ThedevilChoose
When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.
Nayan Gough
A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.
thomaspkanell
I watched this movie and I was totally befuddled by the ending. What is the relationship between Hackman's character and Belucci's? They knew each other when Chantal was very young and then they married later, but at a later point they stop conjugal relations and have no children. Even when they no longer conjugate, however, Chantal still allows her husband to kiss her and zip up her dress and to appear in public together; maybe it's not much, but it seems to contraindicate that Chantal "sets up" her husband.During the interrogation, Chantal spits in disgust at her husband's admissions that he likes young women. Again, this indicates that it is a spontaneous reaction to the her husband's admissions and it is not a premeditated set-up of her husband.Apparently, Chantal stops sleeping with her husband when she finds him spending intimate (but not physical) time with her niece. Maybe she despises his attraction to young girls and she won't compete for her husband's affections.If Chantal has a problem with her husband's behavior, it could indicate that she might possibly be a murderess who wants to eliminate her competition because of jealousy and anger. This is the only reason I see for Hackman's character to confess to a murder he didn't commit -- to save his wife from prosecution. He never "cracks" prior to this!When the real murderer is caught, Chantal realizes how much her husband really loves her that he was willing to take the fall for her. When she contemplates suicide, it might be on account of the pain she caused him, but she decides it is better to respond to his love. Hackman's character leaves the police station as a free man, but avoids his wife. Why would he avoid her? It is true she allowed police to search the house, but with the mountain of circumstantial evidence against him, it seemed necessary and reasonable to do this. On the other hand, she didn't back up her husband when he needed it most, (although a search warrant would have rendered her decision moot.)Maybe both characters are flawed, Hackman's with his obsession for young girls and being unfaithful (caused by his wife's rejection of him physically?), and Chantal with her jealousy and rejection of her husband. If so, this movie seems to depict how difficult it is for two people to stay the course and to love each other without reservation (especially when there is a 25-30 year difference in ages between the wedded!) The only thing I can think of is that Chantal's husband realized that a woman who would shun her husband while being married isn't really in love with her husband, no matter how much she is loved first. Maybe Chantal is getting older and her husband no longer finds her attractive? Maybe the original marriage was based on the age difference and after he made the ultimate sacrifice for his wife, he found out she wasn't really worth it?The ending seems to evoke despair over the possibility of love's triumph, even while one makes the ultimate sacrifice for it? Lastly, I thought Thomas Jane's character was called "Opie," not "O.B." referring to Andy Griffith's TV son in Mayberry, as a sort of snide reference to the detective's unsophisticated, clumsy, yokel kind of way of doing his job.
Progressive-Element
Under Suspicion centres almost entirely on an interrogation with a prominent American lawyer in Puerto Rico, who is key suspect in rape-murders of two young girls.Morgan Freeman as the cop, and Gene Hackman as the lawyer, are the sole reason to watch this, as they provide plenty of sparks as they play off each other, Freeman gradually breaking Hackman down.Too often though, it's as if the director has no confidence in his audience, and frequently turns to arty-farty sequences that become increasingly irritating.The ending will infuriate many.
Galina
Under Suspicion (2000) is a re-make of a French film Garde à vue (1981) directed by Claude Miller and starring Romy Schneider, Michel Serrault, Lino Ventura and Guy Marchand. It was based on the British novel Brainwash, by John Wainwright. I did not see the French film simply because I can't find it but I've seen Under Suspicion more than once and enjoy it every time even though I know how it ends.As a thriller/mystery/crime investigation, Under Suspicion (2000) teases a viewer and more likely would leave a fan of the pure genre disappointed but as a psychological character study which uses the mystery and serial murders investigation as a device to explore the darkest places of human desires and relationships, it is very good. Besides, watching for almost two hours the duel of wills, intellects, and despairs between noble as always Morgan Freeman and exceptional Gene Hackman is a treat. The director's approach to narrative that allows the viewer to be placed along with Victor (Freeman) inside the flashbacks of Hackman's character, Hector, is interesting, unusual, and fresh, and adds to an uneasy and dark atmosphere of the forbidden and deeply hidden desires and fantasies. As great as they both are, for many years after I saw the film for the first time, it was the striking beauty of then relatively little known to the American viewers, Italian Monica Belucci that I remembered vividly. The film director, Stephen Hopkins wanted to cast Monica Bellucci after watching Malèna (2000) while on an overseas flight. I am glad he did. She did not get lost next to her celebrated partners in the film. I also think that moving the action to San Juan, Puerto Rico during the San Sebastian Street Festival that is celebrated every third week in January was a good idea. The carnival atmosphere of music, vibrant colors, and grotesque masks strikes the dramatic contrast with the harrowing devastating experience the main characters of the movie go through and the place in life they find themselves after the investigation is over. Will they ever forget?
Bangell153
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.
