(2013-04-29 18:42:55)

Great performances... and some hard realities

For me, any film that has me wondering, without total bewilderment, at the end of it I have to say bravo. I am yet to figure out what motivated Hackmans' character to do what he did at the end of the film. But to me this is a film focused on the process and the layers revealed as the onion is peeled rather than the final solution. As such the ending was neither a disappointment nor brilliant. It just is. The mystery of the crime is just a backdrop for playing out the essence of these characters. We are privy to see some of their deepest secrets, fears, and desires revealed. Who's honest vs who's lying. Upright or immoral? Intriguing if not completely satisfying.And I realize that this was not a stellar film but it is one that is much more memorable than most modern fare. All I can say is watch it for yourself and make your own decision. And if you're a guy just seeing Monica Berlucci is sufficient reason to watch it because she is just off the hook.

(2013-04-29 12:13:04)

An impressive and unpretentious sleeper

One of the best British thrillers of the 90s, Under Suspicion is an unpretentious audience picture which doesn't let its passing nods to classic British thrillers of the Fifties and early Sixties such as Hell Drivers, Blind Date and Victim, smother it. Set in Brighton at the close of the fifties, Liam Neeson plays the disgraced policeman turned seedy private detective who, with his wife, arranges the 'evidence' of adultery that British law then required for divorces only to find himself the number one suspect when she and his latest client are found murdered. With strong support from Kenneth Cranham as his last remaining friend on the force and a particularly good use of the scope frame (although the extra width does accidentally catch some very nineties phone booths and TV aeriels in the early scenes), it's well worth a look.The only extra is the trailer, but the DVD does offer a good 2.40:1 widescreen transfer.

daniel

(2013-04-24 13:37:15)

Tommy Lee Jones is Brilliant.

After Jackson goes on trial for no longer being a soldier, He asks for help from Jones. They both know each other quite well. A friendship that is from years back. The timing is from a war in Asia. I like this one a lot. Jone is believable here. His character is a man we wann know more about.

tjackson24

(2013-04-24 04:21:29)

a sadly under-rated and unknown film

i want to give a STRONG plug for this very fine film that has receivedalmost no acclaim. if you enjoy cinematic plot twists and suspense,sexuality and greed, but not blood and guts, this is a film you should see.when i say it keeps you guessing up till the last minute, i mean just that.art, money, sex, mistresses, wives, good cops, bad cops, murder! got itall-give it a try.

(2013-04-11 08:58:15)

Gene Hackman, An Acting Force of Nature

I always knew Gene Hackman was a superb actor but he eclipses even himself in the complex layering he gives us of a man under suspicion of double rape and homicide. It reminded me early on of a French film I had been oddly unmoved by, 1981's "Garde a Vue," and then I learned this was a remake of that film. Usually, we Americans ruin it when we remake French films but this time I think it is quite the reverse. One reason is Hackman and the other is that the director and writers have opened this film up so it lost its stagey aspects and moved well beyond the confines and restraints of the police station. Hackman is interrogated by Morgan Freeman, no slouch himself in the acting department. However, Freeman's police captain character simply does not have the complex nuances of Hackman's. Picture a man who absolutely hates his life, although he is rich, at the top of his profession and married to a beautiful but much younger woman. What might this man do to release himself from the deadliness of his daily life? Would killing two girls release him from the grips of this being-dead-while alive state? Or would he be more likely to shoot himself in the foot or walk in front of a bus? What extremes of human behavior will he go to in order to break out of walking around like a zombi? This is the fundamental question you have to ask yourself about Hackman's character throughout and he indeed has you vacillating on predicting what he did do. When you run the entire film back through your memory, the ending, which I cannot tell you, completely fits. The end makes total sense if you tuned in throughout to each particle of the character that Hackman gave you, starting with the time he first picked up the phone to call the police. He, after all, is a lawyer who should know better than to open a door he wants to keep shut. Or does he?

(2013-04-10 17:09:09)

Convoluted

Didn't like it, but it does make you think. Mostly because you can't figure out what's going on half the time. Here's my take on the ending: Hackman's character atually does have a pedophilia problem (first meets his wife when she's 11 and he's like 50+; spends more time with the niece than the wife; has all sorts of pictures of very young girls - including the murder victims) and by confessing to the murders he both acknowledges this and escapes from his wife, whom he can't seem to stomach. It may be that Director Hopkins is making a statement that there's not much difference between the murder's lust and Hackman's lust. Or that appearances are deceiving. Or both. In any event, it's a pretty depressing film. The next video I rented was Rocky and Bullwinkle - at least I could sort out the good guys from the bad guys in that one.....

(2013-04-07 17:13:20)

Disappointing (*SPOILER ALERT*)

******************** A CRAPPY STORY - MADE EVEN WORSE BY THE VERY UNSATISFYING ENDING. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME! ********************WHY did these 2 big stars bother to make this movie? Whatever they saw in it is beyond me. Perhaps it was written by a mutual friend and they felt obligated to lend their names/talent?Freeman is a cop, Hackman is a rich audit? attorney. 2 young girls have recently been found dead (raped and strangled) - Hackman called in and reported discovering the 2nd body as he'd been out jogging. His story doesn't quite add up and on top of that, his car's license plate had been noted in the vicinity of the first body and his story doesn't jive for that day either.Hackman acts guilty from the get-go, Freeman is sure they have their man.His trophy wife (some 30-years younger) comes into the station to see why they are holding him and discovers what he is suspected of. She admits to suspecting him of making advances to her pre-teen niece, and gives the cops permission to search the house while they hold her husband in custody. *********** SPOILER *************they find incriminating evidence and he is confessing when another cop comes in saying they found a 3rd body and have the man who did it - who also has photos on him of the 3 crime scenes. He IS the guilty party and Hackman is now off the hook. And you're left wondering why HE acted so guilty, had photos it appears he took of the 2 victims, and why he was admitting guilt. ******* END OF SPOILER ******A CRAPPY STORY - MADE EVEN WORSE BY THE VERY CRAPPY/UNSATISFYING ENDING. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME.

(2013-04-07 11:47:51)

Disappointed

This review is from: Under Suspicion (DVD) The actors have good (and excellent) acting performances and have won awards for other movies they've made. Those facts are the reason I choose this movie; albeit the actors are of a younger age. The plot was erratic and predictable. The stars acting, at best, were mediocre. I wasted my money purchasing this show. Save your money. I would rate this movie a D.

(2013-04-06 11:49:23)

Entertaining old movie

Never forgot this one. Entertaining whodunit.

(2013-04-05 20:49:19)

Great movie

intelligent, engaging, ... I really enjoyed watching this great thriller. The story and acting is flawless. Setting in 1959 Brighton, UK. The killer is not revealed till the last minute...

(2013-03-28 01:49:43)

A little reminiscent of Camus' The Stranger

***Spoilers***The crux of the movie is this: When she thinks he killed the girls, she spits at him. When he thinks she killed the girls, he sacrifices himself to save her.The ending, when she approaches him and he avoids her, while the frivolity of Carnival goes on around them, is beautifully done.

(2013-03-27 20:26:09)

A Must See Thriller

I had never heard of this flick before I saw it. Good thriller with Gene Hackman as a scummy millionaire. Monica Belluci in the opening scene was reason enough to see this, TRUST ME. Morgan Freeman was lead detective & seemed somewhat believeable. I was guessing til the end.

(2013-03-19 22:02:15)

One of the best movies I have ever seen

The ending left me confused the first time I watched this movie. Watching the movie a second time after knowing how it ended, everything made sense.Freeman, Hackman, and Bellucci are all terrific. The characters they play are well developed and believable - Each has their own demon that drives the conflict between them. By the end of the movie, everyone is forced to honestly evaluate their relationships and decide how to move on.Really well done.

(2013-03-19 19:49:26)

Disjointed and nonsensical for those used to these actors playing in a good story.

I consider myself, at best, an average movie buff and deficient in the word-smithing skill of a professional movie reviewer. I enjoy good suspense and thrillers. I also almost always enjoy movies with either Gene Hackman and/or Morgan Freeman. However, I just saw UNDER SUSPICION on network television (Jan. 2010) and thought it was horrible. Only after the fact did I realize that the gist of this movie was simply to show 110 minutes of family therapy involving Hackman and his wife (Monica Bellucci) with Freeman as the therapist. In an attempt to make the therapy less boring, the movie uses the device of a psychological murder mystery, an investigation set in a police station. But the device fails miserably.An experienced lawyer like the one Hackman plays would NEVER sit around in a police station, hour after hour, being grilled by policeman Freeman. It's just not credible. And THAT is the sum and substance of what this movie is about, Hackman (and his wife) being grilled by Freeman in a police station, an exploration of their inner motivations. Even worse for credibility: Hackman and Bellucci trade places on either side of a one-way mirror in the police station, listening and watching as the other is grilled by Freeman.In any event, I almost couldn't watch the entire movie, but did so with the hope the ending would redeem the movie, make sense of it. No way. The ending is worse. Just as one of the protagonists finishes confessing, another police officer bursts into the room with news that the real killer has been caught! No wonder this film was apparently screened out of competition at the 2000 Cannes Film Festival.

(2013-03-15 09:38:02)

Ahead of its time

"Under Suspicion" is a truly remarkable film that addresses a taboo issue. The film is well head of its time, which will ensure it remains classic for years to come.Based on John Wainwright's 1960's book "Brainwash" and the 1980's French film "Garde a Vue" or Police Custody. The book title gives you a hint of the plot which neither film title does. Whether the American movie is loyal to the French film or British book I do not know, but the European influences are readily apparent.One can expect superb performances from Hackman and Freeman, but one should also expect that such actors can choose superlative plots. Under Suspicion is a complex plot which explains why so many do not see it. If anything it is too complex.One of the advantages of film over print is that a film can use multiple Points of View far more readily that print.The first point of view is that of the junior detective, ably acted by Thomas Jane. Horrified by the crime - rape and murder of two children, blinded by prejudice, the detective jumps to the gut belief a rich dirty old man must have done it. The detective reflects the mob mentality.The second point of view is that of the senior detective (Freeman). Both detective and suspect (Hackman) are of similar age, know each other and have similar marital problem, so a battle of wills develops between them. This is common plot device used to encourage the audience to identify with the characters but in this film it detracts from and confuses the plot.The film opens with a plot device intended to create tension. The suspect is on his way to public speaking engagement when called in for questioning. This is implausible and again detracts from the plot. The device becomes effective when the senior detective's boss puts pressure on the detective to release the suspect to fulfil the engagement.The evidence against the suspect (Hackman) is circumstantial. However the suspect's explanation of the events is confused and self-incriminating, which serves to convince the Senior Detective of his guilt. Hence the title of the French film - Police Custody.At one stage the plot `thickens' leading the audience to suspect the male suspect is guilty of under-age sex, but his wife is guilty of murder, driven by jealousy. This plot line is made implausible by the beauty and young age of the character playing the wife, Monica Bellucci.The subtext of "Under Suspicion" is classically French. Many Hollywood films seek to capture the beauty of French film when seeks to get behind the headline "Lock your daughters away - Paedophile on the rampage, raping and murdering little girls." French film often deals sensitively with the cause of such issues. The problem is not Hollywood' failure to portray the issues but the audience demand for likes of Scream 1, 2 and 3.The subplot, the theme of the film, is played out by the suspect (Hackman) and to a lesser extent by the wife (Bellucci). The subplot is brilliantly portrayed by Hackman. Whether he is guilty or not is irrelevant by the end of the film. The suspect is coerced into believing he is guilty. Hence the book title "Brainwash".The Point of View of the wife, told more than acted, reveals the sub-plot and the theme of the film. She first met the suspect when she was twelve and he was a 30 year old adult. His hobby was photography. She delighted in the attention of his camera lens. As she grows she accepts his patronage to attend university and finding men of her own age wanting, she returns to seek him sexually. Passionately in love, they become the celebrities of their town, until one day she sees him paying the same photographic attention to her niece. Blinded by jealousy she believes his intention can only be sexual. In her jealous rage she freezes him out. His sexual deprivation, his love of photography, merely serve to provide motivation to the circumstantial evidence. If his wife, the one person he loves, can believe he is guilty, then he must be. Hence he confesses to something he had not done."Under Suspicion" is a gripping and frightening film. Its shows how innocent people can be made to feel guilty and be found guilty by social prejudice, ignorance and misunderstanding. More frightening is the potential sequel to the story. That a person made to feel guilty, but found not guilty, can and probably will proceed to commit the crime with impunity. Both themes have been portrayed in other books and films. I do not know of a film which portrays both themes with the subject of paedophilia. Lolita is probably the closest one can get. Under Suspicion fires a warning shot across society's bows. It warns that the more society is blinded by moral indignation, which is happening with paedophilia, the worse problem will get and innocent people will be destroyed by the prejudices of the lynch mob.All film functions to reinforce or question society's values and attitudes. Society, even in 2009, is not yet ready for the questions raised by "Under Suspicion". Brilliantly acted, directed and edited, `Under Suspicion' is undermined by the commercial demands on contemporary cinema. But it has got to be 5* for its courage alone.

(2013-03-14 12:07:51)

Great movie

This movie was very well written with a complex plot. The parallel storyline of the wifes suspicion along with the suspicion of the authorities. And how victor has to prove himself to them both parties. I enjoyed it... although a part of me wanted the wife to be guilty... but enlightennment of the ere in her thinking was much better :)

(2013-02-28 12:21:17)

Big Stinker

You'll love the first 99% but will hate yourself for wasting your time after seeing the last 3 minutes.Don't waste your time or money.

jl-10

(2013-02-27 23:24:10)

fine piece of work

one of the finest in it's genre - the script, the concept, the direction,the acting, the suspense - just great. Highly recommended and turn off thephone, sit back and enjoy it all. And then after you have digested it all,you'll want to make another bowl of popcorn and watch it all over again,just to see what you missed.

Sebastian B.

(2013-02-15 17:29:33)

British Whodunit at its best.

A bit of a confusing start of this perfect whodunit is the only bad thingabout this film.To start with the script, it´s brilliant. It is credible, well written,hasclues that makes it worth watching over and over again (even without thesurprises that you encounter the first time you watch it). I like the factthat this is not a Hollywood production. I seriously do not think thatthisscript would have made it to production without some changes if it wasmadein hollywood.Then the acting.Liam Neeson puts on a splendid performance, complex acting with certainsubtle things that I did not notice the first viewing, which made sensewhile watching it again. His best film IMO (knowing that a lot of peoplethinks that "Schindler´s list" is better). I do not recognize the rest ofthe actors, but no one did bad.Grade: 9 out of 10So if you like suspense whodunit, this is a must see.

(2013-02-15 06:23:26)

MOVIE UNDER SUSPICION

The only thing that is under suspicion in this horrible movie is why Freeman and Hackman are in it !! The supposed "intriguing" premise is nothing more than lack of a good history !!