Bajo sospecha

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.