Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Under Suspicion seems OK until the end, that's when they break with a film making (or indeed story telling) tradition and screw with the viewer in order to create a twist.A twist that you don't see coming, not because there isn't evidence for it, not because it's not obvious, but because of the audiences POV in the film.While the twist is for this reason unexpected it also loses the audiences trust, they have been lied to and cheated. This also has the effect of making the ending an unhappy one.Before the ending it's enjoyable enough although we are asked to swallow some rather unlikely things including possibly the closest life and death 'save' in movie history. (not to mention a justice system that seems extremely speedy)There would also seem to be a plot hole in that an extremely valuable and lucrative piece of evidence (possibly the reason for the crime) is seemingly sacrificed to save someone when no doubt other evidence could have proved effective.Another hole is Angeline seeing both sides of a building while seeing fine detail far away in the dark.

Liam Neeson is "Under Suspicion" for murdering his wife and a client in this 1991 little known film also starring Laura San Giacomo. This is one of those films one rents and all too rarely realizes that they have found an unsung treasure.Set in England in 1959-60, Neeson plays an police officer, Tony Aaron. While on assignment with his partner Frank guarding the home of a wealthy man who is out of town, Tony takes time out to have a dalliance with the owner's wife. In the fray that erupts when he's nearly caught by her husband, another officer is killed. Tony is pressured to resign and when he leaves, he only has one friend left - his partner Frank. Tony becomes a low-life private detective who helps clients fake adultery in order to have grounds for divorce. To do this, Tony uses his own wife, Hazel, the woman of the above dalliance, as the "other woman." One night, he does the usual thing of entering the hotel room with a camera and surprising the client and Hazel in bed when he discovers that both have been brutally murdered. He immediately becomes a suspect, though he trails along with his ex-partner during the investigation and discovers some other suspects - not only who had a reason to knock off the artist, but who had plenty of reason to frame Tony for the crime.This is a very well produced and directed film with brilliant construction. The detail in evoking the atmosphere of the late '50s is wonderful, and if there were ever a film that deserved a "best costumes" nomination for an Oscar, this is it.The acting is all around very good, with a good deal of the film's budget going to Liam Neeson, who back then was a prolific actor two years from superstardom. Neeson is terrific as a loser who has made one mistake after another so that a noose around his neck seems appropriate. Yet there's something likable about him, and earnest, too, so that the audience feels that though he may not have been able to keep his pants zipped, at heart he's not a bad guy. Laura San Giacomo, who has enjoyed an okay film career but is now best known for her work in the TV series "Just Shoot Me" is very effective as the mysterious mistress whom Tony suspects may have had something to do with her boyfriend's murder. Kenneth Cranham, a very familiar face in British productions, is excellent as Tony's loyal ex-partner, who risks his own job protecting his friend. An absolutely gorgeous woman, Alphonsia Emmanuel, plays Stasio's wife and does a good job in a role that, were she not so beautiful, would probably not have been noticed.Any film that has me yelling out loud at the screen at 3 a.m. is a good movie in my book. That's the level of suspense that "Under Suspicion" has - if you have a weak heart, take medication first. It's absolutely thrilling.

The whole time I was watching this film I just couldn't shake the feeling that it seemed like something that would appear on the Lifetime Channel here in America. As the credits scrolled by there were three interesting words toward the end: London Weekend Television. It explained a lot.Sorry if that sounds snobbish. It's not meant to be. In fact, one of my all-time favorite movies was made for television. It's just that "Under Suspicion" has a silly plot and throws logic to the wind on many occasions. Anyone who seriously refers to this film as being "clever" must still wonder how those little people got into their television.Please note that my short overview of this movie contains a major spoiler!!! The general plot of the film has already been touched on several times so I'll just cover a couple of major problems. The first is the ridiculous police work done on the case. Granted,this took place in 1959 and it was way before high-tech forensics and whatnot but...really. Why would police allow a key suspect of a double homicide to pose as a Detective? How about allowing him to freely go in and out of the home of your other key suspect? Had police ever heard of murder-for-hire? Did they ever in their lives understand the concept of planting evidence? It just goes on and on.What is completely inexcusable is the second major problem. This is a total spoiler (to some) so beware of reading any further. The film very clearly and concisely tells the viewer TWICE who the murderer is. Really. I'm not joking around or reading between the lines. They tell you definitively, without any doubt, who the killer is. The film then twists and turns and somehow tries to trick you into thinking that you don't really know. When the film draws to its conclusion the killer is...EXACTLY WHO THEY TOLD YOU IT WAS!! How this amateurish drivel has fooled so many people into thinking it's clever is the one thing beyond my comprehension. 2/10

i want to give a STRONG plug for this very fine film that has received almost no acclaim. if you enjoy cinematic plot twists and suspense, sexuality and greed, but not blood and guts, this is a film you should see. when i say it keeps you guessing up till the last minute, i mean just that. art, money, sex, mistresses, wives, good cops, bad cops, murder! got it all-give it a try.