Under Suspicion

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.