Suspect (1987)

Overrated and overhyped

Masterful Movie

Blistering performances.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

The highlight of this movie for me was a wonderful performance from Cher. She was playing the part of Kathleen Riley, a public defender who gets caught up in more than she bargained for when she takes on the case of a homeless man accused of murdering a 24 year old woman. The case is a lot more complicated than that, and the story keeps viewers on their toes. We're quite sure that Carl (the homeless man played by Liam Neeson) did not kill the young woman. The question is - who did? And why? The movie disorients right off the top, beginning with a Supreme Court justice committing suicide. But them that seems to disappear. But surely it's connected? Basically, we settle into a waiting game, as we look for the connection.The movie settles down for a while into a pretty standard courtroom drama, and Cher (and Joe Mantegna as the prosecutor) are quite credible in their courtroom activity. Another twist is added to the story by Kathleen's growing involvement with juror Eddie (Dennis Quaid) - a congressional lobbyist who gets involved surreptitiously in helping to build the case for the defense. Quaid was also very good in his part, as was John Mahoney as the presiding judge. There really were no weaknesses in among the cast. I have to give real credit to Neeson. As Carl he did a magnificent job, especially given that he was playing a character who was both deaf and mute. His entire performance had to be conducted without voice, and he was very convincing. The whole thing builds up to a surprising courtroom twist that would have done Perry Mason proud, and that I didn't see coming at all.My basic criticism of the movie is that it tries perhaps too hard to keep the viewer off balance. So many layers are added on that there is a temptation every now and then to drift away, because it's hard to keep everything straight. But in the end, when all the pieces are put together and that dramatic twist comes, you're glad you stuck with this. (7/10)

This is a completely implausible legal thriller/romantic thriller. The lack of credibility becomes more obvious as the movie grinds on. The things that Cher and Dennis Quaid's characters do would get them arrested and the case thrown out, and Cher's character would get disbarred. The case involves a dead Supreme Court Justice, yet the characters do things that would embarrass a first-year law student. I realize this is fiction, but even escapism has to be somewhat believable. The Perry Mason series was not reality, but at least it was somewhat credible. Also, the climactic scene is something that Agatha Christie would have been too embarrassed to use. A defense lawyer and a juror having an affair during a trial? Some have praised the chemistry between Cher and Quaid. It does help, but not enough.

I had missed this film during the many years since it was made, and caught it by chance on a Friday afternoon, after a particularly long and hectic week. I thought I might nod off, but instead I found myself engrossed in it very soon. It has some far-fetched aspects, and as the "goofs" section in this site points out, it wouldn't have been tried in a federal court, but in the local D.C. courts. However, given the rather surprise ending, this would be a necessary variation, given its circumstances.Cher is not a person whom you reference when thinking of leading, versatile actresses -- but this isn't so. This serious role, as well as a different type in the excellent "Moonstruck," display both her competence and versatility. Dennis Quaid is always excellent, and a favorite of mine, and the remaining cast were as well. John Mahoney's performance is well-delivered, and an interesting performance, in contrast with his more pleasant persona in "Moonstruck," also -- and particularly juxtaposed with his likable presence in the long-running "Frasier" series.As another pointed-out, there is a surprise ending, if somewhat more abrupt than seems necessary.But overall, an interesting, entertaining film.

I watched Suspect last night. My expectations.... well, they weren't high, but I can't say why. I love courtroom movies with thriller and suspense elements. Anyway, I didn't like the movie very much. Here is why: Suspect shows us a world of suspicious people. Denis Quaid's character wants to solve the case himself, but at the same time, the movie is supposed to stress on Cher's character. Still single, probably looking for the perfect man at her age. Of course, Cher's heroine receives one of the toughest cases with a deaf, violent man, accused in murder, played by Liam Neeson. In fact, I believe Neeson's performance is the best if I have to rank them. That doesn't say much, cause the movie obviously never tried to build up a character study so that the viewer could care about something more than just the killer's revelation. That's probably why I couldn't perceive the movie as drama.I didn't have any problems with the weak character build up, I didn't even mind the typical courtroom clichés. My main problem is connected with the plot, its beginning, its development and finally, its predictable ending that kinda destroys the whole 2nd and 3rd act. They could've done better than that. Suspect begins with a veteran judge, committing suicide and it turns out that his character has influence over the case, we follow through out the whole film. The plot throws some stupid details that turn a fresh thriller with potential into a boring courtroom drama with mini love story and tasteless dialog. I was bored by what was happening. Cher and Denis Quaid running around the city, trying to solve the case. Basically, that's all you are gonna watch after the first 15-20 minutes. And as I already mentioned couple of times, that predictable and happy ending doesn't fit. I mean, most characters in the movie doesn't live a happy life, the case is very difficult, the killer cannot be found. And suddenly, out of nowhere, we have a solution to everything. So, the most important part of the story is covered for like 5-10 minutes with Cher being chased by the killer who is revealed in the courtroom only 3 minutes later. Like the creators have tried to bring more and more details, but at some point, they've realized the movie shouldn't be longer than 2 hours and instead of editing the needless part of Suspect which is quite huge, they have destroyed an ending, I could've liked if it really was an ending with a long trial, tensed words, surprising findings and probably some kind of a twist or something.I gave the movie a 5, so, yes, it does have positive points. I already mentioned Neeson. Great character, good performance. Well, there is one weird, pointless shot of him getting all red, trying to say a word, but I can get over that. Aside from Neeson, it's hard to find originality and freshness. I can only say cheers to Neeson and his character. They brought that 5, no matter how strange that sounds. There are some interesting scenes that I can't consider bad at all, but they are too few to turn the movie into what I was asking for.Overall, watch Primal Fear. Suspect is not a good movie. It tries very hard to beat some other 80s suspense flicks, but it simply doesn't succeed.