TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

sddavis63 When you watch a movie like this, you do so knowing that there's a twist coming; that not all is as it seems. So you spend the bulk of the movie trying to figure it out, looking at details, asking yourself what's not making sense - because you're being too obviously led to believe in the guilt of one character. Henry Hearst (played by Gene Hackman) is a rich and powerful attorney living in Puerto Rico. He's married to young and beautiful Chantal (played by Monica Bellucci.) All seems well - except that recently two young girls have been raped and murdered, and almost from the beginning Hearst is pulled aside by Police Captain Benezet (played by Morgan Freeman) because he's the prime suspect. The movie proceeds basically as a depiction of Hearst's interrogation by Benezet, with the scene sometimes shifting to Chantal being interrogated.The evidence seems overwhelming. Everything points to Hearst. Then, in the course of the interrogation, a lot of unsavoury things are revealed about Hearst. His marriage is unhappy - he and his wife have separate bedrooms and haven't shared intimacy in quite a while. He met her when she was 11 years old (although they didn't get involved until later) - but the point was made that there's something about young girls. He admits that he likes young women. He watches pornography. He spends a fair bit of time with prostitutes apparently. Chantal relates what she believed to be a suspicious encounter between Henry and their 13 year old niece. (Actually one interesting part of this movie is how Chantal and Henry have very different perspectives on the very same things - and it's possible that neither of them are lying; they just see things differently.) In any event, there's a lot about Henry that makes him seem like someone who would commit these crimes. He seems guilty. It seems open and shut. Which makes you think - "I don't know. That's just too obvious. There has to be something more."There is - although it's left to the last few minutes, which did have me wondering if the twist was going to be that there was no twist. As the movie comes to its close, Henry confesses to one of the murders at least. He breaks down, he sobs. Then it's revealed that the killer has been captured. It's not him - and so he's released. Was this a depiction of police making assumptions about the guilt of someone and then breaking them down bit by bit and piece by piece until they wring a confession out of an innocent man? That's what it seems like. But the end was unsatisfying. It left too many questions. There were questions about the relationship between Chantal and Henry and how that turned out. It was never revealed who did it - and the ending suggests that there was no way that the viewer could have figured it out - apparently it was no one who had been feature din the movie. (I actually thought I had figured out the twist and who committed the murders - or at least who wanted us to believe that Henry had committed the murders, but none of that was ever revealed.) This left me unsatisfied, with a bit of an empty feeling. There was no closure. Which was a shame.This had actually been a pretty decent movie. Bellucci didn't really capture me (and Thomas Jane was unnecessarily cast as a police detective who really wasn't needed) but Hackman and Freeman were both extremely good in their roles - as you'd expect from such veteran actors - and the story was compelling. It kept me interested up to the end - but then it just crashed and burned with that extremely unsatisfying ending. (4/10)

zkonedog For moviegoers who mainly like to see action/adventure in their film pursuits, "Under Suspicion" will likely be one of the most "boring" movies they ever see. It is a film that percolates, not explodes. For those who really, really enjoy the savoring of great acting performances and mystery plots, however, this will be a little gem.For a basic plot summary, "Under Suspicion" opens with police captain Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman) and hard-boiled partner Felix (Thomas Jane) wanting "just a few minutes of time" from esteemed community citizen Henry Hearst (Gene Hackman), who is about to give a toast at a prestigious fundraiser banquet. When Hearst shows up at the station, however, he quickly realizes that this isn't going to be just a "moment" of his time, as he is a suspect in the rape/murder of two young girls. He tells his side of the story a number of times...but they always seem to change a little bit with each re-telling. When Henry's glamorous (yet ice cold) wife Chantal (Monica Bellucci) is brought in, she tells a completely different story. It is up to Captain Benezet to figure out what really happened.I wish I could say a lot more about this movie, but to do so would give away far too many spoilers. Suffice it to say, however, that this film isn't necessarily what it seems. Though the "Under Suspicion" title can be applied to Hearst's interrogation by Benezet, it can also be used to describe the relationship between Henry & Chantal. While disguising itself as a police drama, "Under Suspicion" is really a stunning character drama of the highest order.In order for the character drama to work, of course, the acting has to be dead-on, which it is. Hackman gives one of the best performances I've ever seen out of him, while Freeman is also at his peak (before he got sucked into just doing "voice projects"). Bellucci adds a mysterious, supremely sexual aspect to the proceedings. For a film that made its name at the Cannes Film Festival, this is almost an embarrassment of riches."Under Suspicion" is one of those projects that slipped under the popular radar; partially because it didn't get a worldwide release, and partially because it is the type of movie that doesn't necessarily play well to a general audience (not enough action). When one stumbles across it (like I did years ago and then re-discovered it just recently) and can appreciate great acting, unfolding plot, and great character drama, however, it will be like an undiscovered gem.

Leofwine_draca This tense thriller is basically a two-hander between two of the finest character actors of our age: Hackman and Freeman are both flawless in this slow-burning drama, really building and bringing their intense characters to life, and it's safe to say that the film wouldn't be what it is without them. The story is simple yet complicated, in the best possible sense: it focuses on a straightforward detective interrogation yet the back story unwinds piece by piece as the film progresses, sucking you in deeper and deeper until the inevitable twist ending. Supporting actors are also decent; Thomas Jane reveals the intensity that won him the titular role in THE PUNISHER, whilst Monica Bellucci is hands-down one of the sexiest actresses AND characters ever put on screen.Hackman leads the way with his sympathetic turn as a high-profile attorney with a dodgy background, whilst Freeman lets Hackman grab the acting honours, respectfully standing back and letting him take over. The direction by Stephen Hopkins is VERY good, and there are some neat tricks, especially with Freeman & co. appearing in Hackman's flashbacks – you'll have to watch to see what I mean. In the end, UNDER SUSPICION is an intelligent, suspenseful nail-biter that may be unpleasant and disturbing in places, but'll make you think for hours afterwards.

SnoopyStyle In Puerto Rico, wealthy lawyer Henry Hearst (Gene Hackman) is married to beautiful Chantal (Monica Bellucci). Police detectives Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman) and Felix Owens (Thomas Jane) investigate Henry for the rape and murder of a young girl. There is no direct evidence but Henry's story starts to fall apart revealing marital problems and personal sexual accusations.The material may not be worthy and the directing style is poor. This is a four-handed play with four great actors. There is good possibilities but ultimately, the story is unsatisfying. This deserves more cinematic style. It may be compelling for completists but for everybody else, these actors have been in better.