Under Suspicion (2000)



Everyone has secrets. Some of them are crimes.

A lawyer is asked to come to the police station to clear up a few loose ends in his witness report of a foul murder. This will only take ten minutes, they say, but it turns out to be one loose end after another, and the ten minutes he is away from his speech become longer and longer…

Written by
Maarten Hofman <[email protected]>

While San Juan celebrates San Sebastian\’s Feast, recently-divorced and world-weary police captain Victor Benezet calls in prominent attorney Henry Hearst to clarify his statement about discovering the body of a girl of about 12, the second such murder in two weeks. As Hearst answers unconvincingly, Benezet reveals circumstantial evidence: the lawyer is under suspicion. The interrogation strips away Hearst\’s dignity, public persona, and even his toupee, exposing a breech with his beautiful and much younger wife, questionable sexual predilections and a damning hobby. Then, Hearst\’s wife volunteers information that confirms police suspicions. Is Hearst finally at the breaking point?

Written by
<[email protected]>

Genre: Crime,Drama,Thriller

Under Suspicion (2000)
Release Date: 2 June 2000 (Italy)
Country: France , USA
Director: Stephen Hopkins
  • Gene Hackman
  • Morgan Freeman
  • Thomas Jane
  • Monica Bellucci
  • Nydia Caro
  • Miguel Ángel Suárez
  • Pablo Cunqueiro
  • Isabel Algaze
  • Jacqueline Duprey
  • Luis Caballero
  • Patricia Beato
  • Sahyly Yamile
  • Hector Travieso
  • Marisol Calero
  • Vanessa Shenk

Incoming search terms

Under suspicion movie;under suspicion ending explained photos;under suspicion movie full synopsis;what happened in the movie under suspicion;under suspicion full movie portal;under suspicion movie did gene hackman role character snap under pressure;under suspicion movie why did he confess if he didnt do it;under suspicion why does he confess;under suspicion why henry confessed;who did it in under suspicion movie;who killed the girl inunder suspicion;Who killed the two girls in there under suspicion morgan freeman movie;who killed the two girls in under suspicion;Why did chantel frame henry in under suspision;under suspicion explanatin;why was henry confessing to the murders in under suspicion;under suspicion ending explained;first 5 minutes of under suspicion;in the 2000 movie under suspicion did person played by gene hackman kill those two girls;in the film under suspicion why did he confess;in the movie under suspicion with gene hackman why did gene hackman confess to raoe and murder;most intimate pocs of the film under suspicion;movie under suspicion why did he confess;movie/ Under Suspician/ do not understand the ending;on the movie under suspicion why did he admit to the crime when he was innocent;the movie Under Suspision with Morgan Freeman is based on what book?;the niece in under suspicion;The Under Suspicion 2000;under suspiciin 2000 why he confessed to a crime he did not commit;under suspicion can you explain the end;

33 Responses to Under Suspicion (2000)

  1. sporthub
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    OK, a lot of the theories offered up until this point have been bunk. I listened to the director/Freeman commentary to the movie & no where throughout or @ the the end do they say the wife set him up so

    1. He gave a FALSE CONFESSION out of a broken heart that his wife thought him such a monster to rape and kill little girls. Morgan Freeman says this IN THE DVD COMMENTARY @ the end!!

    2. The wife DOES NOT SET HIM UP. Freeman nor the director make any mention of such a thing. Furthermore, it would be ridiculous for the hard nosed veteran detective Freeman plays to let Chantel go waltzing out of the police station if he even slightly suspects that she set up one his BEST FRIENDS. He just spent 4 hours grilling the most wealthy lawyer in all of Puerto Rico and defied all the local brass by refusing to finish the interrogation the next day. If he thought the wife framed his BEST FRIEND she wouldn’t be going anywhere.

    3. Stranger things have happened than Jackmans character having photos of both the girls. Its not that big of a coincidence considering he adores little girls like his wife’s daughter. He says he likes young girls, that doesn’t make him a pedophile, neither does having sex with the 18 yr old Chantel while paying for her to finish college. Photography is also a great love of his. In the scene where the Opie detective finds the photos there are at least 10 other archives of photos taken ALL OVER THE ISLAND. Those probably weren’t even the only girls or ppl in all those pictures. Puerto Rico is not that big ppl. We also know that the photo of the girl who was killed in La Perla is an archive labled "The History of La Perla" Duhhhh, why is it labled that? b/c Jackman says in first 5 minutes of the movie he likes recording the history of the island, it makes perfect sense that the photo of the girl murdered in La Perla would be in the La Perla file B/C obviously he goes there and many other places to take photographs.

    4. The most RIDICULOUS theory I’ve hear proffered is that the wife planted pictures or hired a killer or both to frame Jackman’s character. WRROOONG. Freeman mentions at the end of the commentary that the movie confuses some ppl at the end, but he says its b/c it appears Chantel will commit suicide at the end not b/c Chantel is setting up her husband. Just walk w/ me for a second. If she would have hired a killer that would be huge detail for the movie never to mention at any point. If she commanded this mysterious killer to commit all 3 killings it would all be off of the anger and certitude she felt that Jackman was a molester/creep after the 3 seconds she saw of her husband siting on a bed with her niece. NOT LIKELY. Also, why would she have the mysterious killer commit a 3rd murder after Jackman is clearly under suspicion and thereby absolve Jackman. And having the mysterious killer commit only two murders or one this just makes no sense

    5. He rejects his wife hug at the end to signify that the damage his wife has inflicted upon their marriage is irrevocable. B/C she has suspected her husband of fondling her niece and so forth she rejected him sexually for TWO YEARS. And in the ultimate sign of contempt she lets Freeman search the house to confirm her long held beliefs of her husband’s supposed predilection for molesting young girls. This story is about jealousy growing wildly out of control and wrecking a beautiful marriage


  2. albi_gjino
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694


    From the very low score and another (tiresomely long) thread I read, I guess very few people got the ending right. Well, here it should be right:

    When Owens (Thomas Jane) enters the room with the evidence found at the house, he says smth. like "the wife told us where to find these". It means that Chantal had seen the pictures. That made Henry (Hackman) think that she had become jealous and killed them. That is why he confesed, to protect her. And, if the police said they were raped, there was no need to say "I killed them, but err… someone else raped them". At best it would keep the case open and the cops would get to Chantal.

    All the lying in the beginning was just to get out of the police station as quick as possible. He probably didn’t think the police had done such a deep investigation.

    Henry was not a pedofile or rapist. He just loved kids, the good way, as he had none. And, as girls want powerful and economically secure men, men want young and fertile girls. Thats normal. Wanting older women is a fetish.

  3. acosean
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    At the end of the movie when his wife wanted to give him a hug, why did he turn away? I thought he still loved his wife, and that when he was found innocent, the more he should rejoice with his wife?

  4. waltermagic
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    I beleive that his wife’s jealousy is the central concept at play here…It seems that the title indicates that Hearst is an implicated man and , given the apparent theme of misdirection the movie conveys, the suspicion that is most important is that of his wife’s. Her misunderstanding of the relationship with him and her neice was evidence of her skewed view of his actions with young girls because she too had developed such a close relationship with him at such a young age, she misunderstood that his role to these other girls would develop into something similar, and she would lose him. Her extreme jealousy tainted her perception of his innocent relationships (even hi-bye or simply pictures, which they turned out to be, of course). These misdrawn conclusions cut off the sex for TWO YEARS, and remember, he IS ENTIRELY INNOCENT…so he was given a life sentence of mistreatment by his wife, and rightfully he felt dejected frustrated, sad, etc…His life had become the sum total of the torture of the "sixty feet of hallway"…probably not an existence he was overly attached to. He knew she was listening and watching and even told her to come face him, she refused. Hearst was given his final rejection by her and he became despondant, because he thought she knew he was telling the truth. She spit when he confessed, because she knew it was the ultimate apology to her for her false accusations of infidelity, and his confession infuriated and hurt her. Guilt/anger kind of response. Well, once the killer had been caught, her eyes were opened to the truth of her insane jealousy and looked to reconcile…but the damage was done. Both, by his confessions, and her selling him out with the pictures. That was the jealousy being "taken this far". She was trying to prove her suspicions correct,and it, well, didn’t. He knew his relationship could never be salvaged, now from his perspective, as it was from her perspective before.

    His confession was his version of throwing up his hands and saying i can’t do this anymore. Fighting. Seperation. Divorce. Infidelity. His confession tone was monotonous, very unlike his previous animated, and obviously true, self. Kinda the tone a child gets when forced to apologize to his child rival/enemy.

    Sorry. I talk alot. But once you change the focus from a suspicion of murder to one of EXTREME jealously, it helps. I encourage discussion.

  5. stack888
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    Just watched Under Suspicion and I cannot believe it ended the way it did. The film seemed only half over!

    They didn’t tie up any loose ends at all.

    So, are we supposed to know if he was guilty or not??

    My thinking is that there are THREE possible scenarios the writer intended….

    (1) The main character did kill the girls and his wife set up this other guy they caught.

    (2) The main character did not kill the girls and this other person they caught did.

    (3) His wife killed the girls because she was jealous of the time they spent with her husband and the fact she could not have kids got to her and the husband suspected this and was prepared to go to jail for the woman he loved even after she set him up.

    So, anyone know which one it was???!

  6. Deckard20598
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    (Sorry for write in spanish, but mi level of english is low)

    Hola, no entendí el final de la película, y agradecería que alguien me explicase (si es en español mucho mejor) qué es lo que ocurre realmente, por qué el personaje de Gene Hackman no es detenido cuando todo le apunta como el claro culpable, y qué se esconde detrás de ese enigmático plano final de Monica Bellucci. Gracias.

  7. BlackMamba89
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    Does anybody know the name of the song,when the wife walks away at the end when she finds out he didnt kill the girls.When she looks down on the city? When she walks towards him and he sits down on the bench.




  8. CmdrCody
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    Thomas Jane is splitsville with wife Patricia Arquette. She hasn’t exactly had an Academy Award movie career.

    I suppose he hasn’t, either.


  9. theunholy-1
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    I saw the original one, French movie "Garde à vue". Then it was brought to my attention that once again americans decided to steal a great movie. But since it was Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman I was curious to see it, good actors in an american remake for once.

    Well… I have to admit that even though I think the original is, and by far, better than the remake, it’s not so bad.

    Hackman and Freeman can’t compete against Lino Ventura and Michel Serrault, especially Freeman who turned out to be average compared to Ventura. On the other hand Hackman was suprisingly good, very close to Serrault. In my opinion Harvey Keitel would have been superior to Freeman, but that’s just talking…

    Hackman understood how self-centered, control lover / manipulative and worried about appearances his character is. Also troubled since he’s innocent but he’s indeed attracted to minors, and even if he ends up claiming there’s nothing wrong about that, it’s obvious he feels guilty about it. A very complicated character, with many tones of voice and emotions to render all over the movie, and it was well done. Special applause at the end when Hackman wasn’t looking furious or sad to confess, but just resigned, a man who’s giving up. And not looking happy to be free to go, because he’s been completely unmasked, which is horrible for a man like him.

    On the other hand the first time you see Freeman on the screen, when he calls Hackman, he’s a columbo-like. Falsely disorganized, with a fake friendly attitude, pretending it’s just a ten minute ride etc. Which really wasn’t a good idea, but probably not Freeman’s choice, I know. But during the whole interrogation Freeman looks like a guy without emotion, mono-tone kind of guy. Even when he says "*beep* you" he barely looks angry… Ventura did a much better job at playing the cop who’s making it personnal, feeling sick just thinking about it, determined to find the one who did those horrible crimes. Which is quite strange because Freeman’s character has two daughters and Ventura’s didn’t, like they were trying to make it more a personnal thing with the father who identifies to the victims’s families. Freeman just didn’t get it.

    And most of it, Garde à vue is a huis-clos for 85% of the movie when the remake is outside the office half of the time, maybe more. American version is not as intimate as the original, which is a shame.

    Funny thing: I got to say that Hackman’s wig was a good idea, kind of detail that really suited the character.

    Anyone else saw them both ?

  10. TAthena
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    Did he mean everything he said? I mean, some things in the movie are just to subjective. He lied most of the time, why? He didn’t do anything of the sexual nature with Camille, why was Chantel so pissed? He said he liked Young girls, in a sexual way (at least it sounds like that)Does he? Because he didn’t Hurt those girls, are we for sure he didn’t hurt other girls? He Met Chantel when she was 11- creepy much? Or is he just a liar and she just a little warped?

  11. andyk888
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    I thought this to be a intense film, featuring phenomenal acting by duo Gene and Morgan. I thought the acting to be so high in quality the academy awards could of recognized gene’s performance in particular.

    I just finished watching the film and would like to give my take on the story.

    Gene’s life prior to Morgans suspicion was obviously fractured. There were problems within his relationship with Belucci, but never for once did he come across as a murderer. I felt the whole time his ‘lying’ and ‘stumbling’ was because he thought there may of been a chance he did murder the two kids, added to the fact he had a speech to give in 30 minutes. He was also very drunk the night it all happened – he might of questioned himself for a minute.

    All throughout the movie Morgan is probing and pressing, and at times telling Gene, what Gene did. He was in a way, saying how ‘he would do it’, Morgan was telling the story. In fact, even in one of the later flashbacks, you see Morgan move first and Gene watch from afar, when before it had been vice versa.

    By the time we are in the interrogating room at the end, Gene has a great little point where he speaks of growing old and how "if we are attracted to teenagers when we are teenagers, what changes? We must therefore still be attracted, our interest hasn’t aged the way we have" and "Their skin looks the way skin should look.". After this little sermon from Gene I felt as if Morgan began to fall under the spot light himself. Infact, humans or men in general, because what Gene has said is quite a natural declaration.

    At this point I still don’t think Gene is guilty. By the end, he’s been chewed and chewed to a point where he can no longer defend himself. he’s forced to give a statement. But every word he gives in the statement, is a direct repeat of the story Morgan had given earlier.

    At the end of this film, Gene is innocent. Make whatever you like of the Belucci/Gene affair, but the greatest interpretation for me from this film is despite Gene being a ‘power, money grabbing attorney’, and Morgan the ‘good’ cop, the line of ‘who is proper’ is smeared and by the end I feel Morgan to be the lesser man. It just goes to show.

    I hope some of you get this! Its an hour too late at night for my liking :)

  12. jackgriffin1-1
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    Is this the worst ending of any film in history? 105 minutes of tension leading up to 5 minutes of incoherent confusion. Who wrote this film? Anyone? It’s like watching Psycho and, at the end, Mrs. Bates is alive, Norman is sane, and the murders were committed by an anonymous person who lives just inside Fairvale.

  13. nickyquick87
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    did chantal do anything other then be jelous..is henry the one who is actually the person with the uperhand in that relationship? and hes messing it up cause chantals too old now?

  14. sgraf_x
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    Ok I really like this movie. Gave it a 8/10. Now as to Hearsts false confession and this is just my own opinion on this, as there is room for viewer interpretation due to the ambigutiy of the ending.

    I think his false confession was a sort of "Well *uck you then." to his wife. The entire storyline revolves around their marriage even though these murders are the focus of the film. As everything plays out through the Q&A regarding the murders the constant theme is the state of their now dysfunctional relationship. It all stems from her lack of trust in him at the Christmas party and downward spirals from there. Her lack of trust and his disappointment that she should know him better causes him deep pain as only true love can. He has pretty much loved and cared for her, her entire life and now he feels betrayed that she would even consider him guilty of this crime.

    So he just gives up because he is basically all used up and has given up hope for them. In his mind he thinks "OK if thats what you think I am then I will be what you think." I know its a kind of self-defeating logic but havent you ever felt that way? Ultimately his intent is to hurt her back they way that he feels hurt.

    There is, NO Gene for the Human Spirit. Gattaca

  15. thatsnumberwang
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    This movie was such crap. I couldn’t believe Hackman not only agreed to this role, but executive produced the movie. The one thing I got out of it is that I would be interested in seeing Jane and Bellucci as romantic interests in some films. Provided he could get back into shape. He’s kinda puffy a la ben affleck right about now.


  16. p-stepien
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    I don’t think this film was great, but I liked it.

    I’m just surprised how totally lost most viewers are… Its almost as if they’ve gotten so used to having all the motives thrown straight at them, that they expect everything to be written in silver lining…


    1. The real murderer is of no consequence to this movie. He is irrelevant. His murders are relevant to the plot, but whodunnit does not matter.

    2. Any loose threads or semiloose threads are also irrelevant. The also reason they are relevant is because of how they put the main character in deep trouble.

    3. We are shown at several times several versions of the same truth, seen through the eyes of various people. The main situation is the Carmine scene. The Belucci character remembers it erotically. The Hackman character remembers it innocently. This leads to misconceptions and misunderstanding which ruin the marriage.

    4. The film is a psychological drama of a man broken, who essentially after believing that his wife has no faith in him, has essentially betrayed him and sees him as a rapist and murderer, decides to admit, even though he is innocent.

    5. In the end scene the Belucci character sees that she was wrong to doubt and is full of guilt. She alsohas possible refound the love and trust she once lost. The Hackman character is broken, distrustful and essentially possible rid of his love to his wife. Hence Monica tries to approach him, whilst Gene avoids contact.

    I guess part of this is owned to inept direction, but still…

  17. maxcal
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    …who plays the prostitute that Hackman’s characters is takingfrom behind during the flashback scene?

    "Everyone’s a critic…except people who still know how to kick back and ENJOY a movie…"

  18. heretic0011
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    Why did he confess if he was innocent? My guess is just because everyone doubted him from the beginning and he knew that they’d all feel like idiots when they found the real killer.

  19. kooseman
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    Hey guys, I know some of you in here might be interested in this event my wife and I are attending this weekend.

    The Dallas Comic Con is this weekend, January 24-25 at the Richardson Civic Center

    Come out and meet special comic book and media guests. The show features a wide variety of artists and writers, including Bernie Wrightson (SWAMP THING), William Stout (WIZARDS), Herb Trimpe (HULK), Howard Chaykin (PUNISHER:WAR JOURNAL), Jon Bogdanove (SUPERMAN:MAN OF STEEL), Joe Jusko (VAMPIRELLA), Mark Brooks (ULTIMATE X-MEN), Tim Bradstreet (PUNISHER), Jim Daly (X-FILES), Kerry Gammill (SUPERMAN), Brian Denham (X-FILES), and James O’Barr (THE CROW), to name but a few.

    Media guests include Thomas Jane (THE MIST, PUNISHER) and Todd Farmer (writer of MY BLOODY VALENTINE in 3-D).

    General admission is just $10, and kids 12 and under get in free with paid adult. Two-day priority Speedpasses ar $20. PARKING IS FREE! For more information go to http://www.dallascomiccon.com or http://www.myspace.com/scifiexpo

  20. pullgees
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    There was some passing remark about D and A which I didn’t quite get as it was mumbled. Apart from sperm there are lots of particle evidence exchanged between the assailant and rape victim, hairs, clothing fibres, skin, saliva, possible blood traces from scatches. All this was conveniently omitted from the story, it had to be otherwise no story, which made the whole thing stupid. Also why would the police need permission to search his home, he’d been arrested , a search warrant was automatic. Big holes in this story, no wonder it bombed.

  21. Loaded_Barrel01
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    I know we hear her speaking italian but her relatives are all Puerto Rican…

  22. marty-133
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    Ok, I understand the "destruction" of Henry by being discarded and thought of as a guilty pervert and murderer by those that he either loves or respects.

    Plot wise I am at a loss to either explain:

    (a) who the murderer is

    (b) how the damning photos got in Henry’s house*

    *Some people may suggest that Henry took the pictures himself, but it is highly unlikely that he just happened to have photographed the exact same girls that were murdered. The odds are against this explination. If he did in fact take the pictures it seems more likely that the murderer was then in some way associated with Henry himself.

  23. relandal
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    He was that bad.

  24. Cinema_Love
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694
  25. BoSoxRule
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    The Marquis de fvcking Sade?!!

    I’m happiest…in the saddle.

  26. utkarshkrishna
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    In my opinion, the most powerful thing about this movie is how the security and power associated with money and position can slowly be stripped away and under the right kind of emotional pressure even a man of strong social and financial standing like Hearst can be reduced to confessing to a crime he did not commit.

    He has everything, but when they turn the things he loves the most against him, he starts to crack almost immediately. This, I guess, could be true of most of us and is what makes the movie unique and powerful.

  27. Gibski
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    morgan freeman is very very very very good in Under Suspicion…i think he gives the best performance….and surprised me……there is a lot of subtley in his acting….and a lot that you simply don’t notice…cos his for one thing his "look" in the movie is so simple…what he’s wearing…his simple hair….everything…he also makes a conscious effort not to steal the screen..cos that’s not his job in the movie…there are so many things he does which just showcase what a true and pure actor the guy really is

    and the worst performance has to go to…gene hackman’s toupee! haha

  28. Alwood
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694
  29. CmdrCody
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694


    Some posters are confused about what happened at the second murder scene.

    The police captain (Freeman) and Sgt. "Opie" already know that Hearst didn’t pick up Tango at the house to go jogging with him. So when Hearst at first insists that he did pick up the dog, the police guys say to themselves, "…ah ha! A lie."

    Then, later, Hearst lamely changes his story and says he intercepted the loose dog during his jog. He said that it happened all the time. By now, the police (and the movie audience) don’t believe Hearst.


    But, by the end of the picture…as the credits roll…we realize that for Hearst to find the body deep in the brush, off the jogging trail, Tango had to have been with him and DID find the body first…barking and causing Hearst to leave the pathway and look into the brush.

    Tango was with him, just as he stated.


  30. martin-secker
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    Stephen Hopkins ruined the movie by using nifty camera tricks when they were unnecessary. The movie should just been stripped to the bare minimum – Hackman & Freeman are good enough actors to entertain without any gimmicks. It should’ve been a variation on Sidney Lumet’s The Offence. A very good prospect made average by a Director more interested in style rather than substance.

    "Just because you are a character, it doesn’t mean you have character" – The Wolf

  31. jmac332083
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    the ending really makes the movie pointless doesnt it?

    Tom Jane Needs To Be The Punisher! Make A Good Script For The 2nd Movie So He Does It!

  32. Avidog
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    1. I think when his toupe came off and he couldn’t put it back on, this was more or less, the beginning of his disintergration.

    2. When Det. Owens got into the van with Chantal, the other cop asked him if he was ok. Is it possible that he was smuggling the damaging photos to Chantal’s house, so as to be planted? He seemed to be fumbling with his shirt or something.

    3. Maybe just my taste, but I didn’t like the insertion of Morgan Freeman into the recall scenarios. I found it irritating and too "artsy-fartsy". Maybe I’m getting old but this seemed to be a bit banal.

    4. Was it Chantal’s jealousy of her niece that initially got the cops interested and suspicious of her husband?

    5. Was the difference between Victor’s and Hearst’s socio-economic background the reason he was so vehement about going after a man who was supposed to be his friend?

    6. If Hearst were a lawyer, and even if he wasn’t, why didn’t he immediately lawyer-up, instead of subjecting himself to the incredible abuse? I would have done so after the first five minutes of interrogation.

    I liked the movie as I’m a big Hackman fan. However, I found that it lacked credibility though the main themes and points were not understated or misunderstood by me. I hope I didn’t bore anyone with my assessments and questions and would appreciate comments. Thanks!

  33. otij
    Warning: printf(): Too few arguments in /home/themovie/public_html/wp-content/themes/feed-me-seymour/functions.php on line 694

    if you didn’t knew , well sure you did know.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *