Under Suspicion | | Cast : | Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman | | Director : | Stephen Hopkins | | Studio : | Columbia Tri-Star | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen, Dolby | | Released Date : | January 01, 2000 | | DVD Released Date : | January 02, 2001 | | Language : | Unknown (Dubbed), English (Dubbed), French (Subtitled), English (Subtitled), English (Original Language), Spanish (Original Language), French (Original Language), Thai (Subtitled), Chinese (Subtitled), Korean (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | March 17, 2005 | | Summary | AND THE VERDICT IS.... | Content
 | UNDER SUSPICION is definitely worth seeing to bask in the acting talent of Oscar winners Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman. Freeman is once again the good cop, but even he has some skeletons in his closet that Hackman is not afraid to expose. Hackman, meanwhile, exemplifies the socially prominent tax lawyer whose penchant for young women gets him in a lot of trouble. Monica Bellucci is delicious to look at, and has the chops to sustain her role; Thomas Jane adds some gruffness to his somewhat egotistical detective. I found director Stephen Hopkins' "gimmick" of juxtaposing the interrogation with the actual flashbacks a unique and entertaining change of pace; it kept us confused as to whose story to believe. Unfortunately, there are so many contradictions and unanswered questions the movie ultimately fails to satisfy. Coincidences....false confessions...and a surprise murderer only make the movie come across muddled. However, the sharp performances and Hopkins' artful direction held my interest nicely. |
| Rating | | | Date | January 18, 2005 | | Summary | Phewww....Awful! | Content
| I see that Freeman & Hackman are executive producers on this stinker.
Just reaffirms, I guess, that actors are not the best judges of good
material for themselves. The truth in spades in this case.
I think, as I'm sure millions do, that Freeman & Hackman are the very
best around, but I've never seen them work with such stiff, stilted
pathetically sensationalistic material. On top of which Hackman is
terribly miscast & comes off shrill & artificial in a part that would
have been a natural for someone like Ben Kingsley.
Why oh why didn't they just take the moolah they raised for this turkey
& give it to Kenneth Branagh to direct them in a dream version of
Othello? |
| Rating | | | Date | January 01, 2005 | | Summary | What suspicion does to a person... | Content
| Well acted. The ending is no surprise if you can grasp what Hackman's character had gone and was going through. |
| Rating | | | Date | December 24, 2004 | | Summary | Murder in Puerto Rico | Content
| "Under Suspicion" stars Morgan Freeman as a Puerto Rico police captian and Gene Hackman as a tax lawyer. The police suspect the lawyer is responsable for the murder of two young girls. The interrogation is the focus of the movie, but the film also goes back and forth through flash backs, via Hackman's alibis. There are a lot of themes going through this film; resentment by the middle class (as represented by the policemen) of the wealthier classes (the lawyer, obviously), the jealousy of a wife, and what happens when rich men gets bored. Freeman and Hackman are masters of the acting craft, and watching them square off against each other is what most people who watch this movie are wanting to see; and the two pros do not disappoint. All of their scenes are full of suspence and conflict, even when they are just darting their eyes back and forth. The only other stars of mention are Thomas Jane as a police man under Freeman who uses physical menace as a means of interrogation, and is the more intellegent Freeman's counterpart. But he still dose a good job. And of course there is Monica Bellucci. She plays Hackman's trophey wife, who knows a lot more and less about her husband than she realizes. She plays the part coldly, with an air of distance, and suprisingly that works. The only thing I did not like about the movie was this <SPOILERS AHEAD>: if Hackman was innocent of the crimes, why did he confess to them? I still can not figure that one out. Otherwise this is a first class crime drama with two top actors doing what they do best. |
| Rating | | | Date | December 06, 2004 | | Summary | Taking Responsibility for your Accusations | Content
| In this movie, we clearly see how Gene Hackman, who has it all in every sense of the word, has his life basically brought to a head for him. Hackmans character has been charged with the murder of two girls, and certainly it is plausible that he is guilty. The inconsistencies in his story, his troubled relationship with his wife (who was herself a young girl when he met her), and his penchant for photography as well as whores, get him into a great deal of trouble and simply add to the suspicions.
The power of the tale does not lie in the fact that there is a straw man. Hackman's credibility does deserve to be questioned, for he is truly a troubled individual and his many peccadilloes deserve an explanation. At the same time, the accusing officer, Morgan Freeman, has good reasons to doubt Hackman, but as the movie progresses we also see that part of Freemans motivations stem from his own personal insecurities, particularly vis-a-vis Hackman himself (access to wealth and power, among other things).
No, the film is taut and well-constructed, but it teaches us an important lesson: acussations should be dealt with directly. If anything, the power of the film lies in that because Hackmans character was directly interceded to answer for his supposed malfeasance, we are able to see not only his defense, but also his gradual acceptance of the accusers version of the facts. However, we see in the end his true motivation for many of his, albeit, very suspicious actions: love for his wife, who it appears does not love him back or has become so consumed by jealousy (perhaps) among other problems of her own, that she is unable to see his love for what it is.
Hackman's acquittal in the end does not come without a heavy price for him, and not just because his reputation has been tarnished. He does, to some extent, deserve the mistrust and scrutiny to which he was subjected, for he was not without fault. Moreover, had things not come to a head at that particular juncture, it is not clear where Hackman's life would have gone: it is not implausible to think that he could have eventually done the things he was accused of.
However, the accusers motivations remain unclear, and the sense of love that motivates him is so strong that, at least for the final moment in the film, it is they who are diminished, and he fearful to watch in righteous anger.
In my opinion, at the very least, the directness with which he was confronted does credit to the accusers, for they at least were clear and honest. Any other approach smacks of hypocrisy, of an overly established sense of propiety from the accusers, of an intent to do harm.
In the end, they both save themselves through a mutual desire to, together, establish a truth that is necessary for justice to be brought forth. |
|
