|
| Under Suspicion |
|
  (7/10)
|
Runtime: 111 |
| Public Rating: 8.40 (10 votes) |
Director: Stephen Hopkins |
MPAA Rating:  |
| Genre: Crime / Drama |
Year: 2000 |
| Writer(s): Claude Miller,Based on the book by John Wainwright |
| Reviewed by: Dan Smith |
| |
******THIS REVIEW CONTAINS A SPOILER*******
A remake of a 1981 French film called Gare A Vue, Under Suspicion is the story of Detective Captain Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman; Amistad, Kiss The Girls) who is trying to solve the rape and murder case of two pre-teen girls in Puerto Rico. The chief suspect in the case is Henry Hearst (Gene Hackman; Uncommon Valor, Enemy Of The State) a rich an influential lawyer. Helping Benezet in his effort to bring Hearst to justice is Detective Felix Owens (Thomas Jane; Deep Blue Sea, *61) who doesn’t try to conceal his dislike and animosity for Hearst.
The film opens with Hearst in his home working on a speech that he is to deliver that evening at a fundraiser to benefit victims of a recent hurricane. This labor is interrupted when Benezet calls and invites Hearst to the station to answer a few questions. During the course of the interview, Hearst gets caught in so many lies that Benezet and Owens become convinced of his guilt, and place him officially under arrest. The investigation intensifies, and eventually Hearst’s very beautiful and very young wife Chantal is involved in the questioning. (Chantal Hearst is played by Monica Bellucci, an established actress in France who flew from Paris to audition for this film). Chantal’s interrogation reveals that she once caught her pre-teen niece and Hearst in what she considered to be a compromising position, which triggers the search of Hearst’s home in an effort to gain hard evidence.
Hearst, it seems, is an avid photographer, and a search of his dark room by Detective Owens leads to the recovery of some original prints of the two dead girls, but depicting them as very much alive. When all of the evidence is presented to Hearst, who realizes his wife not only participated in, but aided the investigation, he confesses to the murders.
To this point the film is fascinating, I really enjoyed the unique style of camera work that director Stephen Hopkins used in the “flash back” scenes, and the acting was top notch. Freeman and Hackman were especially good, and totally believable in their respective parts. The story is solid, and keeps you hanging on right to the end.
The end you see, is the problem. After gathering all of that evidence, and after Hearst actually confesses to the murders, we find that he is not the killer after all. The real pisser is that we don't get to see who the killer IS, and we don’t know for sure why Hearst has the pictures of the girls while they are alive. The story really draws you in, and it is a movie that keeps you watching for a lot of reasons; chief among which is the strong story line and solid performances of the cast.
This film really is good, and deserves to be watched, but it leaves you with a lot of questions and the end is really a let down. In this case the trip is better than the destination, but if you appreciate a strong story that draws you in, even if it does have an ending that leaves you more puzzled than satisfied, watch Under Suspicion
If you are a fan of Hackman or Freeman don’t miss this one.
DTS
|
 Printable Version
|
Do you agree/disagree with this review of Under Suspicion? Let your opinions be heard in our forum.
|
Buy the Poster of Under Suspicion (Click Here)
|
|
|
|
