Who was the killer in under suspicion

7/10

Suspenseful nail biter with some great old-time stars

Warning: Spoilers

This tense thriller is basically a two-hander between two of the finest character actors of our age: Hackman and Freeman are both flawless in this slow-burning drama, really building and bringing their intense characters to life, and it's safe to say that the film wouldn't be what it is without them. The story is simple yet complicated, in the best possible sense: it focuses on a straightforward detective interrogation yet the back story unwinds piece by piece as the film progresses, sucking you in deeper and deeper until the inevitable twist ending. Supporting actors are also decent; Thomas Jane reveals the intensity that won him the titular role in THE PUNISHER, whilst Monica Bellucci is hands-down one of the sexiest actresses AND characters ever put on screen.

Hackman leads the way with his sympathetic turn as a high-profile attorney with a dodgy background, whilst Freeman lets Hackman grab the acting honours, respectfully standing back and letting him take over. The direction by Stephen Hopkins is VERY good, and there are some neat tricks, especially with Freeman & co. appearing in Hackman's flashbacks – you'll have to watch to see what I mean. In the end, UNDER SUSPICION is an intelligent, suspenseful nail-biter that may be unpleasant and disturbing in places, but'll make you think for hours afterwards.

13 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

A potential spellbinder and one of Hackman's best performances

=G=2 January 2001

Most of this dialogue-intensive film takes place in an office in a Puerto Rican Police Department with a top detective (Freeman) grilling a wealthy attorney (Hackman) about the rape/murders of young girls. Featuring outstanding performances by both principals and technical and artistic excellence, the film's story unfolds piecemeal as it scrutinizes the Hackman character with painful deliberation while holding out the "whodunnit" carrot until the very end. More mature audiences with an appetite for this type of film are likely to find "Under Suspicion" a spellbinding tour de force by Hackman.

88 out of 102 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

Confusing ending, but not a bad film

Warning: Spoilers

Well, the film is pretty good, it has good acting, excellent direction and very good dialogue. It aims a lot on symbolism and the viewer should observe not only the face of the actor who is talking, but also everything around him/her. Reactions of the other actors as well as the surrounding environment are important in realising what exactly is going on. There's also a lot about the flashback and imagination scenes. Bear in mind that when one of the actors is talking and there's a flashback at the same time, it's not necessarily a memory or the imagination of the talking character, it could be the memories or imagination of the one who listens. Flashbacks are also shown from the point of view of the one having it and are thus, coloured so, therefore they might not be the truth, but they can be just painted in emotion. All this leads us to understand more about the psyche of the people involved in this. Furthermore, the movie is not about the murders, but about relationships. The murders, although the centre of attention, are secondary. The primary thing one should focus is the marriage between Henry (Hackman) and Chantal (Belluci). I liked this very much, because it's not traditional Hollywood but it rather resembles more theatrical plays or dramatic novels. The people involved in this actually did a tremendous job. The film, although copying french film Garde de vue scene by scene, it's quite good (although I haven't seen the original 1981 film). Be warned though, the ending is very confusing and leaves a lot of unanswered questions. I don't usually like this in films to this extent (so that takes a few points off my rating), but I guess the director aimed at making the viewers think a lot about his movie. You shouldn't rush to hear other people's opinions in this and adapt them as your own but instead you should think out the motivation of Henry for doing what he did at the end and draw a conclusion by considering about what he talked throughout the movie.

***SPOILER*** If you wish to learn my conclusion on what exactly happened at the end read on, otherwise watch the movie and read it out after you have thought about your own conclusion.

Henry is feeling very lonely and depressed because of his wife being overjealous of him and thinking of him as some kind of a pervert, as she thought he was flirting with his niece. Henry vents this off by finding refuge in pornography and prostitutes, however he thinks (and I agree) that this does not make him a pervert since he has to vent off someway and instead of going around raping people or hitting his wife, he does this. However, he is ridden with guilt at doing it because he still loves his wife very much and would stop all this if she would just let him near her, not just sexually, but also emotionally. He wants children and his wife does not, both are fertile, but they lie to everyone else around them that they are both impotent and therefore can't have any. It's obvious his wife doesn't want children from the beginning, where Henry says he'd like a pet in the house but his wife denies him that, and from the fact that Henry is "adopting" his sister's-in-law children. Chantal's jealousy though denies him that as well and he is left alone, and that's where he starts venting off at alcohol, porn and prostitutes. The fact that he has prostitutes in dirty places is another indication of his guilt and his lies to the Captain (Freeman) are to cover up his "activities" because he himself is not comfortable about them. This makes Freeman extremely suspicious of him and his suspicions are passing on to Chantal, who already knows that Henry has taken pictures of the murdered girls, before they were murdered, as part of his collection for the culture of the city. Henry, having realised that Chantal has gone beyond suspicion into accusation, he gives up completely of having a functional marriage with her (since she is already accusing him of having "touched" her niece) and goes on to admit the murders, which serves to relief him of his own guilt, and also to give Chantal closure to move on with her life, because like any other man in love, he just wants her to be happy wherever she is. He doesn't care of the repercussions, but only cares about his wife to stop accusing him. When the murderer is found, in the middle of Henry's "confession", Chantal realises this and understands that Henry's speech was aimed at her, and that this man loves her and just wants to have a working family with her and not to touch children, as she thinks he does. She's overwhelmed with guilt and goes on a ledge thinking about suicide while Henry is being released, but decides instead to try and repair their marriage, so she goes back to meet him upon his release. They meet outside the station, but sit on separate benches (to show how far they are from each other) and then Henry leaves, as he feels disappointed at how she accused him of murdering two children. The ending of that is up to the viewer, whether Chantal goes after him and they repair their marriage, or if she stays on the bench and leaves on the opposite direction, and filing for divorce, as she wouldn't bear to look upon him now that she feels guilty about accusing him. Being a feel-good-ending guy, I believe they went ahead to repair their marriage, but again, that's up to each person's interpretation and I think the director/writer wanted to give the audience a lesson of how jealousy can bring forth illusions and fake accusations between two people and finally drive them apart, perhaps so apart that they can't repair their relationship anymore.

26 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The ending doesn't work as well as it should but the idea is there and the performances carry the whole thing

In the middle of San Sebastian's Feast celebration in San Juan, tax attorney Henry Hearst is guest of honour at a fund raising event to help repair damage from a tropical storm. However, less than an hour before the event, Henry is called into the police station by friend Capt Victor Benezet to clarify some points on his statement. Henry had discovered a dead child on a local beach but the police doubt some of the things in his story. As the time ticks down, Victor comes under pressure to release Henry but at the same time his story begins to reveal lies. The situation is only made more revealing when Henry's wife comes into the station.

Everyone loves a good thriller so it was a surprise to me how quickly this film with it's heavy-weight cast managed to slip through the UK cinemas almost unnoticed. There is nothing significantly wrong with it to justify the low box office it seemed to generate, so I'm not sure why it happened. The story is set, for unknown reasons, in San Juan, a fact that is only distracting as none of the principals are Puerto Rican and their presence there is never really settled. Anyway, the film is very much a play that is carried by the two main characters. The revelations and movement of the plot is engaging and it is great fun to watch. The ending is difficult though - we are taught to expect a certain type of ending in this sort of film and it is slightly disappointing when it doesn't come.

I expected a big twist and, in a way, that happened but the fall out from it isn't well explained by the film and a lot is left for you to think about. In that respect it is difficult, again because we are not expecting that type of ending but also that it is quite hard to understand as it is very tied up in the emotions of complex characters - complexities that we having been watching because we've only been seeing them as `twists' and revelations. That said, I still enjoyed the ending and thought it was brave to be different - just a shame it was badly handled.

The cast are roundly great and are a big reason that the film remains gripping. Hackman and Freeman are great actors and having them both in the same film was enough of a draw to get me watching. The vast majority of their scenes are shared and they interact together really, really well when it comes to the dramatics. What they don't do as well is convince that they really are old friends. Jane is good but his character is far too simplistic and brash. Bellucci is better than I have seen her, but she is a little too wound up emotionally. She is very good looking and I was glad that the film didn't just trade on that, but it didn't (or couldn't) get a great deal out of her.

The director manages to add energy and style to what could have been a rather contain piece (like a play). Visually it is exciting but, looking back, it was more important to develop character than deliver a slick thriller - something he didn't do well at all. The ending is weak because it takes thought, as we have not been forced to look at the complex characters. It was Hopkins' job to make us do that but he can't manage it.

Overall this is an enjoyable film that will frustrate many with the ending. Despite being a clever and different conclusion, it doesn't really work because of the director making the wrong sort of film to suit that ending. However for the vast majority it really works and the strength of the two lead performances mean that, for all it's flaws, this is never a dull film.

70 out of 99 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

Ending "explained" in detail (Obviously spoilers).

Warning: Spoilers

Okay, I commented on this movie once a few days ago, encouraging viewers to go and watch it and not try to learn too much before seeing it, so as not to tarnish their perceptions. So many are troubled by the ending and don't understand. No doubt, it makes you think and doesn't hand over instant satisfaction or relief from the conflict. Does life always. Well, here's the importance and brilliance of the ending. Henry is like many of us. Little parts of our lives taken out of context or thrown into the wrong context could leave us having to "explain." More than one part, public embarrassment, a mixture of betrayal and enough suspicion could put you in Henry's shoes. To highlight. The dog. The dog ran with him like most times. But he didn't meet the dog like usual, rather the dog met him on the trail. Even Henry first recalled it happened like always until he really remembered it hadn't. But the dog was there and the dog found the girl. The dog's owner says otherwise. Camille. Nothing really happened with Camille. But now, like the dog, it looks suspicious to investigators. His wife always thought so and made it part of Henry's nightly problem before this ever surfaced. Something so familiar to him, he blurted out a denial before his wife ever brought it to investigator's attention. Now they make it their business to discover all they can about this from her, and get her side naturally. Henry visited websites, innocently like many of us, but now the police see the pornsites he looked at while he believed things were private and now he must explain. He is a prolific photographer. As photographer's always do - he shot many rolls of indiscriminate film and not surprising (by itself) captured some of the victims at some point. The victims were public people (which is part of why they became victims) and Henry had an abundance of pictures related to these scenes around him. All this suspicion and pressure, and his wife and the "lengths she went to" as Henry said, when learning she dug through his darkroom and discovered photos he didn't even realize he owned. Then she gave them to the police. He stands as the only one saying aside from all this, he didn't do the murders. He looks at the mirror and tells his wife to "come in here and face me." Given all his thoughts and feelings, even he decides to go along with everyone. He gives up. Doesn't care. He's the last one to join the parade. It all played out and he tosses his hand. Begins his false confession which is fueled by facts he learned from listening to the interrogators over the last few hours. (He never suspected his wife did the murders as some have said). Then an undisputable circumstance rears it's head and suddenly everyone pulls the weight of suspicion away from Henry. For the first time they are on his side. He's "free" but really far worse off than he ever was because of all the things he realized about his life. He's has to accept who and where he is, whether deserved or undeserved. As viewer's we became an integral part of directing suspicion towards Henry, we too began thinking and agreeing about his guilt. We too, wanted to find the shred of evidence that made him "100% guilty." It isn't there, nor was it ever - just like Henry said. The character's in the film are deflated, confused and unhappy with the ending - just like you are!!

70 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Freeman & Hackman were Outstanding

This was a well produced and directed film starring two great veteran actors who both did an outstanding performance. Gene Hackman,(Henry Hearst),"The Replacements" 2000, was a very successful lawyer and well admired citizen of Puerto Rico along with his charming wife, Monica Bellucci,(Chantel Hearst),"Sheitan",'06. However, there was a very strange and dark side to their marriage and a long hallway and closed doors provided a very strange relationship for his couple. Morgan Freeman,(Captain Victor Beneget),"Edison",'05 is the chief of police and while he is investigating a homicide, he starts to question Henry Hearst and it is from this point in the film when all kinds of situations change and some of these very dark secrets come to light. Great acting and a great film, enjoy.

15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Smart, Strange, Engrossing

'Under Suspicion,' a remake of the French film 'Garde a Vue,' is as compelling and engrossing a psychological thriller as I've seen in years. The drama is wonderfully tense and taut, and, best of all, the suspense holds out until near the very end of the film, lingering on afterward for hours in the viewer's mind.

Gene Hackman plays Henry Hearst, a successful attorney in San Juan, Puerto Rico who lives an apparently blissful life of luxury--he's got money, respect, a gorgeous house on the coast, and, most of all, a stunningly beautiful young trophy wife, Chantal (Monica Belluci, the voluptuous heir-apparent to Sophia Loren, in one of her first US roles).

On the eve of the feast of St. Sebastian, during which Hearst is set to deliver an address at a fundraiser for hurricane relief, he is called in to the police department by his longtime acquaintance Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman) for additional questioning surrounding the death of a young girl. It seems that earlier that day, Hearst discovered the girl's body while jogging. It doesn't take long to discover that Hearst is a suspect, particularly when he is repeatedly threatened and insulted by the tactless Owens (Thomas Jane), a loose-cannon junior detective hot to make his first big bust. As the interrogation progresses--interspersed with stylish flashbacks combing memory and real-time--it becomes apparent that the case is far more complicated than it first appeared. It seems that the imminently respectable Henry Hearst has a fetish for young girls and a secret life involving internet pornography and prostitutes. Simultaneously revealed is Captain Benezet's longstanding jealousy of Hearst, whom he has watched gain wealth and prestige while Benezet has lost his wife to divorce and struggled to get by. As the intense intellectual combat continues, truth becomes more and more murky, to the point that the characters are not even sure of their own motives or actions.

This movie really stuck with me. Without giving anything away, let me say that the film will force you to consider the complexity of truth and memory and the degree to which psychological trauma and coercion can influence what we know about ourselves. Hackman and Freeman are superb, and it's a pleasure to watch them stretching their skills and chewing up the excellent dialogue as their characters confront each other. Thomas Jane gives one of his better performances as the hot-tempered Owens, and Monica Belluci gives a subtle and convincing performance while simultaneously being so unbelievably gorgeous that you can't take your eyes off of her. The direction by Stephen Hopkins is superb--creepy and stylish, the cinemetography makes maximum use of San Juan's many settings.

For some reason this one really flew below the radar when it was released. I highly recommend it as an excellent, memorable suspense thriller with meaning and substance.

78 out of 97 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

ok here is my take on what the movie meant - SPOILERS

Warning: Spoilers

SPOILERS ---- What amazes me is how many of you viewers are so quick to condemn this movie because you just don't get it. Do movies always have to wrap things up into tight little packages for them to be workthwile? Personally, I prefer movies that require you to think a little after it is over to allow you to come up with what you think is the real meaning to all of it. Under Suspicion is that kind of movie. It was pretty obvious to me that the movie wasn't as much a murder mystery as much as it was about a man struggling with his own personal demons, in particular, the loss of the love of his life and his obsession with young women. If you've ever been in a relationship that ends poorly but you still are in love with that person, you might understand. It is quite obvious to me that Hackman's character is in love with young (very young) beauty. That is his flaw. His stumbling during the investigations is a direct result of his attempt to hide that flaw and to reveal very personal things about his life and relationship with his wife. His obsession about young women is why he had the photographs of them and why he knew one of them. By telling the truth, he would have to reveal this obsession. His wife has her own problems, that is the green monster he was talking about - jealousy. She knows him too well that she fears that as she ages, she will lose him to younger girls. She allows this obsession of hers to take over her reason and let's it destroy her relationship with her husband. In the end, Hackman's character is a lost puppy, weak and pathetic, because he is unwilling to let go of a lost love as he still loves her deeply and is in denial of the fact that she won't come back to him. He is holding on to that shred of hope that she will realize the error of her ways and love him again. But she can't do that. In the end when he finally realizes that she actually believes in his guilt and helped to find the "evidence" against him, he finally realizes and accepts that she will never overcome her jealousy and come back. So, he has nothing to live for and he confesses, mostly to get back at her I think. By confessing, he will ruin her too as she will lose all social standing she has, etc. And I think there is some self-pugilizing too. I think he may also be trying to punish himself for being such a fool for her and for his obsession with young women. The interrogation may have convinced him that he was wrong for having this obsession, so his confessing accomplishes both - punishing her and himself. In the end, she realizes her mistake and even contemplates suicide, but decides to try to make up for it and come back to him. He, however, actually has made some progress by finally being able to let her go and rejects him. She ends up losing in the end and he gains some self respect. At least that is where I think the movie goes.

A couple of small points that people are making. I am not sure why Puerto Rico was picked. Except maybe to add some irony by injecting an exotic locale. I don't think that choice is necessarily a good one, not necessarily a bad choice either. But it doesn't work well and it may have been the director's choice not to exploit that. Maybe the book got into it deeper. Also, the friendship between Freeman's character and Hackman's obviously took place much earlier in their lives. It appeared to me that they had really be estranged for a long time leading different lives, his in the wealthy, social world, Freeman in the working class world. They knew a little about each other, but not the details. I do think they could have expanded on this a little more for development though.

Overall, I think this is a very good movie and worth seeing if not for Freeman and especially Hackman's performances. Hackman doesn't often do a movie where he plays a vulnerable character.

117 out of 123 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

four great actors

In Puerto Rico, wealthy lawyer Henry Hearst (Gene Hackman) is married to beautiful Chantal (Monica Bellucci). Police detectives Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman) and Felix Owens (Thomas Jane) investigate Henry for the rape and murder of a young girl. There is no direct evidence but Henry's story starts to fall apart revealing marital problems and personal sexual accusations.

The material may not be worthy and the directing style is poor. This is a four-handed play with four great actors. There is good possibilities but ultimately, the story is unsatisfying. This deserves more cinematic style. It may be compelling for completists but for everybody else, these actors have been in better.

4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Compelling thriller stumbles before the finish line.

A film with Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman in the two main roles is a dream come true for anyone who loves the art of acting, and their performances here (especially Hackman's, who after all does have the more showy part) are stunning. Stephen Hopkins' direction is hip, inventive and unstagy (though it must be said that his "a person can physically visit someone else's flashbacks" trick had already been done three years earlier, in "The Ugly"), the dialogue is sharp, and the story is compelling. So what's wrong with this picture? You guessed it...the ending! Simply put, the ending is baffling and unbelievable, no matter how you try to "explain" it. This film closely resembles the 1994 French thriller "A Pure Formality", and the irony is that, although that was a much worse film overall, it had a genuine surprise at the end, while "Under Suspicion" has the kind of "surprise" that makes the whole film come off as one big red herring. (**1/2)

38 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Two Great Actors - One Lousy Film

Wow, you get two tremendous lead actors - two of my favorites in Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman - but, unfortunately, you get a very disappointing movie.

Almost the whole story, except for flashbacks, in this stage-like movie takes place in a police captain's (Freeman) office as he interrogates the murder suspect (Hackman). It goes on and on and gets depressing after awhile.

And....if you think that long segments gets tiresome, the ending will really leave you frustrated. See other reviews if you want to find out the ending.

24 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

A man comes face to face with his real self - with tragic results.

Warning: Spoilers

Under Suspicion" is adapted from a 1979 novel by that most English of English detective story writers,Yorkshireman John Wainwright.Mr Wainwright,a second world war Bomber Command veteran,was a policeman in his native county for twenty years before becoming a full - time writer. The book was the first in his "Inspector Lyle" series.His credentials for writing "romans policier" were impeccable and 2 years after publication, "Brainwash" was filmed in France as "Garde a vue". Nearly 20 years later,"Garde a vue" was remade as "Under Suspicion".These title changes are very significant because the whole "raison d'etre for the movie is the ending which has had nearly as many interpretations as there are comments on this site.#SPOILER ALERT# - do not read any further if you have not seen this movie........................................ Mr G.Hackman plays a lawyer who comes under suspicion for the murder of two young girls.Brash,confident,wealthy and an influential member of the community,he attends the police station of his own volition to be interviewed by long - term acquaintance detective Mr M.Freeman.Hackman is married to a very beautiful young woman 30 years his junior Miss M.Belucci whom,it transpires,he seduced when she was 14.He is a man tortured by his obsession for barely pubescent girls.After having been caught in an apparently compromising position with his wife's young niece,the marital bed is no longer available to him and he more and more resorts to child prostitutes.He is a man wracked with guilt,terrified that his secrets will come out.As the police chip away at his facade of self -delusion and denial and his wife reveals her hatred and contempt for him, he is gradually forced to face what he has become and this knowledge breaks him.He confesses to the murders. It is a tour de force performance from Mr Hackman as gradually we see the image of himself that has built up over the years crumble and he is left to look at his true self.Which one of us could bear such a close inspection? The crux of "Under Suspicion" is the ending.Had the movie retained Wainwright's original title there could have been little controversy. As it is,Hackman's confession is the key to movie.~SUPER SPOILER ALERT~ because as he confesses,the rightful suspect is arrested at the scene of another murder.The audience is left to ponder his motives. The movie came as a complete "sleeper" to me as it was free with a newspaper and I put it by for a dull evening on the telly(well,everything's relative).Last night,face with a plethora of "Reality TV" (a contradiction in terms if there ever was one) I turned on the DVD player with little hope other than being mildly diverted. As it turned out I was enthralled,intrigued and disturbed.And it's a long time since television did that to me.

4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Money, power, love and murders

To tell you the truth, I didn't expect anything out of this movie. I watched it only because top name actors, so my surprise is big in here. We've got all: money, power, love and murders. And a very good movie also. This is not brilliant movie, but it is very watchable. Let me tell you why.

Stephen Hopkins directed "Under Suspicion" with very low budget, cause Hackman and Freeman were payed little and they are also executive producers. That means that this movie is theirs. They wanted to act in their own way and Hopkins couldn't do nothing about it. It turned out that that is great. Gene Hackman adds another stunning performance in his long career and Morgan Freeman follows him. Hackman had harder role so it is normal that he will be remembered in a context of this movie. Hackman plays a lawyer Henry Hearst, who is called to come to the police station to clear up a few loose ends in his witness report of a murder of young girl. Captain Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman) is asking Henry all sorts of the questions, along with detective Felix Owens (Thomas Jane). That interview is said to be very short cause Henry has to make his speech on a found raising party. There his young wife Chantal (Monica Bellucci) waits for him, just like the creme of San Juan's society.

As the movie goes on we found out lots of things about Henry Hearst. About his marriage with young and beautiful Chantal, about their problems and about his job. Henry becomes first suspect for murder and raping of two girls because of his little lies in his testimony. Benezet and Owens thinks he is the murderer and they are not alone in that. Chantal also suspects and that's what hurts Henry the most. Their relationship is shown on all levels and that's why characters of Freeman and hostile Jane suffers. But I liked that cause Hackman grab the opportunity to shine. Maybe his role in here could remind you on "Absolute Power", where Hackman plays similar role. But that is his brilliance. This character is so much different then that one, cause he didn't want to repeat himself. I also liked twist at the ending and all the scenes where Hackman or others are telling the story (Freeman always enters in their story, right at the sight). That was great, the atmosphere of interrogation room is good and the whole movie is very underrated. So I advise you to take a look on this movie; at least for Gene Hackman's performance.

5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

A Simmering Drama That Keeps Adding Layers As It Goes Along

For moviegoers who mainly like to see action/adventure in their film pursuits, "Under Suspicion" will likely be one of the most "boring" movies they ever see. It is a film that percolates, not explodes. For those who really, really enjoy the savoring of great acting performances and mystery plots, however, this will be a little gem.

For a basic plot summary, "Under Suspicion" opens with police captain Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman) and hard-boiled partner Felix (Thomas Jane) wanting "just a few minutes of time" from esteemed community citizen Henry Hearst (Gene Hackman), who is about to give a toast at a prestigious fundraiser banquet. When Hearst shows up at the station, however, he quickly realizes that this isn't going to be just a "moment" of his time, as he is a suspect in the rape/murder of two young girls. He tells his side of the story a number of times...but they always seem to change a little bit with each re-telling. When Henry's glamorous (yet ice cold) wife Chantal (Monica Bellucci) is brought in, she tells a completely different story. It is up to Captain Benezet to figure out what really happened.

I wish I could say a lot more about this movie, but to do so would give away far too many spoilers. Suffice it to say, however, that this film isn't necessarily what it seems. Though the "Under Suspicion" title can be applied to Hearst's interrogation by Benezet, it can also be used to describe the relationship between Henry & Chantal. While disguising itself as a police drama, "Under Suspicion" is really a stunning character drama of the highest order.

In order for the character drama to work, of course, the acting has to be dead-on, which it is. Hackman gives one of the best performances I've ever seen out of him, while Freeman is also at his peak (before he got sucked into just doing "voice projects"). Bellucci adds a mysterious, supremely sexual aspect to the proceedings. For a film that made its name at the Cannes Film Festival, this is almost an embarrassment of riches.

"Under Suspicion" is one of those projects that slipped under the popular radar; partially because it didn't get a worldwide release, and partially because it is the type of movie that doesn't necessarily play well to a general audience (not enough action). When one stumbles across it (like I did years ago and then re-discovered it just recently) and can appreciate great acting, unfolding plot, and great character drama, however, it will be like an undiscovered gem.

6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

Hackman, Hackman, Hackman

Ignore the grumbling about camera work, inexplicable location, Thomas Jane, and some peculiar directorial choices. See this movie for Hackman - I'm hard pressed to think of a more fully realized performance on film. He's just extraordinary.

57 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

Is he innocent or guilty

This is an intense drama that takes place between Gene Hackman as the suspect, Henry Hearst, and Morgan Freeman as Capt. Victor B., mostly in the form of an interrogation at a police station in Puerto Rico.

However, it has some interesting scenes that take place outside the police station, while the interrogation is on going - showing us what might have happened.

Both Hackman and Freeman do excellent work in this film, as expected of these two pros. Thomas Jane, a good actor, has little to work with in this particular drama, which showcases Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman as the leads.

Monica Bellucci plays Chantal, the beautiful young wife of Henry Hearst, however, in my opinion, her acting was only average except for one scene where she is crying. Mostly she is just delicious eye candy.

As the interrogation continues, Henry's story keeps changing as Victor hammers away at him about the rape and murder of two young girls, until secret after secret is uncovered and fully revealed much to Henry's humiliation.

Just prior to the ending, Henry goes completely out of character, in my opinion, and when we reach the conclusion to the case, it is somewhat disappointing.

Other than the somewhat weak ending, however, the film is quite riveting and held my interest entirely, although perhaps it is just a bit overly long for a interrogation format, and does lead at times to some repetition, it is nonetheless a highly entertaining film.

8 stars out of 10

15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

REMARKS RE A REMAKE

Warning: Spoilers

I read some time ago that Morgan Freeman tried unsuccessfully for many years to produce a remake of the French movie, GARDE à VUE ( Claude Miller, 1981) before getting Gene Hackman interested in the project; despite their notoriety, a few more years were required before the UNDER SUSPICION filming started, with the two players acting also as executive producers (Hackman's sole attempt to date, Freeman's second out of five ones). SPOILERS AHEAD SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES. Both movies have (of course) the same basic plot: a VIP, having found the corpse of a young girl, reports it and soon becomes the main suspect of two rapes and murders for the police, but also for his wife; the man, entangled in lies about his doings during the night of the first murder, and facing adverse testimonies in connection with the second one, is unable to reverse the growing inner conviction of the police; the last straw occurs when his wife supplies a piece of circumstantial evidence; he then gives it up and confesses crimes he is innocent of.. Both have four main protagonists: the suspect (Michel Serrault/Gene Hackman) and his wife (Romi Schneider/Monica Bellucci), two inspectors (Lino Ventura/Morgan Freeman and Guy Marchand/Thomas Jane). In both cases the marriage has previously crumbled. Not having read the "Brainwash" novel by John Wainwright, I do not know which movie is the closer to it. But the treatments of the films are very different. Claude Miller sets his story in a middle-sized country town of (presumably) the North of France, on a cold rainy night, and most of it takes place in the dreary ill-equipped defectively-lighted office shared by the two inspectors in charge of the inquest, thus establishing a grim depressive atmosphere; the necessary flashbacks are few and as short as possible. UNDER SUSPICION on the contrary is situated in hot and sunny Puerto-Rico, and the police office is large, clear, and apparently suitably fitted: hence we do not understand why Morgan Freeman, sole inhabitant of the room, complains about it; and the defective lamp, if it has its meaning in GARDE à VUE, leads to nowhere in UNDER SUSPICION; the colourful Carnival has atmosphere, but unfortunately the police precinct has none; and there are many lengthy flashbacks, in which Freeman is inserted as a witness,- a gimmick which soon becomes rather tiring.

CHARACTERS. The characters too are treated differently: in GARDE à VUE Michel Serrault is bitterly ironic, rather uncouth, and on the whole unattractive; he never met before stern chief inspector Lino Ventura, who relentlessly strives to establish his guilt; the other inspector is a bully, who beats up Serrault when left alone with him. Romi Schneider comes from a family with a high social position but no money. She willingly admits to Ventura that she married Serrault in her mid-twenties for his money, after having been his mistress for some time and condoning with his sex fancies though she has no physical needs; nevertheless they were happy till the Camille incident (see hereafter), when she shut her door to him; divorce is out of the question, - for the husband because divorce is looked askance at in the town where he has his office, for the wife because she is totally dependent on him for money. Gene Hackman is a more genial suspect, but his rather special tastes regarding very young prostitutes reinforce (rightly or wrongly) suspicion; inspector Freeman shared his youth and has remained in speaking terms with him; however, if the policeman has grounds for suspicion, he is also strongly jealous of Hackman's huge fortune and beautiful wife; he is therefore biased in his judgement - which complicates matters to no avail; the second inspector behaves more in accordance with his chief's politics than in GARDE à VUE, and is less important. Hackman has known his wife since she became an orphan, paid for her studies, and seduced her when she was 14. From the Camille incident on, their marriage has been just a front.

THE CAMILLE INCIDENT UNDER SUSPICION uses some of the GARDE à VUE dialogue - unfortunately, often not in situation; more, it is misused in connection with the Camille incident (Camille being the daughter of Serrault's sister in GARDE à VUE, but that of Monica Bellucci's sister in UNDER SUSPICION): on a Xmas night at her niece's home, Schneider enters unexpectedly the dim-lighted dining-room, finds her husband and her niece gazing raptly in the other's eyes, and realizes that they share a universe of their own from which she is excluded and shall never be a part of. She develops an instant hate for her husband. She says later to Ventura "He had no right to have her gaze upon him like a woman "; there is no inkling of any improper behaviour. Monica Bellucci goes into Camille's room, finds her very excited, in the company of her rather drunk husband: as she is convinced that he behaved badly, with the girl's consent, uttering the same words as Schneider is nonsense.

ABOUT REMAKES What with the number of movies and TV films, the shortage of original stories is unavoidable, and therefore you cannot object to remakes on principle, nor demand that they be carbon copies; but the changes brought must be as least as effective as the abrogated parts: in that respect, making Hackman a photography addict has a use; but other alterations are not so welcome. For instance, Serrault's wife does not want children, and her refusal can explain his unhappiness and attraction towards Camille. In UNDER SUSPICION, Gene Hackman loves children, (his speech leaves no doubt about it…), but he had been married for several years prior to the Camille incident, his wife says she is not sterile, and still they have no child … no explanation is given hereof. Further, the discovery of the real culprit in UNDER SUSPICION is narrated (rather badly, what is more), not shown, and fails to attract your attention. And the discovery of a third victim, Ventura's admonishment, the ultimate suicide of Romi Schneider and Serrault's despair result in a far more impressive ending than Gene Hackman going back home alone and presumably leaving his wife for keeps.

THE CASTS The characters in GARDE à VUE are better delineated and more incisive than in UNDER SUSPICION, and give more opportunities to the actors: if Hackman is excellent, his character is less complex than Serrault's, who fits his to perfection; Freeman's performance is not one of his bests, while Ventura is outstanding as an inspector who fails to remain objective, and whose future accordingly is bleak; Romi Schneider's delicate features and calculating coldness are perhaps more suited to the story than Monica Bellucci's earthly beauty; Thomas Jane has not much to do, while Guy Marchand's sadistic impersonation earned him a Cesar, the French equivalent of Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. The Puerto Rican bit-players are non-existent, where all the French ones are good (compare the native commissioner in UNDER SUSPICION, who has no substance and whose warning to Freeman to proceed carefully fall totally flat; on the contrary the French one is established in two scenes as a man of power, incisive and demanding).

END OF SPOILERS THE TECHNICAL TEAMS Many of the best directors love to lend a hand in the writing of their movies; such is the case for Claude Miller, co-writing a closely-knit script with Jean Herman prior to directing it, incisively and faultlessly; witty vitriolic dialogue by Michel Audiard and a perfectly suited musical score by François de Roubaix are priceless contributions. The result is a taut fascinating movie which never drifts from the trend of the story.

Viewing UNDER SUSPICION, you have the feeling that the writers brought most alterations regardless of their impact, for the sole purpose of justifying their salaries. As to Stephen Hopkins's direction, it is uneven; together with the loose treatment of the plot and its superfluous complications, it fails to ensure the unity required for such a film.

CONCLUSION. Those who have not seen GARDE à VUE can be attracted by UNDER SUSPICION 's cast and may find it a slightly better than average thriller; most of the others will judge UNDER SUSPICION the unnecessary

18 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Grips You, Then Disappoints You

Did Henry Hearst rape and kill two young girls? That's the question occupying the whole of Under Suspicion.

For nearly the entirety of its running time, the film is executed brilliantly. There is no action: it keeps the audience's attention through its intelligence, brilliant construction and the reliably excellent performances of Freeman and Hackman. We are not given definitive evidence, and many strange and suspicious things crop up that we yearn to find out about.

This could well have been one of the greatest mystery films I've seen... Until the ending. The ending leaves the audience without an explanation - and not in a good way that lets the audience ponder. It's an ending that leaves you shouting at the screen for an answer.

Overall, I'd recommend this film because it will keep you entertained and on the edge of your seat for more than an hour and a half. Just prepare yourself for an ending that will leave you wholly unsatisfied and rather annoyed.

18 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

This is called Classic!!

Now this is what you actually call a Classic ! A true cinema.. an art on the celluloid !! I would not add any spoilers here because you got to see the movie and experience the master piece . To talk about the acting well it's an absolute delight to watch the two legends Morgan Freeman and Heckman .. what a legend they are... no words to describe how Heckman has portrayed his character ..no other actor would have been able to do Justice to this wonderful piece of act !! And about the end ..... So much of different opinions are there about the ending.. but I feel there could not have been a better ending although at times it might feel a bit odd and hurried .. but still if you go deep into the complexity of characters there could not have been a better end.. One should definitely watch this movie to experience a Classic cinema at it's best.

7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

unique, neat ending which I think I got

Warning: Spoilers

Well, I do really like Hackman and Freeman as actors, and I feel I haven't seen Hackman with as good as a role since Unforgiven. The ending does seem to be a make or break for a number of people, and, if I do "get it," adds a lot to what this movie was all about. *MAJOR MAJOR SPOILER* In my opinion, the ending is NOT about how anybody can confess to anything when under pressure. What it is about, is that Hackman, for the entire movie, is convinced that his wife has committed the murders. All the references to the green monster of jealousy, her refusal at any intimacy with him after the episode with his neice (where his version certainly seemed more likely for once), Morgan Freeman's very brief but intentional comparison of the photo of Hackman's wife and the two dead girls, and so on. A lot of Hackman's lies during the interrogation can be seen as covering for Hackman's own bizarre behavior -- bizarre because he all along was convinced his wife had been going after his little girl obsessions. Meanwhile, of course, his wife is becoming more and more convinced that not only is he a sicko but a murderer and rapist. Hackman's confession in the end? He is taking the fall for his wife, convinced she did it. The title "Under Suspiscion" -- both husband and wife have put each other under suspicion. Perhaps I have read too much in this. But all along, as a viewer, I felt Hackman was covering for her. Apparently, so did he.

15 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

A Soupçon of Suspicion.

Warning: Spoilers

A SOUPCON OF SUSPICION.

I gather this is a remake of a French film. That usually spells disaster, as in "Wages of Fear." In this case, it holds together pretty well, although I make that judgment without having seen the French original.

Morgan Freeman is a captain in the police force in Puerto Rico and Gene Hackman is a very wealthy tax lawyer and celebrity. Hackman is wearing a tux and accompanying his incandescently beautiful trophy wife, Monica Bellucci, to a charity fund raiser when he is notified that Freeman wants to see him for "a ten minute chat" about some "irregularities" in the story he told police about having discovered the dead body of a pretty little girl.

The interview takes up the rest of the movie, with occasional flashbacks and brief episodes of fantasy. It all begins in a friendly enough manner. "Well, Victor, you don't look much older." "Good to see you again, Henry." It doesn't take long for it all to turn sour for both of them. There is a good deal of evidence pointing to Hackman as the murderer, not just of the twelve-year old whose body he found, but that of a similar girl in a neighboring town. Hackman, cocky and pleased with himself at first, begins to worry, and for good reason. Freeman is anxious to pin the rap on him and be promoted for having solved two sensation killings.

Hackman is confronted with evidence that he's lied to the police about points minor and major. Bit by bit, as Freeman digs into Hackman's married life and sexual proclivities, the suspect begins to sweat up a storm. His life is shredded more with each passing moment. The story betrays is Gallic origins when the two of them get "philosophical" about the nature of humankind -- the relative social value of money, beauty, youth, reputation, privacy, and so on. I don't mean to suggest that it's boring in any way because it's not. It's tense from the start and it just gets tenser until the resolution of the problem, accomplished by deus ex Kodak.

A lot depends on the performances of the principals and they deliver the goods. Morgan Freeman, especially, drops the hammer on the role of the subtle but determined detective. There's another secondary detective present at the interrogation, Thomas Jane, who is unlike the carefully controlled Freeman, in that he flings wisecracks and insinuations freely at the suspect.

Monica Bellucci is called in to either corroborate Hackman's evolving alibis or to contradict them. She's from north-central Italy, Umbria, but she looks Hispanic and her accent is indistinguishable from that of Puerto Ricans except perhaps to expert linguists. Hackman is thoroughly convincing as the increasingly sweaty murder suspect -- sometimes too convincing. In one scene, when he's supposed to indicate that he's hiding something, he practically turns the shot into a final exam in acting class. For just a few seconds he bludgeons the viewer with his overacting.

I enjoyed it very much, although apparently some other reviewers did not.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Not a great film

Warning: Spoilers

Great performances do not, of themselves, make a great film. Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman, great actors, deliver fine, nuanced performances, and Tom Jane and Monica Bellucci also do very well in this rather low key thriller which has almost disappeared off the filmographies of all concerned.

I said, "thriller", but that is part of the problem here. The pursuit of Hackman's attorney as prime suspect in the paedophile murders of young girls in San Juan, and the subsequent discovery of elements of his character and his relationships with Freeman's police chief and Bellucci's trophy wife appear, at first sight, to be the substance of a thriller, and maybe they are. But the film does not conclude as a thriller might be expected to.

It is strange how much the lack of a satisfactory resolution can have a bearing on one's enjoyment of a film. The last five minutes here left me scratching my head at what had just happened and why. And my inability to accept the conclusion - specifically (spoiler) Hackman's decision to admit the accusation against him - devalued what came before.

This film did not work for me.

6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Sometimes big money can hide dirty little secrets.

This is a tremendous crime drama starring two top notch actors. Police Captain Benezet(Morgan Freeman)is investigating the brutal rape/murder of two young girls. The key suspect is high dollar, high profile attorney Henry Hearst(Gene Hackman). Thomas Jane plays the investigative detective and the drop dead gorgeous Monica Bellucci plays the lawyers wife. Interesting subplot explains the cause of the terrible situation at hand. Hackman and Freeman dominate the screen and also serve as the movie's executive producers.

11 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

BRILLIANT!!

Warning: Spoilers

Movie was amazing, brilliant in all aspects. Great acting and a really great ending which made one think for a while. I am quite disappointed that so many people did not get this movie at all. Some said there were not enough clues to get what happened, but obviously these people did not watch the movie carefully enough. It all makes perfect sense if you just spend a little while thinking about it. Gene Hackman does such a wonderful job with his eyes and expressions in this movie.

And to those who want spoon fed endings, please stay out of this one. Go see those unchallenging movies where everything is explained twice and if you still don`t get it, the director will be there to hold your hand and explain it all.

Possible SPOILER:

This movie has nothing to do with the "Whodunnit" point. That is of no importance and is never revealed either. The identity of the murderer plays no part. This is a love drama with amazing psychological load. Keywords are pride,love and jealousy.

7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Suspect

"Under Suspicion" is a 110 minute interrogation. Henry Hearst (Gene Hackman), a wealthy tax attorney with a Puerto Rican trophy wife, is under investigation for the rape and murder of a little girl. The investigator, Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman), told Henry that he needed a mere ten minutes of his time to go over some of the holes in his story. Ten minutes turned into a few hours as the holes went from small to gargantuan.

All signs were pointing towards Henry, a sixty-plus-year-old man, as being a child predator. But if things were that cut and dried, why have a movie about an interminable interrogation? They needed him to confess because the evidence wasn't quite strong enough.

I thought the movie was alright. I couldn't help but thinking, "There's going to be a twist." That's the only thing that would've made sense, otherwise the movie was too cut and dried. If Henry was the murderer, and they had him dead to rights, all we're watching is the slow march to the inevitable, and where's the fun in that? I won't say whether there was a twist or not, I'll just say that the ending didn't impress me much at all.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink