Under Suspicion (1991)

Did you people see the same film I saw?

A Masterpiece!

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.

Blistering performances.

This British mystery film starred Liam Neeson and Laura San Giacomo (Pretty Woman) in an early the 1990s. While the film is set in Brighton, England in the late 1950s, the film has a startling mystery to solve as to who killed a famed art collector and the private detective's wife. I was stunned by the ending of the film itself. While the film steers the audience to one direction, the absolute truth wins in the end. I have to say that the film haunts you long after you watch it. Laura San Giacomo is an under-appreciated actress who wasn't utilized much as should have been. When she is on screen, she is captivating even in the end. Liam Neeson also does a fabulous job in this role as the private detective accused of murder. You should just have to be surprised!

This film is well worthy of your time. If you are into crime movies with more atmosphere than fast action, I mean.Why Simon Moore didn't direct more, I really don't know. The film is skilfully composed, actors' performances are admirable (with exception of Laura San Giacomo who's acting is under average). Photography is something to appreciate, too.I was often surprised at how few people know of this title and I am personally always glad when I find such a gem outside of hype area.I like noir and I like different, yet not bizarre. If you think alike, try this film.

Under Suspicion apparently flew completely under the radar upon release in 1991, and that's really not all that surprising. The film is actually a very well done little crime thriller; but it features a very simple plot line and plays out almost like a classic film noir (as opposed to a 'cool' crime thriller in the vein of Goodfellas or Reservoir Dogs), and as a result the film doesn't stand out much. It actually seems like it could have been made for television as most of the cast (Liam Neeson aside) will be recognisable to anyone that has seen a handful of British TV shows and it's very modest all the way through. The film takes place in the fifties and we focus on private detective/disgraced former policeman Tony Aaron. Aaron makes a living through the illegal practise of faking affairs in order to beat the strict divorce laws. He begins using his wife for these capers; but is given a shock when his wife and a client are found dead in their room. An investigation into the killings ensues, with our detective as the prime suspect.The plot is definitely this film's main strongpoint, and it is carried off well. Director Simon Moore does a good job of getting his audience interested in the characters, which allows him to weave the simple, but twisted tale. Liam Neeson won some award for his portrayal of the central character, and it is a really good performance. This sort of role can often be difficult for actors to play because the character is essentially scum, but we do feel for him; and this is thanks to the charismatic and warm performance. The ensemble cast is rather impressive and, as mentioned, many British viewers will recognise a lot of faces. The mystery is constantly intriguing and we are made to wonder who has committed the crimes. It does have to be said that the final third of the movie not as interesting as the first two; but all in all, this is a well worked and interesting little thriller that is rounded off by a strong ending. I wouldn't recommend anyone goes out of their way to see this film; but it's certainly worth a look if you do find a copy.

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.