zkonedog For moviegoers who mainly like to see action/adventure in their film pursuits, "Under Suspicion" will likely be one of the most "boring" movies they ever see. It is a film that percolates, not explodes. For those who really, really enjoy the savoring of great acting performances and mystery plots, however, this will be a little gem.For a basic plot summary, "Under Suspicion" opens with police captain Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman) and hard-boiled partner Felix (Thomas Jane) wanting "just a few minutes of time" from esteemed community citizen Henry Hearst (Gene Hackman), who is about to give a toast at a prestigious fundraiser banquet. When Hearst shows up at the station, however, he quickly realizes that this isn't going to be just a "moment" of his time, as he is a suspect in the rape/murder of two young girls. He tells his side of the story a number of times...but they always seem to change a little bit with each re-telling. When Henry's glamorous (yet ice cold) wife Chantal (Monica Bellucci) is brought in, she tells a completely different story. It is up to Captain Benezet to figure out what really happened.I wish I could say a lot more about this movie, but to do so would give away far too many spoilers. Suffice it to say, however, that this film isn't necessarily what it seems. Though the "Under Suspicion" title can be applied to Hearst's interrogation by Benezet, it can also be used to describe the relationship between Henry & Chantal. While disguising itself as a police drama, "Under Suspicion" is really a stunning character drama of the highest order.In order for the character drama to work, of course, the acting has to be dead-on, which it is. Hackman gives one of the best performances I've ever seen out of him, while Freeman is also at his peak (before he got sucked into just doing "voice projects"). Bellucci adds a mysterious, supremely sexual aspect to the proceedings. For a film that made its name at the Cannes Film Festival, this is almost an embarrassment of riches."Under Suspicion" is one of those projects that slipped under the popular radar; partially because it didn't get a worldwide release, and partially because it is the type of movie that doesn't necessarily play well to a general audience (not enough action). When one stumbles across it (like I did years ago and then re-discovered it just recently) and can appreciate great acting, unfolding plot, and great character drama, however, it will be like an undiscovered gem.

vincentlynch-moonoi I usually don't review a film that has already been reviewed by over 100 IMDb reviewers...unless there is a good reason. My good reason here is bad acting on the part of one of the supporting actors.The two main characters here -- Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman -- are, as both actors and characters like 2 men playing excellent chess. Except that the game they are playing here isn't chess, it's an almost intellectual competition between two men -- one is a police detective in Puerto Rico (Freeman), the other is a prominent attorney who is a suspect in the rape and murder of two pre-teen girls.But then, in comes a lower-grade young detective that probably can't even play chess -- Thomas Jane, Honestly, based on this film, if I never see him in another film it would be too soon.But, we can overlook him due to the strength of the acting by Hackman and Freeman. And, I say that as a person who never liked Hackman until he became older. Now I quite admire his acting in his maturity.I can't judge the acting of Monica Bellucci here; she plays Hackman's wife. The strong accent and behavior of the character made it difficult for me to judge her acting, also I suspect it was less than believable. I wonder what other think.The story here seems very good, although many would find it distasteful. It certainly is a very serious film. I suspect the film is set in Puerto Rico to give the police more leeway in their strategies for solving this crime.One thing that's very odd here is how Hackman holds his Puerto Rican cigarettes throughout the film. Very odd; I couldn't figure out if it was a message or just an odd way to hold the cigarettes.As I watched the film, I kept thinking that the suspect was hiding something...not his guilt, but the guilt of someone else. And then the end of the film comes and you say, "Huh?????" I'm giving this film a "5". Watch the film, get to the end, and you'll find out why...not to mention Thomas Jane's acting. How this film ever made the mint of money that it did, I don't know. Certainly not though word of mouth. And I say that as a great admirer of Morgan Freeman.

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.

Avid Climber Under Suspicion is a total mind f*ck of an investigation. The story and intrigue are powerful, and extremely well choreographed. It's so twisted and tight, with the right score, a good photography, and smooth editing, that by end you get to hate just about every character.Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman, Thomas Jane, and Monica Bellucci are just perfect for their role, playing their assigned persona just right and on the edge.It's not for everybody, since its a harsh subject matter and no psychological punches are pulled as Hackman's character is harassed. Also beware, very little happen in this film, the game is all mental.I highly recommend it for the maddening asinine trip you'll get on.