Under Suspicion
Tags: mystery, murder

Plot synopsis:
Henry Hearst (Gene Hackman) is about to give the main speech in an exclusive party in Puerto Rico. He is called to the police station to be questioned about his finding of a raped and murdered young girl the day before. Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman), and the younger Detective Felix Owens (Thomas Jane) question him. Hearst changes his story several times: he was jogging with a neighbour's dog, he found her, the dog found her, he was jogging without the dog, so the police think he has done it.Benezet is pressured by his boss (Miguel Ángel Suárez) to free Hearst so that he can give his speech. However, as there is no conclusive proof, Benezet has to let him go.At the party, a crowd is gossiping, and Chantal Hearst (Monica Bellucci), his wife, has to keep her composure. She will be questioned later, after her husband gives his speech without his wig, to confirm why she and her husband sleep in separate rooms. Little by little, the story each of them tells changes.Hearst first blames Chantal for being jealous. Then, it's discovered he likes cheap very young prostitutes. Hearst says that Chantal and artist Paco Rodríguez (Luis Caballero) are lovers. He's the husband of Chantal's sister María (Jacqueline Duprey). Chantal says that he saw Hearst with her niece Camille (Isabel Algaze) giving her presents and trying to seduce her. Also, she tells that once she saw her husband washing his blood-stained clothes at night.Pressure over Henry increases. Finally, Chantal, the legal owner of the mansion where they live (it was Henry's present), signs a form permitting the police to look for more clear proof. At the dark room, they find the photos of the two murdered girls and many previous snapshots of them. Henry says that it must be Chantal's trap. He doesn't divorce her because she would be entitled to one half of everything and the mansion.Henry gives up. He starts confessing it all. Suddenly, Benezet is interrupted. Another police officer tells him that they have found the real murderer in a car, pestering some other young girl and with the recorded videos kept in his car. Benezet and Owens free Henry.Henry doesn't forgive Chantal for trying to frame him. (At least that's my interpretation of the ending)

Review: Most of this dialogue-intensive film takes place in an office in a Puerto Rican Police Department with a top detective (Freeman) grilling a wealthy attorney (Hackman) about the rape/murders of young girls.
Featuring outstanding performances by both principals and technical and artistic excellence, the film's story unfolds piecemeal as it scrutinizes the Hackman character with painful deliberation while holding out the "whodunnit" carrot until the very end.
The drama is wonderfully tense and taut, and, best of all, the suspense holds out until near the very end of the film, lingering on afterward for hours in the viewer's mind.Gene Hackman plays Henry Hearst, a successful attorney in San Juan, Puerto Rico who lives an apparently blissful life of luxury--he's got money, respect, a gorgeous house on the coast, and, most of all, a stunningly beautiful young trophy wife, Chantal (Monica Belluci, the voluptuous heir-apparent to Sophia Loren, in one of her first US roles).On the eve of the feast of St. Sebastian, during which Hearst is set to deliver an address at a fundraiser for hurricane relief, he is called in to the police department by his longtime acquaintance Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman) for additional questioning surrounding the death of a young girl.
The situation is only made more revealing when Henry's wife comes into the station.Everyone loves a good thriller so it was a surprise to me how quickly this film with it's heavy-weight cast managed to slip through the UK cinemas almost unnoticed.
Hackman and Freeman are great actors and having them both in the same film was enough of a draw to get me watching.
She is very good looking and I was glad that the film didn't just trade on that, but it didn't (or couldn't) get a great deal out of her.The director manages to add energy and style to what could have been a rather contain piece (like a play).
A film with Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman in the two main roles is a dream come true for anyone who loves the art of acting, and their performances here (especially Hackman's, who after all does have the more showy part) are stunning.
Morgan Freeman,(Captain Victor Beneget),"Edison",'05 is the chief of police and while he is investigating a homicide, he starts to question Henry Hearst and it is from this point in the film when all kinds of situations change and some of these very dark secrets come to light.
This is an intense drama that takes place between Gene Hackman as the suspect, Henry Hearst, and Morgan Freeman as Capt.
Victor B., mostly in the form of an interrogation at a police station in Puerto Rico.However, it has some interesting scenes that take place outside the police station, while the interrogation is on going - showing us what might have happened.Both Hackman and Freeman do excellent work in this film, as expected of these two pros.
Thomas Jane, a good actor, has little to work with in this particular drama, which showcases Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman as the leads.Monica Bellucci plays Chantal, the beautiful young wife of Henry Hearst, however, in my opinion, her acting was only average except for one scene where she is crying.
Mostly she is just delicious eye candy.As the interrogation continues, Henry's story keeps changing as Victor hammers away at him about the rape and murder of two young girls, until secret after secret is uncovered and fully revealed much to Henry's humiliation.Just prior to the ending, Henry goes completely out of character, in my opinion, and when we reach the conclusion to the case, it is somewhat disappointing.
The story also explores the complex relationship between Henry and his attractive young wife Chantal, played nicely by Monica Bellucci.To tell the truth, the whole interrogation procedure is made just magnificently enjoyable by the writer and performance of the actors.
Wow, you get two tremendous lead actors - two of my favorites in Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman - but, unfortunately, you get a very disappointing movie.Almost the whole story, except for flashbacks, in this stage-like movie takes place in a police captain's (Freeman) office as he interrogates the murder suspect (Hackman).
Let me tell you why.Stephen Hopkins directed "Under Suspicion" with very low budget, cause Hackman and Freeman were payed little and they are also executive producers.
Hackman plays a lawyer Henry Hearst, who is called to come to the police station to clear up a few loose ends in his witness report of a murder of young girl.
There his young wife Chantal (Monica Bellucci) waits for him, just like the creme of San Juan's society.As the movie goes on we found out lots of things about Henry Hearst.
Bravo for a well told story by Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, Thomas Jane and Monica Bellucci.I give it a 9 of 10..
One has to suspect that any film starring and produced by Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman is going to be good.
This is a terrific psychological crime drama with an excellent story, great acting and powerful directing.Henry Hearst (Gene Hackman) is a prominent and wealthy citizen of San Juan, Puerto Rico, who found the body of a young girl who had been murdered.
Police captain Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman) is a long time friend of Hearst's and asks him to come down to the station answer some questions and tie up some lose ends.
I have always thought that Claude Miller's "garde à vue" was a highly overrated work.Adapted from an English writer,it actually harks back to good old George Simenon psychology and to venerable directors of the fifties (Henri Decoin :"la vérité sur Bébé Donge"(1951) and "non coupable" (1947);Edouard Molinaro:"la morte de Belle "(1960);Jean Delannoy:"Maigret tend un piège" (1957)).In 1981,when Miller's movie was released, French critics hailed it as a miracle,lauding the unity of time of place and of action.They had probably forgotten that William Wyler did that thirty years before ("Detective story",1951).There was actually nothing "modern" in this "huis clos",and to think of a remake is no sacrilege .So Gene Hackman,Morgan Freeman and Monica Belluchi take on the parts of respectively Michel Serrault -who was beginning to do any job going-, Lino Ventura and Romy Schneider,both of whom were to pass away soon after.Even Guy Marchand's infuriating part of a cop-the pain in the neck- has been kept.His American counterpart overracts as much as he did.
Miller's movie took place on New Year's eve and the scenarists found an adequate equivalent with the carnival.The American remake is no masterpiece but the acting is better as far as the two leads are concerned,and the director lightens his story with a frequent use of flashbacks well integrated into the plot;a good idea:Morgan Freeman seems to be in them,and to relive the events with the characters.The female one,although often a walk on,plays a more prominent part:in "garde à vue" ,Romy Schneider appears a few minutes,too bad for the audience.The conclusion has been watered-down,but it does not make it happier for all that..
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.
I did not see the French film simply because I can't find it but I've seen Under Suspicion more than once and enjoy it every time even though I know how it ends.As a thriller/mystery/crime investigation, Under Suspicion (2000) teases a viewer and more likely would leave a fan of the pure genre disappointed but as a psychological character study which uses the mystery and serial murders investigation as a device to explore the darkest places of human desires and relationships, it is very good.
The story is OK, the acting is good and directing is fine...however, the tone hangs there too long for almost 100 minutes, letting the audiences know that there must be a twist at the end...may be a little bit surprised but definitely not impressed if you have paid almost 100 minutes patience for that.
However, the evidence in 'Under Suspicion' overwhelmingly points to Hearst's guilt, and this is accentuated by his guilty demeanour, with profuse sweating and rolling eyes.This is an intriguing film, expertly acted by Hackman and Freeman, who are ably backed up by Monica Belluci, and Thomas Jane.
When I first came out of Under Suspicion, I thought it was a good script ruined by the wrong director, but the more I thought about it, the more I thought it was a good idea ruined by a bad writer and the wrong director.The plot, adapted from a French movie which was itself based on a book, sounded promising enough; a respected tax attorney is asked to go to a police station to give more details on his discovery of a child's body near his home, and ends up being interrogated as the main suspect in her rape and murder.
With Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman in the leads, I was expecting to find a gem of a film with two powerful performances at its centre, but it was weak and the actors have given far better in far better movies.Stephen Hopkins hates to keep his camera still, and while his excesses are just about bearable in trash like Lost in Space or Predator 2, here they are out of place and oddly disruptive.
Surrounding by a Excellent Cinematography by Peter Levy.A.S.C,A.C.S,shooting enterly on location in San Juan(PORTORICO), the movie grow up between a intense acting by GENE ACKMAN and MORGAN FREEMAN here also like executive producers.A Very interesting screenplay,don't lose it!.
The movie had great acting, which is to be expected from Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman who have both earned the respect of their peers through many years of acting and now film producing.
Police detectives Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman) and Felix Owens (Thomas Jane) investigate Henry for the rape and murder of a young girl.
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.
And then Gene Hackman's story changes and things get more complicated.Gene gave a great performance, and what can you say about Morgan Freeman ?
So powerful performance out of the two, you will get puzzled whom to like more- is it Freeman with his talking eyes and features or Hackman with the wonderful role of a man who is so into his young charming wife Belluci forbidding him his sexual rights as a husband.
Like i said, the story is amazing, and i think the ending works very well with the "long night drama" that the movie is (in a good way).the movie is truly captivating, visually thrilling, and i just have to repeat, the story and the performances was just great!i really recommended this movie.
This movie has a great story line that kept you on the edge of your seat.The ending was also great.Also this movie had some of the best acting i have seen in a long time and would watch this movie again.I don't like the subject matter but this movie is so well made that it keeps you interested all the way till the end.The look and feel of the picture is well done with a lot of energy you feel like you are there.I love the flash backs when Gene Hackman is telling his story about where he was and what he was doing when these crimes were happening.I was never bored when i was watching this movie great story telling that does not have a dull moment..
Henry Hearst (Gene Hackman), an American attorney living in Puerto Rico, is called in to speak with police detective Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman).
i specially liked the part were gene hackman, tired of his traitorous life decides to confess he was the murderer and it got better when we learn that he is not the actual killer, it was a very powerful scene.script is very good and the story development is great, this starts as a simple formality and it gets into an interrogation chamber.
And the main actors: Gene Hackman does a very sleazy job of playing a very sleazy character, and Morgan Freeman is always good - his worst performance is better than most actors' best.At one stage the Gene Hackman character refers to being unwrapped like an onion, and that is exactly what the movie is: one character unwrapping another to reveal the core of emptiness within.
The Morgan Freeman character just doesn't convey the ends justifies the means person that was portrayed.I thought the evidence was forced to point too much toward one view, without the ambiguity required for us to believe Gene Hackman was innocent.
The movie left you torn between the two main characters, Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman, as the watcher you want to take sides but not at the risk of alienating the other, you end up hoping against all hope that everything will work out and they can go out to McDonalds for a chocolate shake and be friends again.
They were obviously good friends of many years, but it was never explained just left up to the watcher to take for granted, which is confusing why Gene Hackman knew the names of Morgan Freeman's two previous wives but then didn't know why they had split.Another great part about the movie is that it masquerades as a suspense movie, if it was, it still would have been very successful.
This is a good film to watch as an exercise is fine acting by Hackman and Freeman.
Morgan Freeman is the police captain and Gene Hackman is "Under Suspicion".
Henry Hearst (Gene Hackman), a well respected Attorney in Law and one half or Puerto Rico's golden couple (the other half being Monica Bellucci) is brought into police custody under suspicion of the rape and murder of two young girls.
This is not because of some "amazing surprise ending" but because every line of dialog gradually builds a picture of the life and character of the protagonist, and the thrill of seeing it all develop is so much the greater if you do not know where it is (supposedly) going.Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman are their usual brilliant selves, but the study is all about Gene Hackman, his troubles, triumphs, loves and losses, and how he has dealt with them -- for better or worse.Gene Hackman discovers the body of a murdered girl and dutifully reports it to the police.
But the reason we all have to read it in high school to this day is not just because he is a good guy trying to avoid an evil fate, it is the masterful revealing of each little detail through the play that gradually reveals how Oedipus' attempts to avoid the curse have brought him directly into it.There are two parallels with Oedipus Rex. Both stories deal with a crime universally recognized as horrible and perverted, and both are masterfully told to gradually reveal more and more detail about what may or may not have happened.This is why you do not want to know anything about this movie before seeing it, because it is not about knowing whether or not he is guilty, or what troubles he may have in his marriage (who doesn't?), it is about the brilliantly written dialog and interplay between Hackman and Freeman as the suspicion is developed.One final warning.
That's what I asked myself after I got done watching Under Suspicion, a 2000 film that allows Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman a chance to pretend they're doing a stage play on film.
A film staring such great actors as Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman, as well as the gorgeous Monica Belluci cannot be too bad.
The end comes abruptly and it does not explain at all the well acted evolution of Hackman from full self-confidence to complete social and psychological break-down.The film is certainly worth a rental, but it is mostly for the pleasure of seeing again these two great actors..
Terrific, dark, moody psycho-drama with great performances from Freeman and Hackman.The end, although it makes sense, is not obvious and led to some discussion after seeing the film.One of the best films I've seen this year..
This film is simply an overdose in magnificent acting by two of the greatest "veteran" actors of modern times.Hackman and Freeman play each other to a tie.
She has a couple of long scenes with Freeman where he desperately tries to get some life into her character, but she is no help.I didn't think the directing of the movie was bad, on the contrary, I felt it was very good.
Two of the most great actor of America, Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman had some memorable verbal fights in this movie, based mostly upon their great performances.
Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman (especially) display their professionalism in a suspenseful interrogation movie in which Freeman's police captain, Victor Benezet suspects Hackman's successful tax lawyer, Henry Hearst, of having raped and murdered two sub-teen girls.
The acting is very good; Freeman, Hackman, Bellucci, Jane...
UNDER SUSPICION (2000) **1/2 Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, Thomas Jane, Monica Bellucci.
Yes, It has Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman, two of the best character actors in the world going for it, but it takes exceptional actors, and supporting actors, to pull off a one room play on film.