User Reviews (19)

Add a Review

  • This is one of those decent crime movies that few people have heard about. It has a lot going for it. I should rate it higher since the story kept my interest all the way both times I saw it (four years apart). The violence and profanity are not overdone, the main characters are very interesting and the story finishes with a unique twist.

    Actually, that twist is something you have to ponder to determine whether it makes sense. I am not sure it did. You'd have to watch this again soon and check on a few things. It's either very clever or its totally unfair to the viewer, which is why I kept it at an '8."

    It's nicely photographed and I bet it looks much better on a widescreen DVD than on the tape I viewed it on in the '90s. Liam Neeson and Laura San Giacomo star. I was familiar with the latter from the film, "Quigley Down Under." She's much more appealing in that film than this one. Neeson is almost always interesting to watch.
  • i want to give a STRONG plug for this very fine film that has received almost no acclaim. if you enjoy cinematic plot twists and suspense, sexuality and greed, but not blood and guts, this is a film you should see. when i say it keeps you guessing up till the last minute, i mean just that. art, money, sex, mistresses, wives, good cops, bad cops, murder! got it all-give it a try.
  • blanche-231 March 2007
    Liam Neeson is "Under Suspicion" for murdering his wife and a client in this 1991 little known film also starring Laura San Giacomo. This is one of those films one rents and all too rarely realizes that they have found an unsung treasure.

    Set in England in 1959-60, Neeson plays an police officer, Tony Aaron. While on assignment with his partner Frank guarding the home of a wealthy man who is out of town, Tony takes time out to have a dalliance with the owner's wife. In the fray that erupts when he's nearly caught by her husband, another officer is killed. Tony is pressured to resign and when he leaves, he only has one friend left - his partner Frank. Tony becomes a low-life private detective who helps clients fake adultery in order to have grounds for divorce. To do this, Tony uses his own wife, Hazel, the woman of the above dalliance, as the "other woman." One night, he does the usual thing of entering the hotel room with a camera and surprising the client and Hazel in bed when he discovers that both have been brutally murdered. He immediately becomes a suspect, though he trails along with his ex-partner during the investigation and discovers some other suspects - not only who had a reason to knock off the artist, but who had plenty of reason to frame Tony for the crime.

    This is a very well produced and directed film with brilliant construction. The detail in evoking the atmosphere of the late '50s is wonderful, and if there were ever a film that deserved a "best costumes" nomination for an Oscar, this is it.

    The acting is all around very good, with a good deal of the film's budget going to Liam Neeson, who back then was a prolific actor two years from superstardom. Neeson is terrific as a loser who has made one mistake after another so that a noose around his neck seems appropriate. Yet there's something likable about him, and earnest, too, so that the audience feels that though he may not have been able to keep his pants zipped, at heart he's not a bad guy. Laura San Giacomo, who has enjoyed an okay film career but is now best known for her work in the TV series "Just Shoot Me" is very effective as the mysterious mistress whom Tony suspects may have had something to do with her boyfriend's murder. Kenneth Cranham, a very familiar face in British productions, is excellent as Tony's loyal ex-partner, who risks his own job protecting his friend. An absolutely gorgeous woman, Alphonsia Emmanuel, plays Stasio's wife and does a good job in a role that, were she not so beautiful, would probably not have been noticed.

    Any film that has me yelling out loud at the screen at 3 a.m. is a good movie in my book. That's the level of suspense that "Under Suspicion" has - if you have a weak heart, take medication first. It's absolutely thrilling.
  • Andres2430 July 2004
    Very well acted and filmed this clever, agile suspense thriller won't let you down because of the reason that the intrigue will not allow to switch off your video of DVD player. The place: England, late 50's. The topic: laws of divorce. Adultery. Just take a photograph for evidence. This was forged in order to oblige the spouse to divorce. You only have to find the lover. Tony Aaron (Neeson) was the man who used his wife to simulate adultery. But she will die with a powerful man. The man's misterious lover (Laura San Giacomo) gets in between the case. A battle will start for Aaron to prove that his innocence. Suspense till the end. I rate this movie 9 out 10. Andres.
  • I don't know if this story really belongs on the big screen. It would have been fine as an HBO special or something. However, the performers are better than one would expect in such a venue.

    Liam Neeson is so likable, a tall hulking actor, he seems to loom over whatever scene he appears in. And what a face! His skull seems to have no glabella whatever, his nose droops down out of the middle of his forehead, and yet he's handsome too, in a plain, masculine way, kind of like Spencer Tracy -- no glamor boy, but easy to look at. His voice too is appealing, with its Irish grace notes. And he can act too! Unlike so many brutishly big action stars, this guy can project a smelly sweaty fear, and do it without seeming ridiculous or seeming any weaker than the rest of us would be.

    Laura San Giacomo is an apt mismatch for Neeson. Here, in this tale set in 1959, her face is wide and her expressive eyes long and thin. She wears so much makeup she's funereally pale and her Chinese red lip rouge suggests a figure from a Dracula movie. She's tiny standing next to Neeson. His presence makes her look even more elfin, as if he could crunch one of her long bones in his fist. She has a smooth and seductive voice that doesn't sound quite believable. It's hard to forget she's acting. But it doesn't detract from her attractivness. She seems never to have found her proper niche in films; neither, for that matter, has Neeson. They both deserve better than they've gotten, with some exceptions.

    The plot is about a couple of murders, a near hanging, a strained friendship, a love affair or two, shots ring out, you're not supposed to carry an unlicensed gun in Britain, can I really trust him/her?, and all together has more twists to it than a corkscrew. Towards the end there is an execution scene that is very crudely done but intensely gripping all the same. (The crosscuts are dizzying.)

    I won't give away the ending. Ordinarily the resolution of the plot isn't really as important as what's led up to it, but in this case the end is the best part of the film, or at least the most surprising.

    Watching this movie wasn't a waste of time. But, Great Merciful Heavens, I'll never go to Brighton on holiday.
  • A bit of a confusing start of this perfect whodunit is the only bad thing about this film.

    To start with the script, it´s brilliant. It is credible, well written,has clues that makes it worth watching over and over again (even without the surprises that you encounter the first time you watch it). I like the fact that this is not a Hollywood production. I seriously do not think that this script would have made it to production without some changes if it was made in hollywood.

    Then the acting. Liam Neeson puts on a splendid performance, complex acting with certain subtle things that I did not notice the first viewing, which made sense while watching it again. His best film IMO (knowing that a lot of people thinks that "Schindler´s list" is better). I do not recognize the rest of the actors, but no one did bad.

    Grade: 9 out of 10

    So if you like suspense whodunit, this is a must see.
  • This is the best erotic thriller ever! (Although I have to warn you, don't expect too many sex scenes here- it definitely is an erotic thriller, but that's more to do with the story, atmosphere and tension between the main characters.)

    A dark, gritty British thriller full of suspense, it's miles away from the rubbish like 'Basic Instinct' etc. Here you have a convincing story, three-dimensional characters whose motivations are believable, and it plays with film noir conventions and viewers' expectations -managing to pull the MOST UNEXPECTED PLOT TWIST EVER in the end! I was fooled, as I'm sure everyone who's ever watched it!

    And also when you watch it again, knowing what actually happened, you can see that everything makes sense, there are no plot holes here. It's a very good story about ambition, betrayal and love.

    I just want to add- Simon Moore (who also wrote '10th Kingdom') is a genius!!
  • jl-1014 December 2000
    one of the finest in it's genre - the script, the concept, the direction, the acting, the suspense - just great. Highly recommended and turn off the phone, sit back and enjoy it all. And then after you have digested it all, you'll want to make another bowl of popcorn and watch it all over again, just to see what you missed.
  • A great cast of British actors in this colour film noir style thriller from the early 90s. Neeson plays a private eye in Brighton in the early 50s when they needed evidence of adultery for divorces. I won't spoil the plot but it is a good movie and very nostalgic for those who love the old British films of the 50s. Has a bit of Hitchcock about it with a hint of Albert Finney's "Gumshoe" without the black comedy. I watched this movie being shot on outside location Portmerrion of "The Prisoner" fame in 1990/1. It is a good plot and one of Neeson's early meaty roles before he hit the big time as Schindler.

    I guess I must invest in a DVD player that can show region 1 and I can enjoy this movie again.

    Unfortunately not out on DVD in the UK which should be rectified.
  • This film is well worthy of your time. If you are into crime movies with more atmosphere than fast action, I mean.

    Why Simon Moore didn't direct more, I really don't know. The film is skilfully composed, actors' performances are admirable (with exception of Laura San Giacomo who's acting is under average). Photography is something to appreciate, too.

    I was often surprised at how few people know of this title and I am personally always glad when I find such a gem outside of hype area.

    I like noir and I like different, yet not bizarre. If you think alike, try this film.
  • Sylviastel1 January 2015
    This British mystery film starred Liam Neeson and Laura San Giacomo (Pretty Woman) in an early the 1990s. While the film is set in Brighton, England in the late 1950s, the film has a startling mystery to solve as to who killed a famed art collector and the private detective's wife. I was stunned by the ending of the film itself. While the film steers the audience to one direction, the absolute truth wins in the end. I have to say that the film haunts you long after you watch it. Laura San Giacomo is an under-appreciated actress who wasn't utilized much as should have been. When she is on screen, she is captivating even in the end. Liam Neeson also does a fabulous job in this role as the private detective accused of murder. You should just have to be surprised!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "Under Suspicion" is a crime drama with several plot twists that entertain and provide sufficient ambiguity that the entire storyline is never fully revealed until the last scene, this is a good thing. Staring Liam Neeson as Tony Arrandt, a disgraced cop and sleazy private investigator who will do anything but the right thing to make an easy buck, this thriller centers on the double murder of Tony's wife, and a famous painter. Laura San Giancamo is Angelique, the stunning mistress of the painter, who stands to inherit everything while the painter's dumped wife, Selina, gets zero in the new will. As Tony tries to find the killer of his wife, while bedding Angelique in the painter's house, the police are building a case for murder with the opportunistic widower as prime suspect. With the collection of the last works of the artist hanging on the walls, the value of the art relies on the authenticated signature of the painter and his thumb print in the oils, but, the thumb was amputated when he was murdered. As Tony seems to try and discover the true murderer of his wife, the police, who resent his presence because his sexual activities once resulted in the death of one of their own when Tony was on duty, build a case for his arrest. His only friend is his former partner, who remains loyal and believes in his friend's innocence.

    This is a tight drama with wonderful settings and interiors of 60s English seaside hotels and modernism architecture. The wonderful costumes are already commented on, but on the short, too contemporary San Giancomo, they look like she is wearing her mother's wardrobe. With too pale and heavy face makeup and ruby red lipstick, she is uncomfortably miscast next to a towering Tony, who is too low class for any believable liaison with the ambitious Angelique.

    Neeson as Tony is a wonderful, amoral, and easy on the eye gumshoe whose desire to make an easy buck underscores his every move. San Giancomo is miscast in a period film where she is far too contemporary to be believable but, nevertheless, gives a restrained and credible performance. However, it is the story which must be watched closely as the guilty are proved innocent, and the art of deception and adultery just don't pay off in the end -- or does it?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Since this movie is a crime thriller, I don't want to spoil your fun by revealing any facts.

    I think Liam Neeson is very charismatic actor and he's done some great movies and I'd like to consider this to be well made and acted as well. Sometimes Neeson just ends up in the wrong movies. Dark Man for instance would've been terrible if it hadn't been saved by Neeson's melancholic and anguished performance. But this film is not a failure. In the movies he so commonly portrays a man who's weak and strong. Good and bad. It's somehow so human. You can feel that same thing in this particular movie too.

    English atmosphere always makes films look more intelligent if compared to those made in Hollywood. ;) Maybe it's largely due to a fact that what foreign films lack in production costs they gain in realism. And realism is always a good thing.

    I must confess that at least I got thoroughly fooled by this movie. I didn't realize the plot until it was revealed to me because not in any point of the film I ever even considered that as a one possible scenario. Man, I felt dumb but in some way I also felt betrayed since I genuinely felt sympathy for the wrong person. I just kept on waiting for the bad guy to show up when it had been there all along. ;)

    Check this out. I found it very clever and full of good actors.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    An English film on some thrilling murder. Fascinating because of their strange system of justice. We are in the 1950s, just before the passage to 1960. The death penalty seems to still be in practice then, by hanging of course. They dropped beheading several centuries ago.

    A private investigator, in 1959, is arranging adulterous affairs for men who want a divorce. The law was strict in those days in England. A lot stricter than in Henry VIII's times. He uses his wife as the necessary actress for the deal and thus doubles the profit, and yet he is not rich, far from it.

    He has a bad past with a 1957 police business when he was a policeman. He did something not exactly professional that ended up with the accidental death of a colleague. In other words a pretty bad character. His last adulterous collage turns dramatic with two deaths. The man is a very rich artist and he has an official wife from whom he is trying to get a divorce with this particular adulterous affair, and a mistress whom he wants to marry. What's more he has just changed his will for this mistress to get everything, particularly all the works of art, the paintings.

    We can think of at least four possible suspects, persons of interest that could be put under suspicion. One nearly gets hanged, not the one we may think is the real culprit, but who cares. It ends up with a couple who have arranged everything and are selling the paintings to be as rich as a gold mine.

    It is not too badly done, and it is even slightly dynamic. If you add the touch of English humor you have to find in an English film taking place in Brighton, England, that even has a sign for Christmas and the tourists that says "WELCOM" the first time you see it and WELCOME" the second time, it is in a way funny Ah! Ah! I guess misspelling is an English characteristic. They are just checking if we are not sleeping.

    Good entertaining evening. And welcome (with an E if possible) to Miami at the end, the Homeland of Dexter and CSI. A predestined place.

    Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
  • Under Suspicion apparently flew completely under the radar upon release in 1991, and that's really not all that surprising. The film is actually a very well done little crime thriller; but it features a very simple plot line and plays out almost like a classic film noir (as opposed to a 'cool' crime thriller in the vein of Goodfellas or Reservoir Dogs), and as a result the film doesn't stand out much. It actually seems like it could have been made for television as most of the cast (Liam Neeson aside) will be recognisable to anyone that has seen a handful of British TV shows and it's very modest all the way through. The film takes place in the fifties and we focus on private detective/disgraced former policeman Tony Aaron. Aaron makes a living through the illegal practise of faking affairs in order to beat the strict divorce laws. He begins using his wife for these capers; but is given a shock when his wife and a client are found dead in their room. An investigation into the killings ensues, with our detective as the prime suspect.

    The plot is definitely this film's main strongpoint, and it is carried off well. Director Simon Moore does a good job of getting his audience interested in the characters, which allows him to weave the simple, but twisted tale. Liam Neeson won some award for his portrayal of the central character, and it is a really good performance. This sort of role can often be difficult for actors to play because the character is essentially scum, but we do feel for him; and this is thanks to the charismatic and warm performance. The ensemble cast is rather impressive and, as mentioned, many British viewers will recognise a lot of faces. The mystery is constantly intriguing and we are made to wonder who has committed the crimes. It does have to be said that the final third of the movie not as interesting as the first two; but all in all, this is a well worked and interesting little thriller that is rounded off by a strong ending. I wouldn't recommend anyone goes out of their way to see this film; but it's certainly worth a look if you do find a copy.
  • Fairly good story about a 2 bit scoundrel private eye who apparently becomes involved in a double homicide while running a sleazy con game. A large insurance settlement is at stake and the police must figure out if the victim's wife did the deed or if it was her rival, hubby's mistress. Or could it have been someone else.....?
  • aether2210 April 2007
    Warning: Spoilers
    Under Suspicion seems OK until the end, that's when they break with a film making (or indeed story telling) tradition and screw with the viewer in order to create a twist.

    A twist that you don't see coming, not because there isn't evidence for it, not because it's not obvious, but because of the audiences POV in the film.

    While the twist is for this reason unexpected it also loses the audiences trust, they have been lied to and cheated. This also has the effect of making the ending an unhappy one.

    Before the ending it's enjoyable enough although we are asked to swallow some rather unlikely things including possibly the closest life and death 'save' in movie history. (not to mention a justice system that seems extremely speedy)

    There would also seem to be a plot hole in that an extremely valuable and lucrative piece of evidence (possibly the reason for the crime) is seemingly sacrificed to save someone when no doubt other evidence could have proved effective.

    Another hole is Angeline seeing both sides of a building while seeing fine detail far away in the dark.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The movie doesnt make any sense. Why marry a woman from an affair? Why kill her over a burnt 20k painting? Why have 85 minutes of a film in gloomy Britain then 2 minutes in America trying to tie up all the lose ends. It was a flop for a reason. Basic Instinct it isnt. It should of ended after he survived being hung then the film would of made sense. Final 15 minutes ruined it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The whole time I was watching this film I just couldn't shake the feeling that it seemed like something that would appear on the Lifetime Channel here in America. As the credits scrolled by there were three interesting words toward the end: London Weekend Television. It explained a lot.

    Sorry if that sounds snobbish. It's not meant to be. In fact, one of my all-time favorite movies was made for television. It's just that "Under Suspicion" has a silly plot and throws logic to the wind on many occasions. Anyone who seriously refers to this film as being "clever" must still wonder how those little people got into their television.

    Please note that my short overview of this movie contains a major spoiler!!! The general plot of the film has already been touched on several times so I'll just cover a couple of major problems. The first is the ridiculous police work done on the case. Granted,this took place in 1959 and it was way before high-tech forensics and whatnot but...really. Why would police allow a key suspect of a double homicide to pose as a Detective? How about allowing him to freely go in and out of the home of your other key suspect? Had police ever heard of murder-for-hire? Did they ever in their lives understand the concept of planting evidence? It just goes on and on.

    What is completely inexcusable is the second major problem. This is a total spoiler (to some) so beware of reading any further. The film very clearly and concisely tells the viewer TWICE who the murderer is. Really. I'm not joking around or reading between the lines. They tell you definitively, without any doubt, who the killer is. The film then twists and turns and somehow tries to trick you into thinking that you don't really know. When the film draws to its conclusion the killer is...EXACTLY WHO THEY TOLD YOU IT WAS!! How this amateurish drivel has fooled so many people into thinking it's clever is the one thing beyond my comprehension. 2/10