Under Suspicion (1991) User Reviews

Well done and interesting crime thriller

[The_Void · 7/10 · 19 March 2009]

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.

Good, well worth seeing

[mgould23 · 7/10 · 16 January 2009]

A great cast of British actors in this colour film noir style thriller from the early 90s. Neeson plays a private eye in Brighton in the early 50s when they needed evidence of adultery for divorces. I won't spoil the plot but it is a good movie and very nostalgic for those who love the old British films of the 50s. Has a bit of Hitchcock about it with a hint of Albert Finney's "Gumshoe" without the black comedy. I watched this movie being shot on outside location Portmerrion of "The Prisoner" fame in 1990/1. It is a good plot and one of Neeson's early meaty roles before he hit the big time as Schindler.

I guess I must invest in a DVD player that can show region 1 and I can enjoy this movie again.

Unfortunately not out on DVD in the UK which should be rectified.

Film making trick

[aether22 · 5/10 · 10 April 2007]

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.

Nice Made for TV movie

[rmax304823 · 27 February 2003]

I don't know if this story really belongs on the big screen. It would have been fine as an HBO special or something. However, the performers are better than one would expect in such a venue.

Liam Neeson is so likable, a tall hulking actor, he seems to loom over whatever scene he appears in. And what a face! His skull seems to have no glabella whatever, his nose droops down out of the middle of his forehead, and yet he's handsome too, in a plain, masculine way, kind of like Spencer Tracy -- no glamor boy, but easy to look at. His voice too is appealing, with its Irish grace notes. And he can act too! Unlike so many brutishly big action stars, this guy can project a smelly sweaty fear, and do it without seeming ridiculous or seeming any weaker than the rest of us would be.

Laura San Giacomo is an apt mismatch for Neeson. Here, in this tale set in 1959, her face is wide and her expressive eyes long and thin. She wears so much makeup she's funereally pale and her Chinese red lip rouge suggests a figure from a Dracula movie. She's tiny standing next to Neeson. His presence makes her look even more elfin, as if he could crunch one of her long bones in his fist. She has a smooth and seductive voice that doesn't sound quite believable. It's hard to forget she's acting. But it doesn't detract from her attractivness. She seems never to have found her proper niche in films; neither, for that matter, has Neeson. They both deserve better than they've gotten, with some exceptions.

The plot is about a couple of murders, a near hanging, a strained friendship, a love affair or two, shots ring out, you're not supposed to carry an unlicensed gun in Britain, can I really trust him/her?, and all together has more twists to it than a corkscrew. Towards the end there is an execution scene that is very crudely done but intensely gripping all the same. (The crosscuts are dizzying.)

I won't give away the ending. Ordinarily the resolution of the plot isn't really as important as what's led up to it, but in this case the end is the best part of the film, or at least the most surprising.

Watching this movie wasn't a waste of time. But, Great Merciful Heavens, I'll never go to Brighton on holiday.

Flawed, and spoilt by last 15 minutes

[Marlburian · 6/10 · 26 August 2021]

Most of "Under Suspicion" was very good but ...

A few minor shortcomings have already been noted, such as the use of Brighton locales in 1990 that had changed since 1959 and the up-market house in a setting that was nothing like Sussex (it was in Portmeirion, apparently).

In retrospect the opening scenes seemed implausible - a policeman undertaking surveillance leaving his post for a, extedned sex session with the target's wife.

But the film really fell to pieces in the last 15 minutes or so, with the frenetic house search, that frantic last-second dash to the prison and the later encounter in the prison courtyard that would never have been allowed in real life.

The ultimate twist was a jaw-dropper and made me think back to see if the actions that it revealed could have actually happened. Perhaps watching the film again would enable some of the loose-fitting pieces in the plot jigsaw to mesh, but I have my doubts.

Something's missing. But it's still enjoyable.

[I_Ailurophile · 7/10 · 5 January 2022]

There is much about the movie that feels very familiar. Simon Moore's direction is generally competent, though unremarkable, and in the broad strokes of his screenplay are a number of story ideas that we may have seen once before, or twenty times before. Some of these story beats altogether constitute genre tropes. This certainly isn't to say that 'Under suspicion' lacks worth, however, as there's also a fair bit to enjoy and keep us engaged. The mystery is sufficiently absorbing and detailed so that even though some points feel predictable, we still get twists, and it's still entertaining. It's a mixed bag, but better than not.

The cast is solid. Kenneth Cranham is an unexpected delight in his major supporting role of Frank, put-upon by the driven protagonist; his performance is defined by welcome nuanced range, offering a more steady foil to the seedier characters and portrayals. To that end - I like Liam Neeson, and I like Laura San Giacomo. I know they're both fine actors, and they show it here with touches of subtlety belying the hard grit we often expect from Neeson, and the ranged poise and personality San Giacomo has demonstrated elsewhere. However, it needs to be said that in 'Under suspicion' their acting broadly feels muted, or restrained, as though we're seeing only a fraction of what they're capable of. In other instances we're treated to moments of distinct overacting, and the cast's displays are less than convincing. It's difficult to feel like we're seeing the best they can do.

In fairness, I don't think the assembled actors are at fault. It's not that Moore's writing is bad - only very uneven, to the point of deeply restricting the value on hand in all regards. Most instances in which Neeson and San Giacomo are scene partners, especially early on, are almost laughable for how contrived and inauthentic they are, both in and of themselves and in their dialogue; the only love scene that readily comes to mind as being worse in concept or realization was in Uwe Boll's 'Bloodrayne.' The heightened melodrama at the climax likewise is regrettably insincere and strains suspension of disbelief. Meanwhile, I've seen a lot of descriptors attached to this picture, and none of them feel as meaningful as they should be. Yes, the plot carries all the hallmarks of a film noir - or a neo-noir, if you will: dirty deeds, bad business, figures of ill repute, tangled webs, sordid connections, and deepening holes. The story into which these are woven is one we can get invested in. Yet 'Under suspicion' maintains a relaxed, unbothered pace, and even if you drop the "noir" tag and think of it as a more conventional thriller, those thrills feels like they're kept at a low boil, never really hitting the high notes we want until the very end. The movie has also been marked as an "erotic thriller" - but anyone watching in anticipation of saucy stimulation should probably look elsewhere, as I simply don't think this title fits the bill. And again, importantly, Neeson and San Giacomo's characters, written as scene partners, are less than gratifying.

I think the technical craft and rounding details are quite fine; the art direction and production design seem sound. Hair and makeup, costume design, props, set decoration, filming locations, sound design, lighting - all these aspects are very suitable. Overall I do like the tale being told; if at times common and or imperfect, and not wholly riveting, it's ably engrossing. For that matter, I think the ending - the denouement, those scenes following the climax - are done so well as to significantly elevate the feature, and help to hold it aloft above its faults. All the same, something about this feels incomplete. The impact that 'Under suspicion' should have is dulled, like a TV whose volume is never more than 50-75% of what we want it to be. I want to like this more than I do, but am halted because this is less than it should be.

It's worth watching if you come across it. If you're a fan of the genre, or of someone in the cast, then by all means, 'Under suspicion' is a fair way to spend 100 minutes. I'm just left feeling slightly underwhelmed because it's not everything I had hoped; it unfortunately falls a tad shy of expectations. But, provided you keep yours in check - it's adequately fun.

The Art of Murder, Adultery, and Insurance Scam

[AZINDN · 7/10 · 11 December 2007]

"Under Suspicion" is a crime drama with several plot twists that entertain and provide sufficient ambiguity that the entire storyline is never fully revealed until the last scene, this is a good thing. Staring Liam Neeson as Tony Arrandt, a disgraced cop and sleazy private investigator who will do anything but the right thing to make an easy buck, this thriller centers on the double murder of Tony's wife, and a famous painter. Laura San Giancamo is Angelique, the stunning mistress of the painter, who stands to inherit everything while the painter's dumped wife, Selina, gets zero in the new will. As Tony tries to find the killer of his wife, while bedding Angelique in the painter's house, the police are building a case for murder with the opportunistic widower as prime suspect. With the collection of the last works of the artist hanging on the walls, the value of the art relies on the authenticated signature of the painter and his thumb print in the oils, but, the thumb was amputated when he was murdered. As Tony seems to try and discover the true murderer of his wife, the police, who resent his presence because his sexual activities once resulted in the death of one of their own when Tony was on duty, build a case for his arrest. His only friend is his former partner, who remains loyal and believes in his friend's innocence.

This is a tight drama with wonderful settings and interiors of 60s English seaside hotels and modernism architecture. The wonderful costumes are already commented on, but on the short, too contemporary San Giancomo, they look like she is wearing her mother's wardrobe. With too pale and heavy face makeup and ruby red lipstick, she is uncomfortably miscast next to a towering Tony, who is too low class for any believable liaison with the ambitious Angelique.

Neeson as Tony is a wonderful, amoral, and easy on the eye gumshoe whose desire to make an easy buck underscores his every move. San Giancomo is miscast in a period film where she is far too contemporary to be believable but, nevertheless, gives a restrained and credible performance. However, it is the story which must be watched closely as the guilty are proved innocent, and the art of deception and adultery just don't pay off in the end -- or does it?

Surprises but disappointing

[russjones-80887 · 6/10 · 3 March 2021]

It is 1959 when British divorce laws could only be overcome by manufacturing evidence. In Brighton, a private detective, with the help of his wife, provides photographs for divorce cases. However, he becomes a prime suspect when his wife and a client are murdered.

Neo noir crime thriller which has ambitions but ultimately fails to live up to them and is therefore slightly disappointing. There are a few turns along the way and a surprise twist or two before the end. Stars Liam Neeson, Laura San Giacomo and Kenneth Cranham.

A Film That Needs To Be Checked Out Twice

[ccthemovieman-1 · 8/10 · 7 July 2006]

This is one of those decent crime movies that few people have heard about. It has a lot going for it. I should rate it higher since the story kept my interest all the way both times I saw it (four years apart). The violence and profanity are not overdone, the main characters are very interesting and the story finishes with a unique twist.

Actually, that twist is something you have to ponder to determine whether it makes sense. I am not sure it did. You'd have to watch this again soon and check on a few things. It's either very clever or its totally unfair to the viewer, which is why I kept it at an '8."

It's nicely photographed and I bet it looks much better on a widescreen DVD than on the tape I viewed it on in the '90s. Liam Neeson and Laura San Giacomo star. I was familiar with the latter from the film, "Quigley Down Under." She's much more appealing in that film than this one. Neeson is almost always interesting to watch.

Murder mystery drama of 1959 !

[saptesh786 · 6/10 · 22 June 2020]

Story of 1959, movie made in 1991 and I saw it in 2020 ! Means I experienced drama of before 60 years. Story of a lawyer who use his wife to make a false affair with man whose wife wants divorce from him. In a such incident both lawyers' wife and his client both get murdered. Who was killer ? You can find it in last of movie. Acting by Liam Neeson is perfect in lawyers' role. Though story is interesting it seem too longer and could have been some shorter. Last climax is interesting and takes you high of the story. As me once time watchable not so remarkable. However atmosphere of 50's is perfectly shown is major plus point.

Clever crime film with good cast.

[MayhapsItWasGoodBackThen · 1/10 · 24 August 1999]

Since this movie is a crime thriller, I don't want to spoil your fun by revealing any facts.

I think Liam Neeson is very charismatic actor and he's done some great movies and I'd like to consider this to be well made and acted as well. Sometimes Neeson just ends up in the wrong movies. Dark Man for instance would've been terrible if it hadn't been saved by Neeson's melancholic and anguished performance. But this film is not a failure. In the movies he so commonly portrays a man who's weak and strong. Good and bad. It's somehow so human. You can feel that same thing in this particular movie too.

English atmosphere always makes films look more intelligent if compared to those made in Hollywood. ;) Maybe it's largely due to a fact that what foreign films lack in production costs they gain in realism. And realism is always a good thing.

I must confess that at least I got thoroughly fooled by this movie. I didn't realize the plot until it was revealed to me because not in any point of the film I ever even considered that as a one possible scenario. Man, I felt dumb but in some way I also felt betrayed since I genuinely felt sympathy for the wrong person. I just kept on waiting for the bad guy to show up when it had been there all along. ;)

Check this out. I found it very clever and full of good actors.

a sadly under-rated and unknown film

[tjackson24 · 9/10 · 30 August 2001]

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.

Standard whodunnit

[helpless_dancer · 7/10 · 5 April 2002]

Fairly good story about a 2 bit scoundrel private eye who apparently becomes involved in a double homicide while running a sleazy con game. A large insurance settlement is at stake and the police must figure out if the victim's wife did the deed or if it was her rival, hubby's mistress. Or could it have been someone else.....?

Yeah, it fooled me...into thinking it might actually be good!

[BrettErikJohnson · 2/10 · 26 May 2005]

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

Strong performances and direction; unconvincing conclusion

[adrianovasconcelos · 7/10 · 11 January 2021]

The start to UNDER SUSPICION is extremely gripping: not only do you find Neeson to be a devious cop, you know that he can lie with ease and that he has no regard for common values like the law, property or loyalty even to those he loves.

Standing in stark contrast, fellow policeman Kenneth Cranham provides the best performance as Neeson's real friend and also a stickler for the values that his former colleague shuns. A third copper, played by Storry, is something in between, out to punish Neeson but sadly incomplete in his actions by film's end.

O'Neill, playing the cheating wife who helps Neeson with "matrimonial cases" - i.e. getting paid for feigning affairs with men seeking divorce - is an interesting figure in that she has as few qualms about breaking the law as Neeson does.

Pretty San Giacomo seems miscast here, and the script does not help the character she portrays. As much as she may love Neeson, no one would accept a life sentence that easily after hearing confirmation from Neeson that he was the culprit.

Alphonsia Emmanuel, the wife of the murdered painter, delivers a very strong performance, too, as the clinical wife seeking what should be hers under the terms of the real will. Her cold stare is something to savor.

Photography, the atmosphere of Brighton in 1959/1960, deserves plaudits.

Simon Moore does a very good job of directing - not so much of writing. The script's final third is the film's weakness: the ending is rather unconvincing. Neeson seems sad that his love is in the clink, but he is easily capable of living with it, so that brief look of remorse seems as misplaced as San Giacomo's acceptance of her fate.

All told, UNDER SUSPICION is well worth watching: the first two thirds provide credible, high quality entertainment.

Laura San Giacomo- hmmm

[Midgegirl · 7/10 · 10 June 2021]

I was pleased to see Laura San Giacomo's name come up in the opening credits as I thought she was one of the best things in Pretty Woman and Sex Lies & Videotape, but here she just didn't seem right. She was neither believable as a femme fatale nor as a vulnerable victim, and I could never quite work out if it was her fault or the script's, which was pretty ropey in some places. Not that she was helped by the clumsy, unnecessary sex scenes- it's pretty hard to make plot lines sound credible mid-hump. However- she looked absolutely gorgeous in all the New Look outfits: very Audrey Hepburn.

I did like the ending though- and it didn't come as big a surprise to me as it did to other reviewers here- the whole film had a Jagged Edge feel to it, plus it answered my 2 main questions throughout the film: 1) why would detective who knew he was a suspect put himself in the dodgy position of being caught shagging the beneficiary of a will, and 2) why did he go back to her all lovey-dovey straight after telling Frank he was convinced she was the killer? At the time I thought it was poor plotting/characterisation, but then I gradually cottoned on to it being a deliberate ploy. Poor Angeline eh.

My only eyeroll was the opening shower scene; strange how we got to see Maggie O'Neill full frontal naked but never Liam Neeson- it's almost as if he had more say in the matter.

Best acting of all was Kenneth Cranham as Frank- he can always make cliched lines seem fresh and believable..

A Good thriller movie

[amirma-78982 · 7/10 · 14 November 2020]

I don't understand why this kind of movies getting low rates but it was good for an evening watch , the most part I influenced in the movie Frank's loyalty to his friend Tony I wish I have a friend like him scrifes everything in sake of his friend.Liam as usual was amazing and acted so good ...well done

Nifty litte period whodunit

[gridoon2024 · 6/10 · 18 October 2020]

Lots of twists and turns, leading to a split-second race-against-the-clock climax. Set in 1957-1959 Brighton, well-produced, and directed with care, if not a huge amount of style; it's not surprising that Simon Moore has a lot more writing credits than directing ones. **1/2 out of 4.

Wonderful film

[blanche-2 · 9/10 · 31 March 2007]

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.

Could've been far greater, yet still worthy of a watch

[r96sk · 7/10 · 23 November 2020]

Good.

'Under Suspicion' does fall flat towards the end due to the writing, but the premise is an interesting one for sure. I did start feeling underwhelmed as the film progressed though, despite it still producing a decent neo-noir crime thriller.

Liam Neeson is more than satisfactory in the lead role, with Kenneth Cranham supports suitably. I did like Laura San Giacomo too, while Maggie O'Neill (is it just me who thinks she looks like Lorraine Bracco here?) also features.

Could've been far greater, yet still worthy of a watch.

Too many plot holes and contrivances

[malcolmgsw · 5/10 · 27 January 2021]

For a time this film looked as if it would be really worthwhile.However it just fell apart in the climax.The detective who breaks into a house and saves Neeson in the nick of time. The trial is poorly handled.A defendant will not give evidence three times.Where did they get the courtroom set from.As a retired I have never seen one like the one shown in this film. Nor was there a long walk to the gallows.In the condemned cell there was a wardrobe.At the due time this was slid to one side revealing the door to the death chamber.Door opens,condemned man is brought to the gallows,arms and legs pinned,placed upon the drop,bolts removed,door opened,all over in a few seconds.Not minutes.

It's a pity Simon Moore didn't direct more.

[soliitho · 8/10 · 20 July 2010]

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.

Thrilling, but there is still potential for the final

[foxmasters · 7/10 · 22 February 2021]

1959. A man (Liam Neeson) enters a house and seduces a blonde. Shortly afterwards, a man storms the scene with a rifle and shoots everyone involved, including Tony's friend. But they escape the guy who catches a policeman in a blind rage.

After that, he was apparently released from the police force and he works as a private detective. He's accepted an assignment. There is a law that allows divorce if adultery occurs. Now he has just developed a scam. He smuggles his wife in, then there's a photo, and finally a divorce is hit. It's illegal.

Doesnt make any sense.

[steve-55595 · 2/10 · 11 November 2019]

The movie doesnt make any sense. Why marry a woman from an affair? Why kill her over a burnt 20k painting? Why have 85 minutes of a film in gloomy Britain then 2 minutes in America trying to tie up all the lose ends. It was a flop for a reason. Basic Instinct it isnt. It should of ended after he survived being hung then the film would of made sense. Final 15 minutes ruined it.

Decent mystery.

[deleyshaun · 6/10 · 17 February 2024]

Under suspicion tells the story of an ex cop turned investigator ( Neeson) who sets up his wife with men who want a divorce and photos them for services rendered. When his wife and a rich man is murdered he and also the cops investigate. In particular, the deceased mistress Angeline ( San Giacomo ) plus others including Neeson himself. This is a pretty enjoyable romp with decent acting. The ending including a frame up and near execution is a bit too neat to be totally believable. There is a fair bit of suspense throughout and it is generally entertaining. Nothing to write home about here but a decent mystery nonetheless. A good time filler.