Under Suspicion
|
List Price: Our Price: $5.35 You Save: $9.64 (64%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.76 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Under Suspicion
Movie Review: BELOW THE RADAR
Summary: 5 Stars
The title foreshadows the subtle reality behind the film, missed even by some professional critics. Hackman plays Henry Hearst, a noted attorney, and rather well-off, to say the least, and a close friend of police Captain, Victor Benezet, played by Morgan Freeman. Hearst's much, much, younger wife, Chantal, is the erotically, gorgeous, Italian star, Monica Bellucci. Thomas Jane plays a not-so-bright, detective, with a desire for violent solutions to gaining a confession. Hearst, is apparently, incredibly wealthy, and on his way to be the be key note speaker at an event at the request of Captain Benezet's boss, when he is asked by Benezet to stop by headquaters for "ten minutes, or so," to help out with the case of two murdered teenage girls.
Ten minutes stretches into hours and a cat and mouse game between the obviously brilliant lawyer, Hearst, and the cagy, Benezet, ensues. Benezet has his pal squirming, and Hearst's gorgeous wife has shut him out of her affections, over what she saw as his attempts to seduce her teenaged niece, so the introduction of Benezet's evidence of Hearst's possible dallaince and murders of girls about the same age as the niece who is object of Chantal's apparent insecurity, (or was it an excuse (?) for her to rebel against, or reject, her older husband), gives her cause for reflection. As the torturous grilling goes on, the stress on the participents becomes almost unbearable. Hearst and Benezet are featured in innovative flashbacks of the sort one sees regularly on CSI Miami, and as the tension builds, tempers flare, violence seems right around the corner, and one wonders, where is the lawyer's, lawyers(?), as the duel works it's deceptions into the psyche of the suspect, witnesses and Interrogators.
Hearst's guilt/innocence, glides back and forth with every new revelation of each member of the drama. I shall not spoil, the conclusion for you, but the acting, direction, script, and settings are flawless and the ending is somewhat unexpected, though we guessed correctly, our companions did not.
What floated under the radar, hence my title, was the lustfull envy of both Benezet and the young, violence prone, detective at Hearst's wealth, position, intellect, possessions, prominently including his luscious and much younger wife, Bellucci as Chantal. One can see the roiling covetousness of the antagonists of Hearst, and the feeling rises, that one sees so often now days, of a lawman making every effort to nail a wealthy and fortunate man, at the expense of justice. Benezet, seems determined to wreck the rest of Hearst's life to satisfy his jealousy and his young assistant seems to care little about anything but throwing a few punches and maybe getting closer to Chantal, also Benezet's, seeming, but more reserved desire. Mankind's error is that the interpretation of the word "covet" does nor merely mean desiring what another has, but acting maliciously upon that desire, to steal it away, whether or not they benefit from their action.
It is the old case of penis, cash and prominence, envy, of men locked in jobs which pay is nominal, who lust after what they cannot have and another, whose grass may not be as green as they think and desire.
You cannot go wrong with Freeman, Hackman, and Stephen Hopkins masterful direction, exposing lust, uncertainty, disloyalty, distrust, immaturity and envy. Watch Hackman, in the final scene, display his self-respect, despite what must have been a heartbreaking realization.
The only questionable thing, which seemed a bit ludicrous in this taut drama, is why Hearst, a skilled and successful attorney, did not immediately clam up and call a criminal attorney. It appeared to be an author's less than honest, contrivance, a shill game, which covered up a weakness in the plot-line which would have alerted Allen Shore-James Spader-Boston Legal, had this been written by David E. Kelley. Kelley would have reconstructed the plot to compensate for the oversight or laziness, or the attempt to put one over on the audience. He would have post-haste ended the interrogation and cut to a trial instead. The proper answer by Hearst to the first subtly suspicious question should have been, "Either arrest me, release me, or I will call my lawyer, Right now!"
The dessert is that even the measured glimpses of the alluring Monica Bellucci, remind one of all besides the art, the food and land/seascapes, that is good about Italy.
Movie Review: Taking Responsibility for your Accusations
Summary: 5 Stars
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.
Movie Review: Film Making At Its Best
Summary: 5 Stars
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.
Movie Review: Gene Hackman, An Acting Force of Nature
Summary: 5 Stars
I always knew Gene Hackman was a superb actor but he eclipses even himself in the complex layering he gives us of a man under suspicion of double rape and homicide. It reminded me early on of a French film I had been oddly unmoved by, 1981's "Garde a Vue," and then I learned this was a remake of that film. Usually, we Americans ruin it when we remake French films but this time I think it is quite the reverse. One reason is Hackman and the other is that the director and writers have opened this film up so it lost its stagey aspects and moved well beyond the confines and restraints of the police station. Hackman is interrogated by Morgan Freeman, no slouch himself in the acting department. However, Freeman's police captain character simply does not have the complex nuances of Hackman's. Picture a man who absolutely hates his life, although he is rich, at the top of his profession and married to a beautiful but much younger woman. What might this man do to release himself from the deadliness of his daily life? Would killing two girls release him from the grips of this being-dead-while alive state? Or would he be more likely to shoot himself in the foot or walk in front of a bus? What extremes of human behavior will he go to in order to break out of walking around like a zombi? This is the fundamental question you have to ask yourself about Hackman's character throughout and he indeed has you vacillating on predicting what he did do. When you run the entire film back through your memory, the ending, which I cannot tell you, completely fits. The end makes total sense if you tuned in throughout to each particle of the character that Hackman gave you, starting with the time he first picked up the phone to call the police. He, after all, is a lawyer who should know better than to open a door he wants to keep shut. Or does he?Movie Review: Captivating
Summary: 5 Stars
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.