Under Suspicion

Rating:
Summary: A Good Attempt, But.....
Review: 'Under Suspicion' is one of those movies which is, to put it honestly, mediocre. It stars two fine actors (Morgan Freeman & Gene Hackman), is quite innovatively directed (by Stephen Hopkins), and has an interesting setting (Puerto Rico during a carnival). The plot, on the other hand, comes across pretty standard.

This is basically a police interrogation, familiar to many as it has been rendered time and again on television and in other movies. It is done well, by all involved, but it has also been done before. Hackman and Freeman, and the direction of Hopkins, lift the telling of the tale up a notch, but it still feels like old ground. There has been crime commited (in this case two murders), there is a prime suspect (Hackman), and so he and the overzealous policeman (Freeman) square off for a close-quarters interrogation.

This sort of scenario, though well-worn, can make for a really good movie, so I sat back and soaked it all in. The film kept me riveted throughout, until the ending came along. Now, I am not here to give anything away - don't worry. But what I will say is that the picture suddenly went from its entire focus of a "Did he do it?" interrogation flick to "Let's pause and reflect upon these characters, their lives, their hopes, their troubles, their fears, their desires, their angst" - etc. etc.

A movie which wants to end so poignantly must be sure to make the audience care about the characters. Maybe other viewers did. I did not, as I took this movie as a mystery/thriller. Most mystery/thrillers are simply plot-driven, and I saw no exception with 'Under Suspicion'. In a mystery/thriller, most of the actions taken by the characters are usually scrutinized for how they affect the *plot*, not the characters themselves.

I don't know if I've expressed my thoughts on the matter very well - perhaps not. But my final word on the film is that it is enjoyable and engaging until the last 5-10 minutes. Just be prepared for what some may deem a possibly disappointing ending.

Rating:
Summary: GOOD MOVIE FROM START TO MIDDLE
Review: I enjoyed the body of this movie. The plot was intriguing, though slightly riddled with clichés, and the well-acted characters developed convincingly -- how could they not, the two big Hollywood tykes (Hackman, Freewood).

Some of the reviews here about the movie's unexplained ending baffle me because I think that the power of suggestion was precisely the point. I'd also have liked to have known more about a few things, but that's a minor gripe. It's a near-perfect film, had they just tied some loose ends in the finale for the general public.

A film for those of us out there who crave good performances and dialogue. Recommended rental.

Rating:
Summary: GENE HACMAN is really a very much intelligent MAN !
Review: In this MOVIE ! Which is a remake of the Frenchy movie "Garde à vue" that i have seen in my country very much years ago because(i'am, considered, or whel thought out: 44 years old)! This movie is born in 1978 and GENE HACKMAN, during his coming at Paris (i presume) has seen a insignifiant movie, then he has considered that an other movie could be better and then, he has seen this famous movie and ever since at this moment, he has not give up to look ahead make a same movie but not entirely same !
He has opted for a different movie exported in tropical counytr ant has seen just ! SURE !!! For that, MISTER GENE HACKMAN with his famous friend who's Mr. MORGAN FRIEMAN are intelligents and foms a good team for futures movies !!! I had worshiped to compare the firs original with this new fresh movie !

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: When we have first-rate actors such as Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman in a movie, we expected nothing but the best. Compounded by this interrogation-style movie, we expected to have a treat. In many ways, this movie meant to do well with a great location such as Puerto Rico, the female star in the form of Monica Belluchi (who found fame in an Italian movie, & also as a beau to Bruce Willis), & not to mention a director, Stephen Hopkins who gave us "The Ghost & The Darkness", starring Michael Douglas & Val Kilmer. Sad to say that I was disappointed with the outcome & it was quite akin to "Snake Eyes", a dud starred Nicholas Cage & Gary Sinise. The interrogation was constant in a room, & there were flashbacks from those three main characters. Camera tricks were used to make it interesting but the premise of this movie was so thin & that after two hours, we couldn't help it but exhausted by the ordeal. This movie explored also the strained relationships between Gene Hackman's character & his wife, & also testing the friendships between Gene's character & Morgan's character. Anyhow, to have those two as executive producers as well, they really missed the target by a wide margin. No wonder this movie went straight to the video market. Quite an open-ended ending & unsatisfying.

Rating:
Summary: Hackman, Freeman, Janes excellent in stagy 'Suspicion'
Review: From the way its distributor, Lions Gate, yanked it out of theaters after just a handful of play dates, you'd think Under Suspicion was a disaster. Perhaps from a marketing standpoint, it was. To people who love movies, though, anything starring Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman is worth a look-see, and Under Suspicion, while marred by a few slow spots and a rather weak ending, is no disaster. I can assure you that sparks fly when Hackman and Freeman are on screen together.

The setting is present day San Juan, Puerto Rico. Police Captain Victor Benezet [Freeman] is investigating the murders of two young girls. A big problem is that the finger of suspicion points at Henry Hearst [Hackman], who is not only one of the island's most respected citizens, but also an old friend of Benezet's. On the night of a big charity event at which Hearst is the guest of honor, Benezet calls him in for a short question and answer session before the event. The interview turns into a lengthy one in which Hearst's life unravels before his eyes. The plot line concerns two things. The first is whether or not Hearst is guilty. The other is an examination of how brutal an investigation into one's private life can be. With today's high tech police technique's, even the innocent can become the guilty because of other things the process can reveal.

Even though this is not their finest movie, Freeman and Hackman are at their finest. They are the type of actors who do not give a bad performance, regardless of the strengths or weaknesses of the script. Each has always been smart enough to combine a good work ethic with his genius. Also noteworthy is Thomas Jane as Detective Owens, although he is handicapped by having to play a very stereotypical character, the type you are all too happy to see leave the scene. Monica Bellucci, who plays Hearst's much younger wife, is a major star in her native Italy. Her role requires little more of her than standing around looking exquisitely beautiful, which she does extremely well.

I think Under Suspicion is most appealing to those who enjoy a good play. While director Stephen Hopkins does take some advantage of the glorious Puerto Rico scenery, much of the movie takes place in two rooms of the police station. This gives it a stagy feel, which some people do not at all enjoy.

Rating:
Summary: like an escalator that goes nowhere....
Review: I first caught this movie by chance on the Bravo network. It seemed like it had the makings of a great film, and Freeman and Hackman do a fabulous job. Although it can at times drag on, due largely in part to the permanent setting of the police office, the dialogue and dynamic between Freemand and Hackman is intense and engrossing.

I was really looking forward to the ending, as the plot up until that point kept building up the suspense and had me asking a million questions. Then it happened, and it made no sense. Hackman's character confesses to a murder he didn't committ and a lot of other stuff happens that makes no sense. Right after watching it I got on the internet to see if somewhere somebody could explain what the heck the ending was about, and all I found was dozens of other people as confused as I was. Some sites mentioned that the director said that the whole reason Hackman's character confesses to a rape/murder he didn't committ was because he couldn't stand to live if his wife really thought he was such a monster. That explains a little, but there are still huge holes. So if he didn't do it who did? Some random guy who is never identified is hauled into the station and it is clear that he is the murderer, but it also seems like the wife had something to do with it, possibly to frame her husband and also maybe because she was upset when she saw him laughing and talking with his young niece. But really, is that reason enough to try and frame him as a perverted murderer? And if it was all her idea, then why does she seem so shocked by everything?

My best guess is that she wanted to divorce him because they were in a loveless marriage, and she was sick of him lusting after young girls, but she couldn't just have a regular divorce because he husband was a powerful man and it would have been a mess. At the same time she had a feeling (and she was correct) that her husband had a fasciantion with young girls, so I guess she got in cahoots with some murderer and planted all this evidence to incriminate her husband so she could divorce him easily. Thats why he says at one point "I can't believe she would go to all this trouble to make a point", he knows what she is doing, she is framing him because she is bitter, neglected and whats a divorce, and he know it. He gives in and says he did it because he doesn't want to deal with her anymore, and realizes for the first time that she really hates him and would go to extreme lengths because she really thinks he is a monster. It might also be because he knows that he is sick and perhaps he feels guilty.

I love a movie that makes you think, but the ending of this one forces the viewers to completely invent a reason for the ending because there are no explanations that actually exist in the plot.

Rating:
Summary: GOOD MOVIE FROM START TO MIDDLE
Review: I enjoyed the body of this movie. The plot was intriguing, though slightly riddled with clichés, and the well-acted characters developed convincingly -- how could they not, the two big Hollywood tykes (Hackman, Freewood).

Some of the reviews here about the movie's unexplained ending baffle me because I think that the power of suggestion was precisely the point. I'd also have liked to have known more about a few things, but that's a minor gripe. It's a near-perfect film, had they just tied some loose ends in the finale for the general public.

A film for those of us out there who crave good performances and dialogue. Recommended rental.

Rating:
Summary: GENE HACMAN is really a very much intelligent MAN !
Review: In this MOVIE ! Which is a remake of the Frenchy movie "Garde à vue" that i have seen in my country very much years ago because(i'am, considered, or whel thought out: 44 years old)! This movie is born in 1978 and GENE HACKMAN, during his coming at Paris (i presume) has seen a insignifiant movie, then he has considered that an other movie could be better and then, he has seen this famous movie and ever since at this moment, he has not give up to look ahead make a same movie but not entirely same !
He has opted for a different movie exported in tropical counytr ant has seen just ! SURE !!! For that, MISTER GENE HACKMAN with his famous friend who's Mr. MORGAN FRIEMAN are intelligents and foms a good team for futures movies !!! I had worshiped to compare the firs original with this new fresh movie !

Rating:
Summary: Um, just one question....
Review: Entertaining, but the plot has a hole big enough to walk through: It's about the interrogation of a LAWYER. If you're wondering why an attorney (or anyone smarter than a house plant) wouldn't "remain silent" and/or demand a lawyer for himself from his high-powered law firm (he was even read his miranda rights)rather than spend two hours undergoing humiliating and incriminating interrogation, well, I'm wondering too! The script doesn't bother to explain this obvious point.

The obvious answer is that they wouldn't have a movie.... but isn't the writer supposed to devise some credible explanation? That's why they make the big bucks, after all.

Rating:
Summary: Everyone has secrets....
Review: In hurricane lashed, carnival time Puerto Rico,a killer of young girls is on the loose. Three have been murdered in the last month and Harry (Gene Hackman) a rich and powerful lawyer on the island, discovers the body of the latest victim. When Victor (Morgan Freeman) the chief of police asks Harry to clear up a couple of points about the discovery it seems nothing more than routine.

Instead Harry is given the thrid degree, with a young cop (Super-hottie Thomas Jane) probing into the dark secrets of the lawyers private life, especially his sex life and relationship with his young and beautiful trophy wife.

The brash lawyer's story starts to reveal a number of cracks that only open wider and wider. And it isn't long before the attorney tumbles over a few lies and consequently leads his inquisitors to further suspect his guilt. The cat and mouse game between the cop and suspect, with flashbacks, is what fills our time with the dueling duo.

It's a slow-moving yet engaging mystery starring two great actors at the top of their form, keeps you guessing throughout, but ultimately may lose many fans with its unorthodox ending. I personally do not mind movies that ask the viewer to "think" a little after the roll of the credits, but this one actually threw me for a little bit of a loop. In fact, I'm still sort of vague on the exact outcome of the characters in this film, but despite that, still enjoyed the ride and would actually be willing to see it again, just to certify my theories about its conclusion.

Unfortunately, I saw the movie by myself so I wasn't able to discuss it with anyone either. So that is one thing about the movie that you should know right off the bat. If you only like films that tie things up nice and tidy, then you might as well skip this ambiguous puppy.

But if you enjoy films like 12 ANGRY MEN, in which the viewer is asked to discover things as it moves along, changing their mind throughout and ultimately passing their own judgment before the final decision comes down, then this is just your kind of mystery. The film could've been cut by about 15 minutes or so, with some scenes dragging on somewhat, but ultimately the superior performances by the two leads (And Jane, turning in another knockout performance) is what kept me interested throughout.

I also credit director Hopkins with some beautiful shots of the city during its opening credits, and an extremely unique perspective on the flashback sequences, in which the person being told the flashback actually joins the speaker in their own retelling. Very well done and certainly an original idea which lent an interesting new perspective to the goings-on of the past. Extremely stylized flashbacks as well. Hopkins goes nuts with the camera work. Oh yeah, and let me not forget to mention the stunning beauty of newcomer Monica Bellucci, an Italian actress, who radiates on the screen, and actually holds her own alongside the big boys.

The film is really a difficult one to rate because it's one of those movies that didn't leave me feeling "complete" when I walked out. But looking back, I was quite "into it" while I was there, and the reasoning behind the ending is just now beginning to sink into my psyche, so let's just say that it may take a little while to fully appreciate.

Will you like it? Not sure. Does any of this sound interesting to you? If so, then I suggest you see it and decide for yourself. There are some definite things that I could tell you though: the mystery in the film is a good one, the movie is slow and long but tends to hold your interest, and as I mentioned earlier, the performances are strong, but the ending...initially unsatisfying.

In the end, I think that if you like a good murder mystery, you may enjoy unraveling this one, despite the lack of real action or thrills.