Rating: 
Summary: Logic???
Review: My wife and I watched this movie and both thought that this was one of the worst movies we have ever watched. If you are a person who enjoys movies that are logical, do not watch this movie. There are so many holes in the script to make you frustrated. If it weren't for the lack of logic, especially in the early stages of the movie, the fact the movie dragged on forever, and the fact the movie ends and you are waiting for some better explanation, this might have been a good movie. This movie surely was a '...' job of a movie. Maybe my wife and I just don't "get it" like the others who reviewed this movie, oh well.
Rating: 
Summary: "You're worst than he is."
Review: Some seem confused by the ending. To me this was a wonderful psychological thriller with a lot of depth and many layers (note the title - "Under Suspicion"). I don't know about the book, but the movie's last scene is NOT in the police station.Really a wonderful film, with haunting soundtrack.
Rating: 
Summary: Hackman and Freeman....what more could you ask for?
Review: I expected a little bit better from these two guys. Not too many fresh ideas in this film. But it is still worth the watch. It does have some slow spots to it...but it is worth it in the end. So...if you are looking for an average movie about "Who Done It?", give this movie a look.
Rating:
Summary: Gene Hackman, An Acting Force of Nature
Review: I always knew Gene Hackman was a superb actor but he eclipses even himself in the complex layering he gives us of a man under suspicion of double rape and homicide. It reminded me early on of a French film I had been oddly unmoved by, 1981's "Garde a Vue," and then I learned this was a remake of that film. Usually, we Americans ruin it when we remake French films but this time I think it is quite the reverse. One reason is Hackman and the other is that the director and writers have opened this film up so it lost its stagey aspects and moved well beyond the confines and restraints of the police station. Hackman is interrogated by Morgan Freeman, no slouch himself in the acting department. However, Freeman's police captain character simply does not have the complex nuances of Hackman's. Picture a man who absolutely hates his life, although he is rich, at the top of his profession and married to a beautiful but much younger woman. What might this man do to release himself from the deadliness of his daily life? Would killing two girls release him from the grips of this being-dead-while alive state? Or would he be more likely to shoot himself in the foot or walk in front of a bus? What extremes of human behavior will he go to in order to break out of walking around like a zombi? This is the fundamental question you have to ask yourself about Hackman's character throughout and he indeed has you vacillating on predicting what he did do. When you run the entire film back through your memory, the ending, which I cannot tell you, completely fits. The end makes total sense if you tuned in throughout to each particle of the character that Hackman gave you, starting with the time he first picked up the phone to call the police. He, after all, is a lawyer who should know better than to open a door he wants to keep shut. Or does he?
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Acting
Review: Morgan Freeman is his usual cool and collected self. Mr. Hackman did a good job portraying a man who eventually cracks under pressure. This movie was good enough to keep me up late at night on the edge of my seat until the astonishing climax. Actually I thought the overzealous police officer (Freeman's partner) did the crimes for awhile. Anyway, I thought this was an excellent movie, with a bittersweet ending.
Rating: 
Summary: Underachiever
Review: You might wonder how with a cast that includes Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman and Thomas Jane (Boogie Nights) can this remake of the 1981 French thriller Garde a Vue fall flat. It's obviously not in the acting, and Lost in Space director Stephen Hopkins does a suprisingly good job at the helm. So it's got to be the writing, right? Well, not exactly. The writing is actually pretty good for the first hundred minutes or so, but it's when they try to pull the rug out from underneath us with it's obligatory twist ending (which is quickly becoming the biggest cliche in screenwriting), that things go array. The dialogue builds tension in a brilliantly subtle way but then they shoot themselves in the foot with a climax that makes everything that proceeded it seem meaningless. Freeman plays a Puerto Rico police captain who reluctantly calls in an old friend to be questioned regarding the murders of two young girls. Hackman's the prime suspect, having found the second body and spun an inconsistent story that doesn't match the facts of the case. The give and take between the two as Freeman unrelentingly interrogates Hackman's character is a marvel to watch and the only reason to see this movie at all. Henry (Hackman) is the subject of this psychological rape as he's mercilessly grilled by the captain and his overzealous partner (Jane) into pouring out his every indiscretion to them. His story is picked apart and scrutinized until he's on the verge of a nervous breakdown. I suppose that's what the movie wants to be all about. It's not much interested in being a crime thriller but has much loftier goals in mind. It wants to turn the looking glass on a corruptible system of police work, even when it's inadvertent, that puts such a strain on the accused. That's the real intention of of film, to suggest that the crime's not in the criminal offense itself but in being held under suspicion (thus the title which was modified from the novel "Brainwash" by John Wainwright). During the course of the movie Hackman has his civil liberties stripped away one by one, and by focusing so intensly on his ordeal it undermines the fact that two children have been violated and murdered. This would be a tense, taunt suspense thriller is only it weren't for those last five minutes which try to be reflective and thoughtful but instead come off as a ridiculously forced conclusion. In retrospect I realize that the resolution has it's intended purposes, but I still can't help but feel like the authors wrote themselves into a corner that they inevitably had to cheat their way out of. The acting is good, so good in fact I almost hate to give this picture a negative review, but it does little to salvage a scattered plot. Hackman's thoroughly impressive in the way he allows Henry to be torn down without compromise, never allowing his ego to get in the way of the story, though he probably should have. Freeman is equally good, proving once again that he can play just about any part he so desires. And the directing's beyond reproach. Hopkins makes clever use of the camera, allowing the audience to become a part of the story as he tells it. He's very liberal with flashbacks, permitting the questioning parties (Freeman & Jane) to intrude on the moments as Henry's reliving them. This is about as creative as movies get, which is quite impressive but only makes me dislike the film even more. The fact that such highly original moments are wasted on a plot that's going nowhere only serves to make the finished product more distressing. If you missed this one in theatres you're not alone. It was barely released stateside, which should give you an idea of just how awful the ending truly is. A real disappointment.
Rating:
Summary: Intense Adult Drama
Review: One of the best movie's I have seen this year. It is hard to imagine that Gene Hackman was not nominated for his performance. He had a very difficult part and he always seem's to find a way to make his character's interesting. The ending is a surprise and it leaves you asking question's. You may not agree with the ending but it makes you think. It makes you wonder how do they feel; what made them say this or do that. Which in itself is a accomplishment; when you consider that many of the movie's I have seen in the past few year's you forget as soon as you leave the theater. Some of the film's that recieve high praise this year are a distant second to this film. It is nice to see a film that builds it suspense on a good story and not a high body count.
Rating:
Summary: An astonishing disappointment
Review: With Hackman and Freeman as stars (and Executive Producers, no less), expectations are high that this will be a well-acted and tense piece of work. Instead, two minutes into the film the dialogue has already announced itself as painfully stiff. The film is utterly devoid of the twists and turns that make a thriller, thrilling. Hackman's anger at being accused, ebbs and flows for no known reason. Freeman's dignity is undermined by inane writing. And his overeager detective-sidekick is pure characature. The only clues are completely spelled out and since the ending is in no way foreshadowed--even in retrospect--you feel completely manipulated. In fact, the only reason I continued to sit through the movie was in hopes that the ending would redeem what came before. It surely didn't. The direction, where someone's idea of art was to sporadically overlay the interrogation into the scenes of the crime, just made the lunacy more vivid. Even in a time of bad movies, this one takes the cake. That it didn't see much theater time suggests it is possible to reach a low beyond which distributors won't go. I'd love to know why Freeman and Hackman attached their names as actors and executive producers to this total fiasco, and if I can't get back the $3.75 I paid to rent it, perhaps this at least serves as fair warning to others.
Rating:
Summary: Convoluted
Review: Didn't like it, but it does make you think. Mostly because you can't figure out what's going on half the time. Here's my take on the ending: Hackman's character atually does have a pedophilia problem (first meets his wife when she's 11 and he's like 50+; spends more time with the niece than the wife; has all sorts of pictures of very young girls - including the murder victims) and by confessing to the murders he both acknowledges this and escapes from his wife, whom he can't seem to stomach. It may be that Director Hopkins is making a statement that there's not much difference between the murder's lust and Hackman's lust. Or that appearances are deceiving. Or both. In any event, it's a pretty depressing film. The next video I rented was Rocky and Bullwinkle - at least I could sort out the good guys from the bad guys in that one.....
Rating:
Summary: Engrossing Mystery Starring Two Old Pros
Review: Two old pros, Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman, square their shoulders and face off in a bravura acting tour-de-force in "Under Suspicion," an engrossing mystery directed by Stephen Hopkins. The delicious Monica Bellecci is seductive and compelling as Hackman's wife. The question at hand is: Did Hackman murder two young girls? The format is very stagey: most scenes take place in a police station, with flashbacks and possible scenarios fleshed out in interesting ways. As a mystery, the film is average. As an opportunity to watch Hackman and Freeman at the top of their games, it is unbeatable entertainment. Definitely recommended.
| 
