Rating: 
Summary: Keeps you sweating from the beginning...
Review: Henry Hearst (Gene Hackman) is on his way to a fundraising banquet when the phone rings and he is asked to come into the police station to clarify some questions regarding a crime. At the police station Captain Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman) begins to ask some innocent questions, but the questions spin into insinuations and then accusations. As the plot thickens, the superintendent becomes aggravated that Henry has not been released in order to attend the fundraiser. Under Suspicion provides a solid criminal drama where the audience is put on the electric chair anticipating the flip of the switch.
Rating: 
Summary: 2 great actors & 1 breathtakingly beautiful actress
Review: And story development process is interesting. Hackman and Freeman, they know how to act. Italian-born Monica Belluci looks hot. The problem is the story. Not very interesting or attracting.
Rating:
Summary: Under Depression
Review: Despite the fact of the excellence of acting of Morgan Freeman and the interesting performance of Gene Hackman, this movie comes off as a mishmash. The theme of sexual abuse of a child is such an emotionally loaded one that it needs to be treated with great sensitivity. In "Under Suspicion" (US), it is exploited to further the plot. Hackman as Henry Hearst is great in the scene where he confesses that he "likes them young" as his young wife watches through the glass. Thomas Jane is explosive as the young detective who can't control himself. Monica Bellucci as wife Chantal comes across as an ice princess, covering all emotions from A to B. The DVD version doesn't offer much more, no deleted scenes. The discourse on the filming is embarrassing. Freeman and Hackman talk about how much they loved the French film (Garde a Vue by Claude Miller) on which this was based. Because US is so poor, it's sad to see how little enthusiasm can accomplish. They liked the tension between the characters; and that was good. Perhaps this is why the two stars, who were also the executive producers, were blinded to the fact that the film also needed a coherent plot and an ending the audience can take with them. As a result, this comes off as more of an artpiece than a movie. We could retitle the film "Under Depression," which is how I felt after wasting my time watching it. TAXI!
Rating: 
Summary: My take on the Ending
Review: I admit! The ending threw me off. Thinking that I missed something, I reviewed the last ten minutes. No change.Here's my take on the ending... When Detective Owens stumbled in on Hearst's interrogation to deliver the seemingly incriminating photos to Detective Benezet, Owens cleverly stated that Chantal took the initiative to lead the detectives to the incriminating photographs. Owens' statement was not true because Chantal clearly had no knowledge of the photographs before Owens discovered them for himself in the darkroom. Since Hearst heard Owens statement, Owens unknowingly tricked Hearst into thinking that Chantal had discovered the photographs prior to the murders. At this point Hearst assumed that Chantal murdered the young girls out of jealously and rage, notwithstanding the fact that the victims were precluded by the fondness Hearst kept for their neice. Because of his inequities, Hearst felt responsible for her actions. To protect his wife, Hearst began to confess.
Rating:
Summary: The Masters At Work
Review: Morgan Freeman is one of my favorite actors. Gene Hackman ranks right up there as well. That is why I watched the movie; that has something to do with why I enjoyed it because frankly I can't see someone like Arnold or Bruce playing either of the characters in this movie. But there's more to it than enjoying two actors I respect perform at their best. It is obvious before this movie is too far underway that both these men are superb at what they do. There isn't a lot of action, so if you like car chases and bombs exploding, this one isn't what you're looking for. I enjoyed watching Freeman and Hackman verbally duke it out with the control moving back and forth between the two men through to the end. Just when I thought I knew what the truth was, the tables were turned and I was back to square one. I like books and movies that incorporate psychological undercurrents, and who doesn't like seeing the great and powerful brought down a peg or two? I wasn't prepared, however, for the extent to which this movie explored the fact that nothing is ever what it appears to be. I would not recommend this movie to all my friends because some of them just don't have the patience to stick with this story. But for those who appreciate this kind of developing story built upon with insightful revelations that change the way in which the characters are viewed, I highly recommend it.
Rating: 
Summary: Big Stinker
Review: You'll love the first 99% but will hate yourself for wasting your time after seeing the last 3 minutes.
Don't waste your time or money.
Rating: 
Summary: Great acting, ok story, great location, poor location use
Review: Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman give their usually great performances, with Gene Hackman delivering an uncharacteristically evolving portrayal. The story was interesting, and the ending had a strong double twist. The script was fairly well developed, but the story lacked "umph" and requires some patience to get through. Location Underused: The Old San Juan and the general Puerto Rico locations were extremely underutilized. In fact, except for a handful of passing shots, the movie could have been shot anywhere, in any studio. The location was an enticement for me to purchase the video, and the lack of local "color" left me very disappointed. There are so many incredible locations, breath taking views, interesting local haunts that would have made the movie more interesting, better developed the story and plot and given the viewer more twists to play with. But, they were not used. I think if someone is not familiar with the intrigue of Old San Juan, then they would not feel the same disappointment that I felt and could rate the movie 4 stars.
Rating:
Summary: Clues....
Review: I enjoyed this movie so much I felt obliged to write a short comment, that is, because some viewers happened to underrate it while some others honestly admitted that its ending got them confused or disappointed. Please allow me to point out: 1. "Under Suspicion" is a psychological thriller, not an action thriller. 2. That being said, a viewer might well miss or overlook some details that helped "unravel" the plot (if so, you better watch this movie at least twice to fully enjoy it -- as in the case of "The Sixth Sense"). I won't go too far and give away anything, but let me remind you to pay close attention to how Hearst (Hackman) reacted when being presented with the photographs of the girls, because his face and his words explained everything. To me, that scene itself was worth an Oscar nomination for Hackman.
Rating:
Summary: Really a lot better than you think
Review: I went into this movie thinking it would turn out to be something like THE USUAL SUSPECTS. While that film is really good, UNDER SUSPICION far, far exceeds the genre many people think it belongs in (much like Sean Penn's THE PLEDGE, also a tremendous movie). UNDER SUSPICION is not a tricky whodunnit movie. It has the look and feel of one, it even has a (slightly) twist ending as others have pointed out before. But in the end, there is no Kaiser Sose revelation. I think many people were disappointed by this (as many were with THE PLEDGE). Many people were also upset about the ending, which when you think about it was completely obvious and fitting with the story. I personally don't think it had a twist ending. At any rate, this movie is really good. It's not perfect (which is why I gave it four stars) but it's pretty close. Many movies can, at the end, be confusing. Being confusing is hot very hard. But when a movie has you questioning whether what you think is right, what you think really happened, and what the point was, you know it's a good movie. I'll admit I was a little miffed at the ending, but a couple minutes later, when it hit me, my jaw dropped. If nothing else convinces you to see this movie, the fact that you get to see Gene Hackman do such a tremendously great acting job should be reason enough. The man is an underrated genius, and UNDER SUSPICICION proves that fact once again.
Rating:
Summary: Great performances... and some hard realities
Review: For me, any film that has me wondering, without total bewilderment, at the end of it I have to say bravo. I am yet to figure out what motivated Hackmans' character to do what he did at the end of the film. But to me this is a film focused on the process and the layers revealed as the onion is peeled rather than the final solution. As such the ending was neither a disappointment nor brilliant. It just is. The mystery of the crime is just a backdrop for playing out the essence of these characters. We are privy to see some of their deepest secrets, fears, and desires revealed. Who's honest vs who's lying. Upright or immoral? Intriguing if not completely satisfying. And I realize that this was not a stellar film but it is one that is much more memorable than most modern fare. All I can say is watch it for yourself and make your own decision. And if you're a guy just seeing Monica Berlucci is sufficient reason to watch it because she is just off the hook.
| 
