Sospechoso

Exciting, suspenseful and tightly woven suspense drama.

Cher proves she can ACT.

You probably will not immediately recognize Liam Neeson in the role of the deaf, mute, shell-shocked Carl Wayne Anderson.

For someone that does not speak for the entire film he turns in a stellar performance.

Dennis Quaid is very good as the juror that steps outside his assigned duties as a juror and becomes a detective.

Also John Mahoney is almost unrecognizable as Judge Matthew Helms -- a polar opposite from his "Frasier" character.

When I spoke to Tom Barbour (Justice Lowell in this film, stage actor and the father of Dudley Moore in the "Arthur" movies) he said when he got the script he was thrilled -- the film opens with him, it took place in his office, he had every other line, and then on page three -- well I guess you will just have to see it.

Surprise ending goes right up to the last couple of minutes -- prepare to be shocked.

Anyone who thinks that the United States legal justice system is fair and balanced has been watching too many movies. The poor and the marginalized get convicted and the rich and elite drive away from the courthouse. It's largely a matter of the size of the pocketbook. And it's still amazing how many innocent people are locked away with almost no hope of getting out. "Suspect" is how about a how a homeless man (Liam Neesom) and his public defender (Cher) find themselves in a case that has much larger ramifications than a simple matter of did a homeless person murder the victim for $9.

The aspect that makes this movie a gem is the fine acting: Cher as the overworked and underpaid public defender, Liam Neeson as the deaf/mute defendant in one of his first major roles, Dennis Quaid as a sexy lobbyist (often messing around with congresswomen to get votes for his industry) turned juror turned amateur sleuth, and John Mahoney as the stoic judge at the trial. A lot of it is pure fantasy but the moments in the courtroom are actually very much like a real courtroom in its obsessiveness with procedure and protocol.

The story begins with the suicide of a prominent Supreme Court Justice and the subsequent murder of his assistant who has been slashed to death. When police investigate the surrounding area, they find a homeless man sporting a knife and in possession of the victim's wallet which contained a king's ransom: $9. Cher is appointed to take the case, and Quaid ends up becoming one of the jurors. Because of the suicide at the beginning of the film, Judge Helms (Mahoney) becomes one of the people on the US President's short list to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. Helms requests to preside over the murder case to free up his later schedule in order that he be considered for the vacancy.

Several scenes take us into the bowels of the homeless of Washington DC. We see a lot of lawyers, a lot of law libraries and a lot of knives. Every homeless person appears to wield a knife. Cher with the unlawful help of Quaid (lawyers and jurors in the same trial are not supposed to commiserate, let alone team up) stumbles upon some evidence that makes the case much more complex. A thoroughly enjoyable courtroom drama with enough action to keep you on the edge of your seat, and an interesting commentary on the justice system and how it handles the poor and the homeless. Unfortunately, public defenders are probably not as successful as Cher appears to be.

The highlight of this movie for me was a wonderful performance from Cher. She was playing the part of Kathleen Riley, a public defender who gets caught up in more than she bargained for when she takes on the case of a homeless man accused of murdering a 24 year old woman. The case is a lot more complicated than that, and the story keeps viewers on their toes. We're quite sure that Carl (the homeless man played by Liam Neeson) did not kill the young woman. The question is - who did? And why? The movie disorients right off the top, beginning with a Supreme Court justice committing suicide. But them that seems to disappear. But surely it's connected? Basically, we settle into a waiting game, as we look for the connection.

The movie settles down for a while into a pretty standard courtroom drama, and Cher (and Joe Mantegna as the prosecutor) are quite credible in their courtroom activity. Another twist is added to the story by Kathleen's growing involvement with juror Eddie (Dennis Quaid) - a congressional lobbyist who gets involved surreptitiously in helping to build the case for the defense. Quaid was also very good in his part, as was John Mahoney as the presiding judge. There really were no weaknesses in among the cast. I have to give real credit to Neeson. As Carl he did a magnificent job, especially given that he was playing a character who was both deaf and mute. His entire performance had to be conducted without voice, and he was very convincing. The whole thing builds up to a surprising courtroom twist that would have done Perry Mason proud, and that I didn't see coming at all.

My basic criticism of the movie is that it tries perhaps too hard to keep the viewer off balance. So many layers are added on that there is a temptation every now and then to drift away, because it's hard to keep everything straight. But in the end, when all the pieces are put together and that dramatic twist comes, you're glad you stuck with this. (7/10)

Cher plays the role of a dedicated public defender who is given a case just as she is about to collapse from overwork. The poor guy has been living on the street for years and is accused of killing a young woman for a lousy $9. He won't talk to police and Cher has to draw him out before she can even begin to find some way to defend him. There are several well planned surprises and I never had the feeling any of the cast were "acting". This is one movie that had me fooled as to who the real culprit was right to the end. I like that! If I can guess the outcome halfway through the movie it is a turn off and total disappointment to me. Seven stars is high for me. It takes a "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Gone with the Wind" to get 10 stars from me.

Before watching this movie I had some serious doubts about it. Not only is this a courtroom drama (and as you know the streets of Hollywood seem to be paved with this kind of scripts), it also featured Cher as one of the main actresses. I'm not really a fan of her as a singer, but seeing her as a good actress is even a lot harder. As you know, almost all pop diva's, young or old, seem to have that urge to appear in one or two movies and that almost always results in complete disasters. So why would Cher be any different...?

When a judge commits suicide and his secretary is found murdered in a river, a homeless and deaf-mute man, named Carl Anderson, is arrested for her murder, because all indirect evidence points to him. Because he can't afford a lawyer, public defender Kathleen Riley is assigned by the court as his lawyer. Even though she doesn't always believes in his innocence, she still goes after the real killer. She gets help from the congressional adviser Eddie Sanger, who is called to be on the jury panel and together they find some important evidence that the murder has something to do with corruption in some high ranks...

I must admit that Cher has done a better job than I ever expected from her. She actually was very convincing and interesting to watch as the public defender. Together with Liam Neeson she makes this movie work. Their nice performances and their difficult professional relationship in this movie are actually the best thing this movie has to offer. The story on itself certainly isn't that bad, but the plot is a bit far-fetched and gives this movie an ending that is a bit too abrupt.

In the end this is a reasonably well-done courtroom drama / thriller that lacks the required tension to be fully satisfying, but which offers some nice acting and some good direction. It's not the best movie in the genre, but it is enjoyable enough to be worth a watch. I give it a 6.5/10.