This background slowly accumulates through the liberal use of flash-backs, which intersperse the present-day action, while an equal amount of flash-forwards offer hints on a future event. So seamless is the transition between these different periods that it is sometimes difficult to immediately see where a scene fits in, only becoming clear in retrospect. What is obvious is that Michael wants to re-new his relationship with Rachel, despite her involvement with Tommy Dundee (William Fichtner), the semi-psychopathic owner of an Austin nightclub. To achieve this end Michael decides to stay in town, getting a job with Ed's security company. This doesn't sit well with David, who's a cop, for a couple of reasons - firstly, he hates Michael and secondly, he secretly desires Rachel for himself (and if he can't have her, there's no way his low-life brother will).
None of these dangers are enough to put Rachel and Michael off though; there is still an attraction between them, despite his previous behaviour, and they meet at their old house (Michael manages to rent it in a further piece of synchronicity). This is a great underestimate of the jealousy of Tommy -- he's been obsessively following Rachel and breaks into the house during their liaison. Confronting the guilty pair he's right on the edge of sanity and just waiting for an excuse to use his trigger finger, however Michael is a quick-thinker. With his background of compulsive gambling he's totally comfortable with taking risks that could destroy his life, yet in this tense situation he's forced into his biggest spin of the wheel ever. Playing on his newly acquired job he convinces Tommy that he has a worthwhile proposition that could net a million dollar haul, all in small bills. The small-time gangster is hooked and the story jumps into a maze of double-crossings.
This is very much a film of two halves -- the first leisurely introduces the characters and sketches their connected backgrounds, whilst the second revolves around the heist in a tense atmosphere of betrayal. The stitching between the sections is skillfully constructed with the various changes of time-frame introducing echoes and reflections of the past/future. On a more prosaic note, the acting is generally good although we never really get under anybody's skin. A rather more interesting aspect is the artistic use of monochromatic colour to highlight certain scenes, producing a visual flatness and emotional depth to the moments picked out in this way. Unfortunately there are several negative facets, such as the way in which parts of the storyline are not fully explored or just seem to disappear without explanation, together with the dialogue, which is often too knowing and conscious of its own cleverness. However, I enjoyed The Underneath for its style and intrigue.