, Texas, for his mother's wedding to her boyfriend, Ed Dutton (Paul Dooley). Ed is a driver for an armored car service and thinks that his boss, Clay (Joe Don Baker) might just have a job for him. Michael immediately runs into his old girlfriend, Rachel (Allison Elliot). Rachel has hooked up with a bar owner, Tommy Dundee (William Fichtner). The old attraction between Michael and Rachel builds to an inferno, but she marries Tommy, complicating things. Nonetheless, they continue to meet and are quickly found out by Tommy. Michael hatches a plan."Underneath" was directed by Steven Soderbergh and was virtually ignored by American filmmakers. In fact, most of Soderbergh's films after his debut, "sex, lies and videotape", until the more recent "Erin Brockovich:, have been financial failures. Why is this? During this time, Soderbergh created three truly wonderful films. He followed "sex, lies" with "Kafka", a mixed bag. Then he directed "King Of The Hill", an amazing film about a young boy during the Depression. This is a truly great film that you have not seen. You should. It is impossible to write about the film and do it any justice. He followed "King" with "Underneath", a homage to film noir. More on that in a moment. Two more films and then he directed "Out of Sight" starring George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez. This film contains one of the sexiest performances from a couple to grace a film in a long time. I think the main reason this film did not enjoy more success can be contributed to the "cubist filmmaking" Soderbergh employs in the film. He mixes segments from different timelines, starting scenes before others are completed. This actually creates a great, very enjoyable caper film based on an Elmore Leonard novel. "The Limey" followed "Out of Sight". "The Limey" stars Terence Stamp in an electrifying performance. A tribute to the hard boiled crime films of the 60s and early 70s, the film didn't find a large audience, again, I think because audiences were not ready for the cubist filmmaking. Soderbergh toned things down a bit for "Erin Brockovich", creating his most successful film to date. He provided Julia Roberts with the role that may well earn her an Academy Award in March. It is a great film told in a more linear, straight forward style. I have very high hopes for his next film, "Traffic", starring Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta- Jones, and the upcoming "Oceans 11", a remake starring a plethora of Hollywood stars."Underneath" tells a very familiar story, particularly if you are familiar with Film Noir. Film Noir is a style of film that enjoyed popularity in the 40s and early 50s, distinguished by black and white film, use of dark shadows and a story that usually featured a former convict trying to go straight with some difficulty. "Underneath" is a film shot in color, but where most Noir films used black and white to great advantage, Soderbergh creates his own form of Noir with color. The entire film is marked with primary color hues that serves the same purpose as dark shadows, shadows of venetian blinds, etc. Many scenes are washed in a green hue, which is actually very natural. These scenes seem to indicate a form of conflict or danger. Other scenes are washed in blue, creating a form of warning. It is a truly remarkable pallet that helps the filmmaker create a world all his own.The DVD that I saw has virtually no extras, not even a commentary by Soderbergh. What it does have is an absolutely essential demonstration of the differences between `pan and scan' and `letterbox'. Most films you watch on video are in the pan and scan format, to fill your entire television screen. However, to fit a rectangular silver screen image to a square television, they have to cut out a significant portion of the image. They show a stunning sequence from the film in both formats. The letterboxed image retains the visual impact of the scene, while the pan and scan merely looks like every other film you have ever scene.Another element of a lot of Film Noir is the use of various visual techniques to demonstrate various elements of the story. In "Shadow of A Doubt", there is a confrontation between Charlie and her Uncle on a porch. Hitchcock uses shadows from the porch light to indicate the good and bad state of each character. In "Underneath", Soderbergh creates a very similar visual dynamic. There is an early scene, upon Michael's return home. He is eating a meal with his mom, Ed and his brother, David. David is a cop that knows what his brother is like and doesn't trust him. He is also jealous that their mom clearly seems to adore Michael, even though David is the better, more reliable son. Ed is too new to the family to have an opinion. As the conversation progresses, each shot shows Michael and the person he is talking to. Each person is shown from the front, but Michael's framing depends on his relationship with them. His face is turned away from his brother's, towards his mother's and side to side with Ed's. It is a very effective visual tool that Soderbergh uses again.The first two acts of "Underneath" actually tell three stories in a shifting timeline. Michael returns home, Michael's job at the armored car company and the events leading up to Michael leaving town are all depicted at various points, to illustrate the story leading to the third act.Again, "Underneath" is a very underrated film, worthy of your rental dollars. I would also suggest that you try out "King of the Hill" and "The Limey".

Usually I don't mind slow character driven films but at times this really did test my patience. It still gets 3 stars as there is a nice pay off if you can last the distance. Also the cast are strong and I do like the Noir look & feel of the film. I like Soderbergh`s The Limey a little more however this film will possibly get better with further viewings if i get time.

Liked it