Customer Reviews

Under Suspicion

5 star:		(22)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(21)
2 star:		(10)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

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.

There are certain films that are so quiet and intense that they demand to be watched in the middle of night. After the hustle and activity of the day is finished this intense crime thriller starring Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman can be enjoyed. Hackman plays a wealthy Puerto Rico lawyer who is questioned by old friend Freeman about a corpse that he discovered. As Hackman's story changes, Freeman probes deeper and deeper into Hackman's private life trying to discover whether or not his friend is a murderer.

This movie grabs the viewer from the opening titles and takes you breathlessly through the story without graphic violence and only slight sexuality. It does so on the sheer power of the performances and the story.

This is a complex thriller that is truly in the Hitchcock tradition.

Puerto Rico is the unlikely setting for UNDER SUSPICION, a who-done-it that's essentially a stage spotlighted for two of America's finest actors, Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman. The latter plays a police captain, Victor Benezet, investigating the recent rape and murder of two young girls. Hackman plays lawyer Henry Hearst, Victor's erstwhile friend, and now the prime suspect. This film features less of Hollywood's usual recipe of thrills, and focuses more on the personalities of the two principals as they verbally spar back and forth as Benezet attempts to close the case. Thomas Jane plays a young homicide detective who'd rather beat a confession out of Hearst than obtain one through the finesse of interrogation. The magnificently sensual actress, Monica Bellucci, plays Hearst's much younger wife Chantal, icily unavailable to his physical affections after deciding that he was having an affair with her teenage niece. Or was he?

The duel begins when Benezet requests that Hearst stop by the police station to answer a few minor questions. After all, it'll only take ten minutes or so, and Hearst will not be delayed attending a charity fund-raising dinner across the street, at which he is to give the main toast at the behest of Benezet's boss, the police Superintendent. Talk about pressure to get on with it.

Initially, the plot seems nothing more than a revamped COLUMBO script, as a weary police officer tries to winkle a confession out of a canny adversary. But, it's more than that, even beyond watching these two old pros, Hackman and Freeman, display their acting skills. As Hearst recounts his alibis, which are portrayed to the viewer as flashbacks, the director inserts the Benezet character into those scenes, as if he were physically present, allowing him to ask more questions of Hearst as his alibi unfolds. This is an ingeniously clever effect that I've not seen in any film previous. And then there's the stunning beauty of Bellucci as she plays Hearst's Ice Queen. Wow! (Yeah, I know, mine is a guy fascination, just like in Monica's splendid Y2K film MALENA.)

The ending is totally unexpected. ("Huh? Say, what!"). And, profoundly sad, if one considers the ties that continue to bind in a love relationship gone sour.

Why isn't `Under Suspicion' hailed as one of the greatest films ever made? Probably because most people like me never heard of it until we saw it. That's why I'm so shocked to see so many people here on Amazon only rating it as `OK'.

From beginning to end I couldn't look away. `Under Suspicion' is the type film that I classify as "PERFECT", the screenplay, the acting, and EVERY aspect of the production quality is as good as film making gets.

The production quality grabs you by the eyes and doesn't let go from beginning to end. This keeps you enthralled so no matter what is happening in the plot the movie keeps a steady fast pace.

The plot: As you've discerned from Amazon, this is a physiological murder mystery thriller in REAL TIME. The entire film takes place on New Year's Eve in Puerto Rico. Gene Hackman is a fat cat lawyer living and partying with other fat cat American lawyers in mansions in Puerto Rico. On his way to a New Year's party he is asked by police detective and friend, Morgan Freeman to, "Drop by the station and answer a few questions." But it becomes very obvious right away that Hackman is a murder suspect in a series of recent pedophile murders. Hackman is grilled mercilessly by Freeman and his partner young bad ass partner Thomas Jane. Hackman denies everything and fights back this his own psychoanalysis.

Having seen so many great performances by Hackman and Freeman I thought I'd seen it all. These actors couldn't offer anything new? Boy was I pleasantly proven wrong! Hackman and Freeman are really set free and unleash the best performances of their careers.

The story progresses all in real time in the same setting for two hours. Don't worry, you won't be bored. Freeman attempts to break down Hackman by putting his life on trial. He sees cheap prostitutes, and orders exotic porn online, and he met his trophy wife, Monica Bellucci, when she was only 11 years old!

Freeman also focuses his sights on Bellucci hoping to turn her against Hackman. The battle of wits there is just as intense as it is with Hackman.

Hackman's actual guilt is left up in the air until literally the last minute of the film and is very meaningful.

Don't be worried by all these naysayers on Amazon. If you enjoy great film making you'll love this movie.

From the way its distributor, Lions Gate, yanked it out of theaters after just a handful of play dates, you'd think Under Suspicion was a disaster. Perhaps from a marketing standpoint, it was. To people who love movies, though, anything starring Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman is worth a look-see, and Under Suspicion, while marred by a few slow spots and a rather weak ending, is no disaster. I can assure you that sparks fly when Hackman and Freeman are on screen together.

The setting is present day San Juan, Puerto Rico. Police Captain Victor Benezet [Freeman] is investigating the murders of two young girls. A big problem is that the finger of suspicion points at Henry Hearst [Hackman], who is not only one of the island's most respected citizens, but also an old friend of Benezet's. On the night of a big charity event at which Hearst is the guest of honor, Benezet calls him in for a short question and answer session before the event. The interview turns into a lengthy one in which Hearst's life unravels before his eyes. The plot line concerns two things. The first is whether or not Hearst is guilty. The other is an examination of how brutal an investigation into one's private life can be. With today's high tech police technique's, even the innocent can become the guilty because of other things the process can reveal.

Even though this is not their finest movie, Freeman and Hackman are at their finest. They are the type of actors who do not give a bad performance, regardless of the strengths or weaknesses of the script. Each has always been smart enough to combine a good work ethic with his genius. Also noteworthy is Thomas Jane as Detective Owens, although he is handicapped by having to play a very stereotypical character, the type you are all too happy to see leave the scene. Monica Bellucci, who plays Hearst's much younger wife, is a major star in her native Italy. Her role requires little more of her than standing around looking exquisitely beautiful, which she does extremely well.

I think Under Suspicion is most appealing to those who enjoy a good play. While director Stephen Hopkins does take some advantage of the glorious Puerto Rico scenery, much of the movie takes place in two rooms of the police station. This gives it a stagy feel, which some people do not at all enjoy.

Wow, what a great film. Produced by Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman this remake of "Garde A Vue" (and based on the book Brainwash) was totally captivating. Henry Hearst (Gene Hackman) is asked by friend Captain Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman)to stop by the station and answer a few questions. The day before Henry discovered a body of a young girl and a few details needed to be sorted out. But what starts as a conversation turns into a long interigation where Henry becomes suspect and a hidden past is revealled.

I love the way this movie was shot. The director Stephen Hopkins(Lost In Space)used an unusual way of showing the interogation where the crime scene was reinacted while Henry described it. Gene Hackman deserves an award nomination for his performance in this film. Its not often he is cast as this type of character. In the begining of the film it looked like the usuall Hackman but his character turned from a strong willed person to weak, frail and scared, and he did it perfectly.

The dvd has both wide and full screen options, Stephen Hopkins and Morgan Freeman commentary, making-of featurette and theatrical trailer. I hear alot of people confused about the ending, if you don't understand it listen to the commentary and they will explain it.

The heavyweight casting of "Under Suspicion" might be so impressive that it ultimately hurts the film. Certainly the idea of having Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman in a room going after each other in a lengthy police interrogation is going to be worth the watching, but given who the principles are director Stephen Hopkins may be stacking the deck too much in terms of how we resolve the film's ambiguities. After all, we fully expect Freeman to be playing a good cop and you can never really look at any character Hackman is playing without wondering what he is really up to. The tag line for this film only serves to emphasize this idea: "Everyone has secrests. Some of them are crimes."

This 2000 drama is a remake, after the peculiar manner of such things, of the 1981 French film "Garde à vue." This time the setting is in San Juan, Puerto Rico, which allows the film to have an exotic element while retaining the rules of American jurisprudence. During the celebration of San Sebastian's Feast police captain Victor Benezet (Freeman) asks prominent attorney Henry Hearst (Hackman) to come in and answer a few questions about the statement he gave about finding the body of a murdered girl. This is the second such murder in the last couple of weeks and the police are trying to capture what they fear is a serial killer. But as Hearst answers Benezet's questions more and more holes appear in his story, which raises even more questions about not only what the lawyer was doing when he discovered the body, but what other things he has been up to in recent weeks.

Clearly we are to think that Hearst is guilty, but from the start we have the feeling that there is more that is going on here than meets the eye. But the more Benezet uncovers Hearst's questionable interesting in "young" women and his troubled marriage with the beautiful Chantal (Monica Bellucci), the more we become convinced that there is something missing, some key piece to the puzzle that we do not yet understand. Herding us in this direction are the frequent pronouncements by Det. Felix Owens (Thomas Jane), who is investigating the murders, that Hearst in absolutely guilty. This guy in trying to drive the nails into the coffin way too soon and even sabotages the interrogation in his eagerness to get to the part when Hearst gets executed for his crimes.

The fact that this is a criminal investigation obscures that what we have here is a psychological drama. Benezet believes that he can find the truth by unraveling the layers of lies and obfuscations that Hearst has created about his life and personal habits. Step by step the interrogation strips away not only Hearst's secrets but his toupee as well. To get Hearst to crack Benezet brings Chantal Hearst into the process, hoping that she will allow them to search the house and asking her questions that illuminate more lies in what her husband has been telling the police.

Part of the attraction here is that Hearst fights back. He knows that Benezet has recently been divorced and is able to put together some telling guesses about the glass house in which the captain is living. Hearst knows how the game is played and is sharp enough to know when the police are overplaying their hand. He is a respected member of the community, supposedly giving them ten minutes of his time on his way to give a speech at a fundraiser, and he knows that bringing him down could make the careers of Benezet and Owens. But the main strength of the paper is that whatever the shortcomings of the script Hackman and Freeman make you pay attention. I would have loved to have seen them do this as a stage play, without the Hopkins constantly showing us in flashbacks what the two men are talking about, and letting these two heavyweights carry the entire thing.

In the end, what you think about "Under Suspicion" comes down to whether or not you buy the ending. I can see how many viewers would have problems catching and understanding the "why" for what happens. I picked it up the first time simply because I was paying more attention to a look in the eyes more than what was being said at the crucial moment. Be fully prepared to watch this film twice, so that you can reassure yourself that what happens at the end comes both logically and emotionally from all that comes before it. I think you will be able to see how it makes sense, although you might not appreciate that the came comes to an end with a quiet surprise rather than a big shock.

yes the movie is absolutely thrilling, yes the acting is captivating and yes the production is brilliant. in reading others' reviews, it seems the question that irritates all is who is the killer. was it gene hackman? did he have something to do with it? this is not essential to the story. the movie is based on the book Brainwash by john wainwright. only from the title of the book, i am assuming the important point of the movie is the fact that the police can twist things around to get to what they want. the killer is not important, and while it drives us all crazy not knowing, it's not important. by revealing the killer, the focus is brought to the crime, which is not the theme held throughout the movie. watch the movie a second time, paying attention to both this and to the actions of the detective played by Thomas Jane.

Morgan Freeman is one of my favorite actors. Gene Hackman ranks right up there as well. That is why I watched the movie; that has something to do with why I enjoyed it because frankly I can't see someone like Arnold or Bruce playing either of the characters in this movie. But there's more to it than enjoying two actors I respect perform at their best.

It is obvious before this movie is too far underway that both these men are superb at what they do. There isn't a lot of action, so if you like car chases and bombs exploding, this one isn't what you're looking for. I enjoyed watching Freeman and Hackman verbally duke it out with the control moving back and forth between the two men through to the end. Just when I thought I knew what the truth was, the tables were turned and I was back to square one. I like books and movies that incorporate psychological undercurrents, and who doesn't like seeing the great and powerful brought down a peg or two? I wasn't prepared, however, for the extent to which this movie explored the fact that nothing is ever what it appears to be.

I would not recommend this movie to all my friends because some of them just don't have the patience to stick with this story. But for those who appreciate this kind of developing story built upon with insightful revelations that change the way in which the characters are viewed, I highly recommend it.

Attorney Henry Hearst (Gene Hackman) has dream life--a gorgeous trophy wife Chantal (Monica Bellucci), a mansion on paradisical San Juan Island. partnership in his firm. Then he discovers the body of a little girl and reports it to the police--as any good citizen should.

Captain Victor Benezet (Freeman) is a hard-working police captain who investigates the first death and discovers more. He calls Henry to the station on the night of a prestigious charity event for questioning along with his subordinate Detective Owens (Thomas Jane).

The problem comes when Hearst's story doesn't quite stack up. On the night of a benefit ball where Hearst is supposed to speak, Benezet calls him in for questioning.

Benezet is under a lot of pressure. Hearst is a powerful man on the island and a friend of his boss. Plus, he's the keynote speaker at the fundraiser--and the island needs the money. Hurricane Lucy has just ripped through and despite the party atmosphere, they have a cholera outbreak, open pits for sewers and the other plagues a storm leaves behind.

The questioning is rough, revealing omissions in Henry's story, plus his life isn't quite as much of a dream as we'd once believe. We see the story unfold through testimony, flashbacks, and current happenings. Henry and his wife sleep in separate bedrooms--regarding the alibis: "We don't ask those kind of questions anymore..." Henry regularly visits young prostitutes, because: "Someone opposite Chantal. A prostitute will give you a great deal for a little bit of money..." Henry has a fondness for young children--he 'raised' Chantal to be the woman of his dreams...

But--did he do the crime or didn't he? I was almost on the edge of my seat wondering through the whole film. Both Hackman and Freeman give stellar performances and the story is fascinating, but I think I could have done with about 20 minutes less film somewhere.

If you're a fan of intense, interpersonal drama, this film's one for you. You see lives laid bare under the white lights of an interrogation room. "Under Suspicion" definitely opened my eyes about police questioning.

Rebecca Kyle, May 2008