User Reviews (226)

Add a Review

  • Did Henry Hearst rape and kill two young girls? That's the question occupying the whole of Under Suspicion.

    For nearly the entirety of its running time, the film is executed brilliantly. There is no action: it keeps the audience's attention through its intelligence, brilliant construction and the reliably excellent performances of Freeman and Hackman. We are not given definitive evidence, and many strange and suspicious things crop up that we yearn to find out about.

    This could well have been one of the greatest mystery films I've seen... Until the ending. The ending leaves the audience without an explanation - and not in a good way that lets the audience ponder. It's an ending that leaves you shouting at the screen for an answer.

    Overall, I'd recommend this film because it will keep you entertained and on the edge of your seat for more than an hour and a half. Just prepare yourself for an ending that will leave you wholly unsatisfied and rather annoyed.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    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.
  • This was a well produced and directed film starring two great veteran actors who both did an outstanding performance. Gene Hackman,(Henry Hearst),"The Replacements" 2000, was a very successful lawyer and well admired citizen of Puerto Rico along with his charming wife, Monica Bellucci,(Chantel Hearst),"Sheitan",'06. However, there was a very strange and dark side to their marriage and a long hallway and closed doors provided a very strange relationship for his couple. Morgan Freeman,(Captain Victor Beneget),"Edison",'05 is the chief of police and while he is investigating a homicide, he starts to question Henry Hearst and it is from this point in the film when all kinds of situations change and some of these very dark secrets come to light. Great acting and a great film, enjoy.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    SPOILERS ---- What amazes me is how many of you viewers are so quick to condemn this movie because you just don't get it. Do movies always have to wrap things up into tight little packages for them to be workthwile? Personally, I prefer movies that require you to think a little after it is over to allow you to come up with what you think is the real meaning to all of it. Under Suspicion is that kind of movie. It was pretty obvious to me that the movie wasn't as much a murder mystery as much as it was about a man struggling with his own personal demons, in particular, the loss of the love of his life and his obsession with young women. If you've ever been in a relationship that ends poorly but you still are in love with that person, you might understand. It is quite obvious to me that Hackman's character is in love with young (very young) beauty. That is his flaw. His stumbling during the investigations is a direct result of his attempt to hide that flaw and to reveal very personal things about his life and relationship with his wife. His obsession about young women is why he had the photographs of them and why he knew one of them. By telling the truth, he would have to reveal this obsession. His wife has her own problems, that is the green monster he was talking about - jealousy. She knows him too well that she fears that as she ages, she will lose him to younger girls. She allows this obsession of hers to take over her reason and let's it destroy her relationship with her husband. In the end, Hackman's character is a lost puppy, weak and pathetic, because he is unwilling to let go of a lost love as he still loves her deeply and is in denial of the fact that she won't come back to him. He is holding on to that shred of hope that she will realize the error of her ways and love him again. But she can't do that. In the end when he finally realizes that she actually believes in his guilt and helped to find the "evidence" against him, he finally realizes and accepts that she will never overcome her jealousy and come back. So, he has nothing to live for and he confesses, mostly to get back at her I think. By confessing, he will ruin her too as she will lose all social standing she has, etc. And I think there is some self-pugilizing too. I think he may also be trying to punish himself for being such a fool for her and for his obsession with young women. The interrogation may have convinced him that he was wrong for having this obsession, so his confessing accomplishes both - punishing her and himself. In the end, she realizes her mistake and even contemplates suicide, but decides to try to make up for it and come back to him. He, however, actually has made some progress by finally being able to let her go and rejects him. She ends up losing in the end and he gains some self respect. At least that is where I think the movie goes.

    A couple of small points that people are making. I am not sure why Puerto Rico was picked. Except maybe to add some irony by injecting an exotic locale. I don't think that choice is necessarily a good one, not necessarily a bad choice either. But it doesn't work well and it may have been the director's choice not to exploit that. Maybe the book got into it deeper. Also, the friendship between Freeman's character and Hackman's obviously took place much earlier in their lives. It appeared to me that they had really be estranged for a long time leading different lives, his in the wealthy, social world, Freeman in the working class world. They knew a little about each other, but not the details. I do think they could have expanded on this a little more for development though.

    Overall, I think this is a very good movie and worth seeing if not for Freeman and especially Hackman's performances. Hackman doesn't often do a movie where he plays a vulnerable character.
  • To tell you the truth, I didn't expect anything out of this movie. I watched it only because top name actors, so my surprise is big in here. We've got all: money, power, love and murders. And a very good movie also. This is not brilliant movie, but it is very watchable. Let me tell you why.

    Stephen Hopkins directed "Under Suspicion" with very low budget, cause Hackman and Freeman were payed little and they are also executive producers. That means that this movie is theirs. They wanted to act in their own way and Hopkins couldn't do nothing about it. It turned out that that is great. Gene Hackman adds another stunning performance in his long career and Morgan Freeman follows him. Hackman had harder role so it is normal that he will be remembered in a context of this movie. Hackman plays a lawyer Henry Hearst, who is called to come to the police station to clear up a few loose ends in his witness report of a murder of young girl. Captain Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman) is asking Henry all sorts of the questions, along with detective Felix Owens (Thomas Jane). That interview is said to be very short cause Henry has to make his speech on a found raising party. There his young wife Chantal (Monica Bellucci) waits for him, just like the creme of San Juan's society.

    As the movie goes on we found out lots of things about Henry Hearst. About his marriage with young and beautiful Chantal, about their problems and about his job. Henry becomes first suspect for murder and raping of two girls because of his little lies in his testimony. Benezet and Owens thinks he is the murderer and they are not alone in that. Chantal also suspects and that's what hurts Henry the most. Their relationship is shown on all levels and that's why characters of Freeman and hostile Jane suffers. But I liked that cause Hackman grab the opportunity to shine. Maybe his role in here could remind you on "Absolute Power", where Hackman plays similar role. But that is his brilliance. This character is so much different then that one, cause he didn't want to repeat himself. I also liked twist at the ending and all the scenes where Hackman or others are telling the story (Freeman always enters in their story, right at the sight). That was great, the atmosphere of interrogation room is good and the whole movie is very underrated. So I advise you to take a look on this movie; at least for Gene Hackman's performance.
  • A film with Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman in the two main roles is a dream come true for anyone who loves the art of acting, and their performances here (especially Hackman's, who after all does have the more showy part) are stunning. Stephen Hopkins' direction is hip, inventive and unstagy (though it must be said that his "a person can physically visit someone else's flashbacks" trick had already been done three years earlier, in "The Ugly"), the dialogue is sharp, and the story is compelling. So what's wrong with this picture? You guessed it...the ending! Simply put, the ending is baffling and unbelievable, no matter how you try to "explain" it. This film closely resembles the 1994 French thriller "A Pure Formality", and the irony is that, although that was a much worse film overall, it had a genuine surprise at the end, while "Under Suspicion" has the kind of "surprise" that makes the whole film come off as one big red herring. (**1/2)
  • neil-47618 April 2011
    Warning: Spoilers
    Great performances do not, of themselves, make a great film. Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman, great actors, deliver fine, nuanced performances, and Tom Jane and Monica Bellucci also do very well in this rather low key thriller which has almost disappeared off the filmographies of all concerned.

    I said, "thriller", but that is part of the problem here. The pursuit of Hackman's attorney as prime suspect in the paedophile murders of young girls in San Juan, and the subsequent discovery of elements of his character and his relationships with Freeman's police chief and Bellucci's trophy wife appear, at first sight, to be the substance of a thriller, and maybe they are. But the film does not conclude as a thriller might be expected to.

    It is strange how much the lack of a satisfactory resolution can have a bearing on one's enjoyment of a film. The last five minutes here left me scratching my head at what had just happened and why. And my inability to accept the conclusion - specifically (spoiler) Hackman's decision to admit the accusation against him - devalued what came before.

    This film did not work for me.
  • Like SE7EN there is weird (albeit appropriate) music. Like SE7EN there is a jumpy, ADD-inflected title sequence. Like SE7EN this film is dark and dreary, a vision of an ill-lit and illicit milieu, raising far more questions than it answers. And Morgan Freeman is playing yet another world-weary detective, swamped by serial killings. There is even a young, hot-headed cop involved, although Thomas Jane (Detective Owens) is certainly no Brad Pitt. He was so grating in his part that I kept wishing he would get off the screen so the two leads could get at it.

    And so they do. If in their last appearance together in UNFORGIVEN Hackman's character was tormenting Freeman's, then it is somehow fitting that here it is the latter's Capt. Victor Benezet who interrogates, berates, persecutes and ultimately breaks down the resistance of Hackman's Henry Hearst, an attorney who verily has a fool for a client. Capt. Benezet may position himself as the 'good' cop in the 'good cop/bad cop' scenarios he sets up with Detective Owens, and later, Detective Castillo (Pablo Cunqueiro); but he is ever questioning, ever probing, ever seeking in his interrogations the heart of this dark matter. He is even insinuated into his witnesses' recollections, through a cool cinematographic trick appearing and asking questions in situ in the midst of the film's flashbacks.

    In spite of interruptions from underlings, superiors, and ultimately Hearst's spouse Chantal (Monica Bellucci in a tight, controlled performance) , over the course of the film one by one the lies and half-truths are stripped away, leaving Hearst with only his moral turpitude and his pitifully sparse self-justifications intact. It is only another interruption from one of Benezet's people that jerks us away from the sleazy, soul-shorn sight. Yet the revelation that follows twists and tears, sending our belief in this story and its implications into a dizzying, perhaps fatal spin.

    In the ending sequence Chantal and Henry Hearst walk towards each other, but somehow do not connect. They end up sitting apart. In a way that relates to the way UNDER SUSPICION acts upon its viewers. Sorry, no neat, happy ending here. Not even a coherent one.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Well, the film is pretty good, it has good acting, excellent direction and very good dialogue. It aims a lot on symbolism and the viewer should observe not only the face of the actor who is talking, but also everything around him/her. Reactions of the other actors as well as the surrounding environment are important in realising what exactly is going on. There's also a lot about the flashback and imagination scenes. Bear in mind that when one of the actors is talking and there's a flashback at the same time, it's not necessarily a memory or the imagination of the talking character, it could be the memories or imagination of the one who listens. Flashbacks are also shown from the point of view of the one having it and are thus, coloured so, therefore they might not be the truth, but they can be just painted in emotion. All this leads us to understand more about the psyche of the people involved in this. Furthermore, the movie is not about the murders, but about relationships. The murders, although the centre of attention, are secondary. The primary thing one should focus is the marriage between Henry (Hackman) and Chantal (Belluci). I liked this very much, because it's not traditional Hollywood but it rather resembles more theatrical plays or dramatic novels. The people involved in this actually did a tremendous job. The film, although copying french film Garde de vue scene by scene, it's quite good (although I haven't seen the original 1981 film). Be warned though, the ending is very confusing and leaves a lot of unanswered questions. I don't usually like this in films to this extent (so that takes a few points off my rating), but I guess the director aimed at making the viewers think a lot about his movie. You shouldn't rush to hear other people's opinions in this and adapt them as your own but instead you should think out the motivation of Henry for doing what he did at the end and draw a conclusion by considering about what he talked throughout the movie.

    ***SPOILER*** If you wish to learn my conclusion on what exactly happened at the end read on, otherwise watch the movie and read it out after you have thought about your own conclusion.

    Henry is feeling very lonely and depressed because of his wife being overjealous of him and thinking of him as some kind of a pervert, as she thought he was flirting with his niece. Henry vents this off by finding refuge in pornography and prostitutes, however he thinks (and I agree) that this does not make him a pervert since he has to vent off someway and instead of going around raping people or hitting his wife, he does this. However, he is ridden with guilt at doing it because he still loves his wife very much and would stop all this if she would just let him near her, not just sexually, but also emotionally. He wants children and his wife does not, both are fertile, but they lie to everyone else around them that they are both impotent and therefore can't have any. It's obvious his wife doesn't want children from the beginning, where Henry says he'd like a pet in the house but his wife denies him that, and from the fact that Henry is "adopting" his sister's-in-law children. Chantal's jealousy though denies him that as well and he is left alone, and that's where he starts venting off at alcohol, porn and prostitutes. The fact that he has prostitutes in dirty places is another indication of his guilt and his lies to the Captain (Freeman) are to cover up his "activities" because he himself is not comfortable about them. This makes Freeman extremely suspicious of him and his suspicions are passing on to Chantal, who already knows that Henry has taken pictures of the murdered girls, before they were murdered, as part of his collection for the culture of the city. Henry, having realised that Chantal has gone beyond suspicion into accusation, he gives up completely of having a functional marriage with her (since she is already accusing him of having "touched" her niece) and goes on to admit the murders, which serves to relief him of his own guilt, and also to give Chantal closure to move on with her life, because like any other man in love, he just wants her to be happy wherever she is. He doesn't care of the repercussions, but only cares about his wife to stop accusing him. When the murderer is found, in the middle of Henry's "confession", Chantal realises this and understands that Henry's speech was aimed at her, and that this man loves her and just wants to have a working family with her and not to touch children, as she thinks he does. She's overwhelmed with guilt and goes on a ledge thinking about suicide while Henry is being released, but decides instead to try and repair their marriage, so she goes back to meet him upon his release. They meet outside the station, but sit on separate benches (to show how far they are from each other) and then Henry leaves, as he feels disappointed at how she accused him of murdering two children. The ending of that is up to the viewer, whether Chantal goes after him and they repair their marriage, or if she stays on the bench and leaves on the opposite direction, and filing for divorce, as she wouldn't bear to look upon him now that she feels guilty about accusing him. Being a feel-good-ending guy, I believe they went ahead to repair their marriage, but again, that's up to each person's interpretation and I think the director/writer wanted to give the audience a lesson of how jealousy can bring forth illusions and fake accusations between two people and finally drive them apart, perhaps so apart that they can't repair their relationship anymore.
  • 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.
  • Only Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman could save this movie. The acting was great. Sorry I just couldn't get into the story, may be because it never left the police station and it was so slow, and the end was WHAT?
  • Most of this dialogue-intensive film takes place in an office in a Puerto Rican Police Department with a top detective (Freeman) grilling a wealthy attorney (Hackman) about the rape/murders of young girls. Featuring outstanding performances by both principals and technical and artistic excellence, the film's story unfolds piecemeal as it scrutinizes the Hackman character with painful deliberation while holding out the "whodunnit" carrot until the very end. More mature audiences with an appetite for this type of film are likely to find "Under Suspicion" a spellbinding tour de force by Hackman.
  • The movie is almost entirely based on the verbal exchange between the two outstanding lead actors: Freeman and Hackman. Freeman plays an investigation officer, Victor who has invited wealthy tax attorney Henry (Hackman) for clearing up some doubts about his testimony about two brutal murders, in which he is also a suspect. Thanks to the dramatic screenplay and director Hopkins's interesting style of showing flashbacks, the movie builds the tension right from the beginning. The story also explores the complex relationship between Henry and his attractive young wife Chantal, played nicely by Monica Bellucci.

    To tell the truth, the whole interrogation procedure is made just magnificently enjoyable by the writer and performance of the actors. There's no point in comparison, but it must be said that Hackman's got the more complex and versatile role and he explored every bit of it with extreme passion. Apart from the two, same can be said about Bellucci. Some may complain that she should have expressed more emotion, I don't think so. The character herself is cold. And she captures that nicely. Thomas Jane played the 'young bad cop' role rather two-dimensionally. His character could be an interesting side point for the film but it doesn't seem so with him. Another question of mine: Why is the film set in Puerto Rico? None of the lead characters are from there. The story doesn't feature the country exclusively, so why?

    But all these speculations and remarks fail when you end the movie like that. Yes, we understand why it was necessary. But it could have been shown more slowly, the truth could get the time to grow. In this case, the ending is utterly average and seemed like the filmmakers were suddenly in a rush to end the film. And that ruined everything the film was building upon so far.
  • In short:

    I enjoyed the body of this movie. The plot was interesting, though slightly riddled with clichés, the characters were well developed, and the acting was great. The problem I had with UNDER SUSPICION was the unexplained ending.

    Without spoiling the movie, I can safely say that the ending (if I interpreted it right, and I wasn't alone) is impossible based on the facts the movie gives you. The chances that this story could end the way it did plausibly are one in a million.

    Too bad, I was really looking forward to the conclusion of this otherwise good renter.
  • 'Under Suspicion,' a remake of the French film 'Garde a Vue,' is as compelling and engrossing a psychological thriller as I've seen in years. The drama is wonderfully tense and taut, and, best of all, the suspense holds out until near the very end of the film, lingering on afterward for hours in the viewer's mind.

    Gene Hackman plays Henry Hearst, a successful attorney in San Juan, Puerto Rico who lives an apparently blissful life of luxury--he's got money, respect, a gorgeous house on the coast, and, most of all, a stunningly beautiful young trophy wife, Chantal (Monica Belluci, the voluptuous heir-apparent to Sophia Loren, in one of her first US roles).

    On the eve of the feast of St. Sebastian, during which Hearst is set to deliver an address at a fundraiser for hurricane relief, he is called in to the police department by his longtime acquaintance Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman) for additional questioning surrounding the death of a young girl. It seems that earlier that day, Hearst discovered the girl's body while jogging. It doesn't take long to discover that Hearst is a suspect, particularly when he is repeatedly threatened and insulted by the tactless Owens (Thomas Jane), a loose-cannon junior detective hot to make his first big bust. As the interrogation progresses--interspersed with stylish flashbacks combing memory and real-time--it becomes apparent that the case is far more complicated than it first appeared. It seems that the imminently respectable Henry Hearst has a fetish for young girls and a secret life involving internet pornography and prostitutes. Simultaneously revealed is Captain Benezet's longstanding jealousy of Hearst, whom he has watched gain wealth and prestige while Benezet has lost his wife to divorce and struggled to get by. As the intense intellectual combat continues, truth becomes more and more murky, to the point that the characters are not even sure of their own motives or actions.

    This movie really stuck with me. Without giving anything away, let me say that the film will force you to consider the complexity of truth and memory and the degree to which psychological trauma and coercion can influence what we know about ourselves. Hackman and Freeman are superb, and it's a pleasure to watch them stretching their skills and chewing up the excellent dialogue as their characters confront each other. Thomas Jane gives one of his better performances as the hot-tempered Owens, and Monica Belluci gives a subtle and convincing performance while simultaneously being so unbelievably gorgeous that you can't take your eyes off of her. The direction by Stephen Hopkins is superb--creepy and stylish, the cinemetography makes maximum use of San Juan's many settings.

    For some reason this one really flew below the radar when it was released. I highly recommend it as an excellent, memorable suspense thriller with meaning and substance.
  • This is a tremendous crime drama starring two top notch actors. Police Captain Benezet(Morgan Freeman)is investigating the brutal rape/murder of two young girls. The key suspect is high dollar, high profile attorney Henry Hearst(Gene Hackman). Thomas Jane plays the investigative detective and the drop dead gorgeous Monica Bellucci plays the lawyers wife. Interesting subplot explains the cause of the terrible situation at hand. Hackman and Freeman dominate the screen and also serve as the movie's executive producers.
  • It would quite happily pay to watch Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman read an instruction manual for a food blender . These are two of the most watchable actors of their time and and it's only because they are the stars of Under Suspicion that it is anyway enjoyable because the storyline is one of the most frustrating I've seen in a long time .

    A lawyer is asked to come to the police station to clear up a few loose ends in his witness report of a foul murder. This will only take ten minutes, they say, but it turns out to be one loose end after another, and the ten minutes he is away from his speech become longer and longer...

    I can totally see why this film annoyed many people when it came out . The ending is so abrupt and unsatisfactory you can't help but feel cheated but the interaction and dialogue between the main two characters is so good , i had to forgive it.

    This is a film about how desires in elder men don't change when they get older . The discussion about how men still have the feelings for young women is a brave and honest one and one that very rarely gets spoken about . It's also broaches how even the most influential people can end up admitting to doing something they haven't , if put under extreme pressure.

    I liked this despite the rushed ending .
  • While not ripe with action, and in fact, lacking really any kind of action in the typical sense, this movie might seem like a snooze fest. Contrarily, I was invested early on despite going into it with low expectations. That said, I'm a big fan of the key players: Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, Thomas Jane, and Monica Bellucci. Not a single one of them disappoints, although they all have their own levels of intensity throughout. Hackman definitely was the star here, and also the questionable antagonist, but I'll leave that to the viewer to decide. The ending will either displease or excite certain people, and if it does the latter it won't be in a typical fashion. Overall the movie felt quite out of the ordinary for this kind of mystery flick, and while not a popcorn-shoveling thriller, its merits are many. In particular, the script and its execution by Hackman and co, as well as the cinematographic subtleties.
  • An interesting concept of the film, I liked the idea and the direction it went. A good cast, Freeman reminded me of his role from the movie Seven, Hackman did an outstanding job, and Bellucci also did his part well. The mystery and tension of a heinous crime overwhelms you while watching a movie as you try to figure out what exactly happened. For me personally, the film was very good until the end because of the way it ends and everything is revealed. I was not happy with that either by the explanation or the ending of the film. I have the impression that the film would have been much better only if there had been a stronger and better name in the position of director.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Okay, I commented on this movie once a few days ago, encouraging viewers to go and watch it and not try to learn too much before seeing it, so as not to tarnish their perceptions. So many are troubled by the ending and don't understand. No doubt, it makes you think and doesn't hand over instant satisfaction or relief from the conflict. Does life always. Well, here's the importance and brilliance of the ending. Henry is like many of us. Little parts of our lives taken out of context or thrown into the wrong context could leave us having to "explain." More than one part, public embarrassment, a mixture of betrayal and enough suspicion could put you in Henry's shoes. To highlight. The dog. The dog ran with him like most times. But he didn't meet the dog like usual, rather the dog met him on the trail. Even Henry first recalled it happened like always until he really remembered it hadn't. But the dog was there and the dog found the girl. The dog's owner says otherwise. Camille. Nothing really happened with Camille. But now, like the dog, it looks suspicious to investigators. His wife always thought so and made it part of Henry's nightly problem before this ever surfaced. Something so familiar to him, he blurted out a denial before his wife ever brought it to investigator's attention. Now they make it their business to discover all they can about this from her, and get her side naturally. Henry visited websites, innocently like many of us, but now the police see the pornsites he looked at while he believed things were private and now he must explain. He is a prolific photographer. As photographer's always do - he shot many rolls of indiscriminate film and not surprising (by itself) captured some of the victims at some point. The victims were public people (which is part of why they became victims) and Henry had an abundance of pictures related to these scenes around him. All this suspicion and pressure, and his wife and the "lengths she went to" as Henry said, when learning she dug through his darkroom and discovered photos he didn't even realize he owned. Then she gave them to the police. He stands as the only one saying aside from all this, he didn't do the murders. He looks at the mirror and tells his wife to "come in here and face me." Given all his thoughts and feelings, even he decides to go along with everyone. He gives up. Doesn't care. He's the last one to join the parade. It all played out and he tosses his hand. Begins his false confession which is fueled by facts he learned from listening to the interrogators over the last few hours. (He never suspected his wife did the murders as some have said). Then an undisputable circumstance rears it's head and suddenly everyone pulls the weight of suspicion away from Henry. For the first time they are on his side. He's "free" but really far worse off than he ever was because of all the things he realized about his life. He's has to accept who and where he is, whether deserved or undeserved. As viewer's we became an integral part of directing suspicion towards Henry, we too began thinking and agreeing about his guilt. We too, wanted to find the shred of evidence that made him "100% guilty." It isn't there, nor was it ever - just like Henry said. The character's in the film are deflated, confused and unhappy with the ending - just like you are!!
  • I watched it because Freeman and Hackman were both in it. They did not disappoint. I didn't like the interrogation too much because I kept thinking why would a predominate attorney allow himself to be questioned like that. Certainly a real attorney would know his rights against self incrimination. It was the twist at the very end that re-framed the whole film and took it into a totally different direction I was not expecting. Then it made sense why Hackman allowed himself to be interrogated. Funny how the last few minutes of the film changed my opinion about the film and made me like it.
  • jeremy.bell7 February 2001
    Warning: Spoilers
    *** BIGTIME SPOILER***

    If you haven't seen this movie yet, please don't read on.

    This facts of this movie do not add up. There are too many coincidences for this to be possible. Sure I can buy the theory that someone can confess to crimes they haven't actually committed if they are under extreme pressure, etc. but let's look at the facts here:

    Coincidence #1: Gene Hackman's character happened to be in the same area of Puerto Rico the night the first girl was murdered.

    Coincidence #2: Gene Hackman's character knows the first girl who was murdered, as proven by the fact that he had pictures of her.

    Coincidence #3: Gene Hackman's character knows the second girl who was murdered, as proven by the fact that he had pictures of her as well.

    Coincidence #4: Gene Hackman's character happened to find the second girl who was murdered.

    The odds of all four of these things happening have to be somewhere around 10 million to one. It is just so incredibly unlikely that he knew BOTH murdered girls, was in the SAME town that the first one was killed on the SAME night, and that he found the body of the second girl whom he also knew. I just don't buy it. If his wife had somehow set him up, that might make more sense. If the young detective had somehow set him up, that might make sense as well. If both of them had conspired together, that might also make sense. The movie as it was is impossible and unbelievable, and should have never been released. It is a shame too because Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman are both brilliant actors, they just had the bad fortune of executive producing a terrible movie.

    If you can somehow give me a reasonable explanation of how these coincidental events actually happened I am all ears. I highly doubt it, though.
  • Ignore the grumbling about camera work, inexplicable location, Thomas Jane, and some peculiar directorial choices. See this movie for Hackman - I'm hard pressed to think of a more fully realized performance on film. He's just extraordinary.
  • view_and_review27 October 2021
    "Under Suspicion" is a 110 minute interrogation. Henry Hearst (Gene Hackman), a wealthy tax attorney with a Puerto Rican trophy wife, is under investigation for the rape and murder of a little girl. The investigator, Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman), told Henry that he needed a mere ten minutes of his time to go over some of the holes in his story. Ten minutes turned into a few hours as the holes went from small to gargantuan.

    All signs were pointing towards Henry, a sixty-plus-year-old man, as being a child predator. But if things were that cut and dried, why have a movie about an interminable interrogation? They needed him to confess because the evidence wasn't quite strong enough.

    I thought the movie was alright. I couldn't help but thinking, "There's going to be a twist." That's the only thing that would've made sense, otherwise the movie was too neat and pre-packaged. If Henry was the murderer, and they had him dead to rights, all we're watching is the slow march to the inevitable, and where's the fun in that? I won't say whether there was a twist or not, I'll just say that the ending didn't impress me much at all.
  • Like its French inspiration, "Garde a Vue," Stephen Hopkins' film attempts to follow the tack of a psychological thriller but fails. It might have taken the path of a pure who-dunnit except that it is far too slow, caught up within its self imposed venue and contains entirely too much trivial talk.

    I'll mention, for purposes to be addressed later, that the he film is an adaptation of the English novel "Brainwash," by John Wainwright, but unlike every novel's predisposition, this film makes no attempt to 'set up' the characters so the audience might witness their methodical exposure. Freeman and Hackman are intermittently engrossing during the very long 101 minutes it takes to reach the end - and it is ever the ending the writer has in mind. The rest of the story is a setup for the ending, so, if the story isn't spun out adroitly, the ending becomes pointless and you've wasted 2 hours and seven bucks.

    Hackman and Freeman certainly have the chops to work in a more tightly wound presentation, but their characters need more meat on their bones so the audience even cares that one or the other's flesh is being stripped away in front of our eyes. We're never given the opportunity to meet these protagonists, form any opinions or understand either characters essential facade, so, in the end we just don't care what happens to either of them.

    I am tempted, after watching this film, to go read the book. Like the optimistic child who dives into a mound of horse manure declaring "there must be a pony in here somewhere," I'm tempted to believe that this mound of bs must have once been a good yarn.
An error has occured. Please try again.