Back in the early '80s, when I was a fledgling movie critic, filmmaker Brian De Palma was hitting it big. He had already earned some attention in 1973 with "Sisters" and he had some success in 1976 with "Obsession" — but he really hit the jackpot later in 1976 with "Carrie," the first adaptation of a Stephen King novel.
Then, "The Fury" did pretty well in 1978, but it was "Dressed to Kill" that really put De Palma on top in 1980. Then came "Blow Out" (1981), "Body Double" (1984) and "Raising Cain" (1992), among others.
So, aside from De Palma as director, what do all these films have in common? They blatantly copy the various films and unique camera work of Alfred Hitchcock. They even parrot the memorable Bernard Herrmann music used in many of Hitchcock's films. (In fact, De Palma hired Herrmann himself to score "Sisters" and "Obsession.")
To be fair, De Palma has been successful with other kinds of movies, ranging from "The Untouchables" (1987) to the first "Mission: Impossible" (1996) . . . but he always seems to return to ripping off Hitch.
Why? Who knows? Maybe Hitchcock is simply irresistible.
After all, many other filmmakers have also offered cinematic nods to The Master of Suspense over the years . . . with varying degrees of success. From movies that contain fleeting, winking moments to full-blown remakes of such Hitch classics as "The 39 Steps" and "The Lady Vanishes" to comic spoofs.
There are even a number of full-length features made in homage to Hitch, such as Stanley Donen's "Charade" (1963) and "Arabesque" (1966), Mark Robson's "The Prize" (1963), Francois Truffaut's "The Bride Wore Black" (1968), etc.
But I don't know of any other filmmakers besides De Palma who have returned to Hitchcock again and again for . . . well, to be generous, let's call it "inspiration" . . . over the course of an entire career.
And since De Palma's "Mission to Mars" flopped this summer, you can bet he'll be back with some Hitch-inspired work soon.
On the other hand — aside from Mel Brooks' 1977 Hitch-spoof "High Anxiety" — I'm not aware of any single film that has as many specific Hitchcock references as Robert Zemeckis' "What Lies Beneath," the current haunted-house yarn starring Michelle Pfeiffer and Harrison Ford.
I didn't like the film, but after giving it some thought, I've decided that my negative reaction might be because I misread it. Maybe "What Lies Beneath" is not supposed to be a serious horror film. Maybe it's a spoof.
OK, not a spoof in the lowbrow manner of "High Anxiety" — or the low-low-lowbrow manner of "Scary Movie." "What Lies Beneath" is certainly more subtle and less vulgar than that.
But it must be intended as humorous. After all, Zemeckis — the guy who gave us "Romancing the Stone" (1984), the "Back to the Future" trilogy (1985-90), "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" (1988), "Forrest Gump" (1994) and "Contact" (1997), among others — can't be accidentally using hoary horror cliches like those that rear their ugly heads throughout "What Lies Beneath." From the cat jumping out of the cupboard (in this case, a dog that comes out from behind a door) to the killer-who-wouldn't-die, this picture is loaded with idiotic red herrings that just seem dumb. And Zemeckis is not certainly not dumb.
As for the Hitchcock references, this film plays like a quiz at the end of a Hitch-101 film class: Pfeiffer spies on the neighbors and witnesses a murder . . . or does she? . . . ( la "Rear Window"), she counsels with a caring therapist who tells her to confront her demons ("Spellbound"), she falls in the bathroom and pulls down the shower curtain ring by ring ("Psycho"), she suspects her husband may be trying to kill her ("Suspicion"), she is in a second marriage and seems to be haunted by the specter of her husband's former lover ("Rebecca") — and yes, the music owes much to Bernard Herrmann.
Of course, "What Lies Beneath" also references many non-Hitchcock films — mostly horror movies, ranging from any number of slasher pictures to "Ghost Story" (1981), from which it seems to take its central plot.
What's really disturbing about all this is the realization that Zemeckis may not be aping Hitchcock at all.
Maybe he's aping Brian De Palma!
Now that's scary.
E-MAIL: hicks@desnews.com