Am I Missing Something?

There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

A SOUPCON OF SUSPICION.I gather this is a remake of a French film. That usually spells disaster, as in "Wages of Fear." In this case, it holds together pretty well, although I make that judgment without having seen the French original.Morgan Freeman is a captain in the police force in Puerto Rico and Gene Hackman is a very wealthy tax lawyer and celebrity. Hackman is wearing a tux and accompanying his incandescently beautiful trophy wife, Monica Bellucci, to a charity fund raiser when he is notified that Freeman wants to see him for "a ten minute chat" about some "irregularities" in the story he told police about having discovered the dead body of a pretty little girl.The interview takes up the rest of the movie, with occasional flashbacks and brief episodes of fantasy. It all begins in a friendly enough manner. "Well, Victor, you don't look much older." "Good to see you again, Henry." It doesn't take long for it all to turn sour for both of them. There is a good deal of evidence pointing to Hackman as the murderer, not just of the twelve-year old whose body he found, but that of a similar girl in a neighboring town. Hackman, cocky and pleased with himself at first, begins to worry, and for good reason. Freeman is anxious to pin the rap on him and be promoted for having solved two sensation killings.Hackman is confronted with evidence that he's lied to the police about points minor and major. Bit by bit, as Freeman digs into Hackman's married life and sexual proclivities, the suspect begins to sweat up a storm. His life is shredded more with each passing moment. The story betrays is Gallic origins when the two of them get "philosophical" about the nature of humankind -- the relative social value of money, beauty, youth, reputation, privacy, and so on. I don't mean to suggest that it's boring in any way because it's not. It's tense from the start and it just gets tenser until the resolution of the problem, accomplished by deus ex Kodak.A lot depends on the performances of the principals and they deliver the goods. Morgan Freeman, especially, drops the hammer on the role of the subtle but determined detective. There's another secondary detective present at the interrogation, Thomas Jane, who is unlike the carefully controlled Freeman, in that he flings wisecracks and insinuations freely at the suspect.Monica Bellucci is called in to either corroborate Hackman's evolving alibis or to contradict them. She's from north-central Italy, Umbria, but she looks Hispanic and her accent is indistinguishable from that of Puerto Ricans except perhaps to expert linguists. Hackman is thoroughly convincing as the increasingly sweaty murder suspect -- sometimes too convincing. In one scene, when he's supposed to indicate that he's hiding something, he practically turns the shot into a final exam in acting class. For just a few seconds he bludgeons the viewer with his overacting.I enjoyed it very much, although apparently some other reviewers did not.

The atmosphere in this stylish psychological thriller becomes very intense as a cat and mouse game develops between two men who have a shared past. Old resentments, jealousies and secrets soon comes to light as one of the men becomes the other's interrogator and seeks to discover who recently raped and murdered two young girls in Puerto Rico. Inconsistencies in the suspect's testimony then fuel much of the verbal sparring that follows, in what turns out to be, an extremely well-written confrontation that leads to a surprising conclusion.It's carnival time in San Juan and Henry Hearst (Gene Hackman) who's a powerful tax attorney and well-respected member of the local community, is due to propose a toast at a social event that's been organised to raise funds to help victims of the recent Hurricane Lucy. Shortly before he's due to perform this function, local Police Chief, Victor Benezet (Morgan Freeman)asks his old friend to call round at the nearby police headquarters for an informal chat.It emerges that Henry had discovered the body of one of the dead girls when he was out jogging one morning and some of the information later gathered by the police had raised doubts about the veracity of what they'd been told by Henry. The conversation between the two men begins very cordially with Henry happy to clarify any points of detail but as some further inconsistencies come to light, it soon becomes apparent that he has become the prime suspect and their exchanges develop into a grilling.This process becomes increasingly tense especially when it's revealed that Henry's marriage to his trophy-wife Chantal (Monica Bellucci) is a sham and that he's always had a strong attraction to young girls. Knowledge that the police have about his visits to a pornographic website and to some young prostitutes in La Perla also support this information and strengthen Benezet's assertion that Henry could be the murderer. The most damaging "evidence" against the accused then suddenly comes from another unexpected source.During his speech at the fund-raising event, Henry says "when nature sends its worst against us, it's as if one of God's cheques has bounced. Perhaps catastrophe is the natural human environment, We find ourselves attacked by unforeseen forces who come to harm us even though we are innocent of any wrongdoing". These words seem particularly pertinent to Henry's predicament as he tries to deal with the personal and reputational damage that he suffers as a consequence of an unforeseen devastating event in his own life.Predictably, Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman are tremendous in their roles that give them plenty of scope to display their exceptional skills and to his credit, director Stephen Hopkins mitigates the staginess of the original drama by employing some innovative flashbacks that add extra interest to Henry's accounts of some incidents that are relevant to the investigation. "Under Suspicion" is an absorbing, suspenseful and thought-provoking thriller that's certainly not "run of the mill" material.

My opinion about the story: 1. Freeman is just a simple detective, who has nothing left in his life but his job, so he puts everything into finding the killer. He has real reasons to suspect Hackman. Hackman finds the second victim, and normally he gives a statement, statement that the police HAS to check of course. Many thing do not add up, and the real suspicion starts when the car of Hackman had been trace to the place where/when first victim was killed. Fair enough I would say! Even if for Freeman is a very sensitive case, considering that Hackman was not only an attorney, but also a important figure in the island society, still Freeman is keen to find the truth, no matter who the killer is. 2. Hackman is NOT a paedophile! He is a normal guy, that felt deeply in love with this very young woman. Mind that they got together when she was in college, as he paid for her education. She was not 11 or 14 in college, was she? He loves enormously his wife, but the SICK person, in fact the only sick person in the story, is Chantal. She is extremely jealous, possessive, to the point of accusing him of having something for her sister daughter. He is just a simple 57 old guy, who never had his own kids, and of course he would feel tenure for the kids of others. Chantal suffers, besides of her unreasonable jealousy, she also suffers of a high level of selfishness. She would not have her own kids, just for a simple fact. She would lose Hackman attention and she would feel jealousy towards her own children. That i would say is sickness. 3.Hackman confess to 2 crimes he did not do for a simple reason. Years after years he tried to fight back all sort of accusations,including him liking little girls, accusations coming from the woman he loves profusely. Every second of his life he hopes that his wife, that he so much loves, will come around, realising that those accusations and jealousy are totally crazy... and then he ends up in the middle of this murder investigation. He is tired, he can't do it anymore, so he gave up! He gave up defending himself from his wife, not the police. In fact by his confection he is sending himself free from Chantal. Admitting all her accusation meant losing her, which was what he strongly fought against. 4. In the end Chantal has a moment of clarity, when her mind is cured again. She realised what she had done and she thinks of killing herself. Of course she is too selfish, self observed to go ahead with the jumping. But Hackman is free! Free of her! When she tried to approach him, considering that all he wished for and hoped for was for her to come back to him, he rejects her! HE IS FREE! Freeman realised that too! This is why maybe the name of the detective is FREEMAN... as the detective was the man who helped Hackman to become free again!!!! 5. Regarding Chantal sickness, well the explanation is simple. She knew Hackman since she was 11 years old, as he was her father friend! She lost her father when she was 14 years old, and Hackman took care of her, paid for her education... well, he became her father. Until the moment they became also lovers, the relationship should be clear.. and, this is explaining why she would feel jealousy towards little girls! She was not worried that Hackman will find a sexual attraction for a little girl at that particular moment! She was concern that if a little girl will fulfil Hackmam parental need, and will end up growing and becoming also a beautiful woman, then she has been replaced! Hackman was seen by Chantal both as father and as lover. And her only competition could only develop in a similar bound as hers with Hackman. First innocent parental love, which will grow into sexual attraction as the little girl will grow into a woman. Of course Chantal was a very confused woman, who needed professional help!

In San Juan, Puerto Rico, a police captain fingers a high-profile lawyer and prominent member of the community as the prime suspect behind the killings of teen girls. It is a pleasure to watch two old pros like Hackman and Freeman battling wits. Unfortunately the film is undermined by overly flashy direction that serves no purpose other than call attention to the director. When Hackman relates events to interrogator Freeman via flashbacks, Freeman appears within the flashbacks, continuing his interrogation. This kind of technique is not innovative; it is distracting. Bellucci is given little to do except look alluring. Jane manages to be extremely irritating.