Advanced Search
Help

Knowledge

Knowledge Base
   Movies
     U
       Under Suspicion


 Posters




Articles





Under Suspicion

Message Board
News
Links
Pictures
Multimedia
Feedback


Related

Morgan Freeman
Suspicion
Istanbul

Under Suspicion
Year: 2000
Classification: Mystery / Suspense

Directed:

- Stephen Hopkins

Actors/Actresses:

- Gene Hackman
- Thomas Jane
- Morgan Freeman
- Laura San Giacomo




Great acting, ok story, great location, poor location use

Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman give their usually great performances, with Gene Hackman delivering an uncharacteristically evolving portrayal. The story was interesting, and the ending had a strong double twist. The script was fairly well developed, but the story lacked "umph" and requires some patience to get through.
Location Underused:
The Old San Juan and the general Puerto Rico locations were extremely underutilized. In fact, except for a handful of passing shots, the movie could have been shot anywhere, in any studio.
The location was an enticement for me to purchase the video, and the lack of local "color" left me very disappointed. There are so many incredible locations, breath taking views, interesting local haunts that would have made the movie more interesting, better developed the story and plot and given the viewer more twists to play with. But, they were not used.
I think if someone is not familiar with the intrigue of Old San Juan, then they would not feel the same disappointment that I felt and could rate the movie 4 stars.


like an escalator that goes nowhere....

I first caught this movie by chance on the Bravo network. It seemed like it had the makings of a great film, and Freeman and Hackman do a fabulous job. Although it can at times drag on, due largely in part to the permanent setting of the police office, the dialogue and dynamic between Freemand and Hackman is intense and engrossing. BR> BR>I was really looking forward to the ending, as the plot up until that point kept building up the suspense and had me asking a million questions. Then it happened, and it made no sense. Hackman's character confesses to a murder he didn't committ and a lot of other stuff happens that makes no sense. Right after watching it I got on the internet to see if somewhere somebody could explain what the heck the ending was about, and all I found was dozens of other people as confused as I was. Some sites mentioned that the director said that the whole reason Hackman's character confesses to a rape/murder he didn't committ was because he couldn't stand to live if his wife really thought he was such a monster. That explains a little, but there are still huge holes. So if he didn't do it who did? Some random guy who is never identified is hauled into the station and it is clear that he is the murderer, but it also seems like the wife had something to do with it, possibly to frame her husband and also maybe because she was upset when she saw him laughing and talking with his young niece. But really, is that reason enough to try and frame him as a perverted murderer? And if it was all her idea, then why does she seem so shocked by everything? BR> BR>My best guess is that she wanted to divorce him because they were in a loveless marriage, and she was sick of him lusting after young girls, but she couldn't just have a regular divorce because he husband was a powerful man and it would have been a mess. At the same time she had a feeling (and she was correct) that her husband had a fasciantion with young girls, so I guess she got in cahoots with some murderer and planted all this evidence to incriminate her husband so she could divorce him easily. Thats why he says at one point "I can't believe she would go to all this trouble to make a point", he knows what she is doing, she is framing him because she is bitter, neglected and whats a divorce, and he know it. He gives in and says he did it because he doesn't want to deal with her anymore, and realizes for the first time that she really hates him and would go to extreme lengths because she really thinks he is a monster. It might also be because he knows that he is sick and perhaps he feels guilty. BR> BR>I love a movie that makes you think, but the ending of this one forces the viewers to completely invent a reason for the ending because there are no explanations that actually exist in the plot.


GOOD MOVIE FROM START TO MIDDLE

I enjoyed the body of this movie. The plot was intriguing, though slightly riddled with clichés, and the well-acted characters developed convincingly -- how could they not, the two big Hollywood tykes (Hackman, Freewood).
Some of the reviews here about the movie's unexplained ending baffle me because I think that the power of suggestion was precisely the point. I'd also have liked to have known more about a few things, but that's a minor gripe. It's a near-perfect film, had they just tied some loose ends in the finale for the general public.
A film for those of us out there who crave good performances and dialogue. Recommended rental.






Buy Under Suspicion at Amazon.com
Buy posters at Allposters.com
Jamster - the latest ringtones for your phone!

Amazon.com






Search with Walhello on the Internet on Under Suspicion
Search with the Priority Search Engine on Under Suspicion




This page in other languages: Suomeksi | Nederlands | Deutsch



About Walhello | Add URL | Advertising | Searchbox | Terms | Feedback

International: Danmark | Deutschland | España | France | Italia | Nederland | Norge | Russia | Suomi | Sverige | USA

Partner websites:Autowebdir.com | Gnibo.com | PrioritySearchEngine.com

 
Copyright (c) 2000-2008 Walhello.com, All rights reserved