Suspicion

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.

If the thought of Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman acting opposite each other for basically the entirety of a movie inside an interrogation room doesn't excite you, then perhaps you should check your pulse. The acting in 'Under Suspicion' is worth the price of admission alone. It has plenty more to offer as well (despite some missteps along the way), however that is certainly the number one selling point this movie has.

There was a strange case here where the movie was a different type of movie to what I thought it was, but I didn't realise that until the final five minutes of the film. I won't say any more to avoid spoilers, however if you've seen it you likely know what I mean by that. I liked the mystery element the movie had going for it. I enjoyed playing along to see if I could work out what was happening. I could not, but it was still a fun ride.

For a movie with very little in the way of action, it still moves along at a brisk pace. Some well written dialogue and how well it is delivered helps in big part on this front. It didn't turn out to be the movie I wanted it to be, but it was still a fun journey along the way, and it's hard to be mad at that. 7/10.

'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.

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)

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.