Suspicion

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.