Under Suspicion

Rating:
Summary: Top rate crime drama
Review: One has to suspect that any film starring and produced by Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman is going to be good. That assumption would not lead to disappointment in this case. This is a terrific psychological crime drama with an excellent story, great acting and powerful directing.

Henry Hearst (Gene Hackman) is a prominent and wealthy citizen of San Juan, Puerto Rico, who found the body of a young girl who had been murdered. Police captain Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman) is a long time friend of Hearst's and asks him to come down to the station answer some questions and tie up some lose ends. What ensues is a blistering interrogation where it is clear that Hearst is the prime suspect.

The script is smart, probing and full of nuance. Subtle hints in both directions make us continually re-evaluate Hearst's guilt or innocence as the interrogation twists and turns. The ending is a surprise and quite abstruse, requiring some reflection to fathom.

Stephen Hopkins' (Lost In Space) direction is fabulous. The camerawork is excellent, using various perspectives and jump cuts to lend power to the dialogue. I would have liked to see more character development of Captain Benezet to understand his obsessive motivation of trying to nail Hearst. Also, it seems a bit incongruous to have this set in Puerto Rico and have so many obviously American characters. Nonetheless, the work by Hopkins is first-rate overall.

The acting is superb. Morgan Freeman gives a brilliant performance, worthy of an Oscar nomination in my opinion. His dogged pursuit of Hearst never lets up as he is slowly eaten alive by his fixation with proving Hearst is the murderer. Hackman's performance is equally outstanding. His is the most complex and mentally tortured character in the film, and he portrays Hearst like a rat on an electric grid. Italian star Monica Belucci is mysterious and lovely as Hearst's suspicious wife in one of her few American films. The only mediocre performance comes from Thomas Jane as the detective. He is unable to match the rhythm and intensity of the rest of the cast. This part probably should have gone to a Hispanic actor in keeping with the setting.

This intense and clever film keeps the audience guessing throughout. I rated it a 9/10. It is an entertaining film for the thinking viewer.

Rating:
Summary: Suspenseful but what the heck happened?
Review: I thought the movie was great. Hackman and Freeman are very convincing in their respective roles. Very interesting use of juxtaposing keeps you guessing the whole way through. I'm not going to give the ending away but I found it very confusing. It's keeping me up at night. If somebody has the answer please email me at [e-mail].

Rating:
Summary: Good, strange ending
Review: Okay.. this was a good movie. normally in a murder movie the true suspect is revealed. not in this case. gene hackman was the suspect, but it turns out @ the end that he was completely innocent. I wish it was a better ending - a little more suspense. other than that, good movie...

Rating:
Summary: A surprisingly decent movie featuring two fine actors.
Review: After seeing the two stars of this movie, I couldn't help but be urged to check this out. I figured it may be slightly boring, but of course a well-acted film. Turns out Under Suspicion is actually extremely attention getting, especially due to the fact it bases around a night of serial murder interrogation. Hackman, a well-respected lawyer with a glamorous lifestyle and wife, makes a report of a dead body to his friend, police captain Freeman. All the evidence starts to turn toward Hackman, and their friendship is never the same again. If you have patience and enjoy the finest acting performances, definitely take a look at this film.

Rating:
Summary: Gripping show... but...
Review: I watched this movie with some skeptism. After all, it has been a long time since anything good came out at the box office.

But I was held spellbound, in spite of 'old-style' special effects and not jaw dropping cinematics. But the storyline is gripping, and the acting incredible.

The only thing is, I am left rather confused. Like a 'Huh?'

Well if anyone would care to explain the ending to me, I would be happy to hear (read) it indeed.

E-mail me....

Rating:
Summary: Phewww....Awful!
Review: I see that Freeman & Hackman are executive producers on this stinker.
Just reaffirms, I guess, that actors are not the best judges of good
material for themselves. The truth in spades in this case.

I think, as I'm sure millions do, that Freeman & Hackman are the very
best around, but I've never seen them work with such stiff, stilted
pathetically sensationalistic material. On top of which Hackman is
terribly miscast & comes off shrill & artificial in a part that would
have been a natural for someone like Ben Kingsley.

Why oh why didn't they just take the moolah they raised for this turkey
& give it to Kenneth Branagh to direct them in a dream version of
Othello?

Rating:
Summary: What suspicion does to a person...
Review: Well acted. The ending is no surprise if you can grasp what Hackman's character had gone and was going through.

Rating:
Summary: Murder in Puerto Rico
Review: "Under Suspicion" stars Morgan Freeman as a Puerto Rico police captian and Gene Hackman as a tax lawyer. The police suspect the lawyer is responsable for the murder of two young girls. The interrogation is the focus of the movie, but the film also goes back and forth through flash backs, via Hackman's alibis. There are a lot of themes going through this film; resentment by the middle class (as represented by the policemen) of the wealthier classes (the lawyer, obviously), the jealousy of a wife, and what happens when rich men gets bored. Freeman and Hackman are masters of the acting craft, and watching them square off against each other is what most people who watch this movie are wanting to see; and the two pros do not disappoint. All of their scenes are full of suspence and conflict, even when they are just darting their eyes back and forth. The only other stars of mention are Thomas Jane as a police man under Freeman who uses physical menace as a means of interrogation, and is the more intellegent Freeman's counterpart. But he still dose a good job. And of course there is Monica Bellucci. She plays Hackman's trophey wife, who knows a lot more and less about her husband than she realizes. She plays the part coldly, with an air of distance, and suprisingly that works. The only thing I did not like about the movie was this <SPOILERS AHEAD>: if Hackman was innocent of the crimes, why did he confess to them? I still can not figure that one out. Otherwise this is a first class crime drama with two top actors doing what they do best.

Rating:
Summary: Taking Responsibility for your Accusations
Review: In this movie, we clearly see how Gene Hackman, who has it all in every sense of the word, has his life basically brought to a head for him. Hackmans character has been charged with the murder of two girls, and certainly it is plausible that he is guilty. The inconsistencies in his story, his troubled relationship with his wife (who was herself a young girl when he met her), and his penchant for photography as well as whores, get him into a great deal of trouble and simply add to the suspicions.
The power of the tale does not lie in the fact that there is a straw man. Hackman's credibility does deserve to be questioned, for he is truly a troubled individual and his many peccadilloes deserve an explanation. At the same time, the accusing officer, Morgan Freeman, has good reasons to doubt Hackman, but as the movie progresses we also see that part of Freemans motivations stem from his own personal insecurities, particularly vis-a-vis Hackman himself (access to wealth and power, among other things).
No, the film is taut and well-constructed, but it teaches us an important lesson: acussations should be dealt with directly. If anything, the power of the film lies in that because Hackmans character was directly interceded to answer for his supposed malfeasance, we are able to see not only his defense, but also his gradual acceptance of the accusers version of the facts. However, we see in the end his true motivation for many of his, albeit, very suspicious actions: love for his wife, who it appears does not love him back or has become so consumed by jealousy (perhaps) among other problems of her own, that she is unable to see his love for what it is.
Hackman's acquittal in the end does not come without a heavy price for him, and not just because his reputation has been tarnished. He does, to some extent, deserve the mistrust and scrutiny to which he was subjected, for he was not without fault. Moreover, had things not come to a head at that particular juncture, it is not clear where Hackman's life would have gone: it is not implausible to think that he could have eventually done the things he was accused of.
However, the accusers motivations remain unclear, and the sense of love that motivates him is so strong that, at least for the final moment in the film, it is they who are diminished, and he fearful to watch in righteous anger.
In my opinion, at the very least, the directness with which he was confronted does credit to the accusers, for they at least were clear and honest. Any other approach smacks of hypocrisy, of an overly established sense of propiety from the accusers, of an intent to do harm.
In the end, they both save themselves through a mutual desire to, together, establish a truth that is necessary for justice to be brought forth.

Rating:
Summary: Not Bad, but Not Great either
Review: Under Suspicion was a bit of a disappointment, considering the magnitude of the cast consisting of heavyweights such as Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, and Monica Belucci (!!!), though it's a far cry from being a bad movie. The potential for a great movie was definitely there.
In short, Gene Hackman's character is under suspicion by the police (Morgan Freeman) for raping and murdering two teenage girls on the island of Puerto Rico.
It's a good plot, a great setting and a wonderful cast, but the leading actors (who also happen to be the producers...) seem to be lacking that special chemistry. Moreover, Gene Hackman fails (surprisingly!) to convince in his role of Henry Hearst. The young cop with the chip on his shoulder was a bit of a cliché, and as for the dialogues they could have been greatly improved.
In addition, Morgan Freeman "accompanying" Gene Hackman through the scenes during the unravelling of the story did not add to the overall entertainment; it was done as a novelty to add originality, but it would have been better if they hadn't.
Most importantly, however, it is really the weak dialogue and the chemistry (or lack of) between the two main heroes that takes away the most from what could have otherwise been an amazing movie.
Overall, it's a good movie, but it lacks that extra something to put it over the top.