I also was befuddled! I didn't come up with scenario 1 though and that would be the best ending I think although the fil
-
Basketball_diaries — 21 years ago(January 31, 2005 06:54 AM)
The movie was chilling as it did entail the acting of Morgan Freeman.
But the ending was almost as cliche as Gene Hackman waking up from a dream. The movie was based around somethign that was not.
They based the whole plot around a story and at the very end it was just like "ok everythign you've watched was just jargon" oh btw someone else was guilty but were not gonna say who or why.
I dont want to get into also how coincidental the movie was, as many of you have already pointed this out. For example why would Gene Hackman have photos of the two girls dead bodies if he didnt do it? Why would he have witnessed the two dead girls. ANd if it wasnt him why did the other killer take pictures?
Movies like this are ridiculous and the directors have just run out of ideas. -
FivenseveN — 21 years ago(January 31, 2005 11:34 PM)
"Is it too far-fetched to assume that she planted those photos there?" You mean she knew he was going to kill those little girls so she went out and took the pictures before he killed them? Another thing you have to take into account with this movie is the time frame. The movie itself all takes place in one night. They say the first girl was murdered 2 weeks prior, and after finding the second girl Victor had not slept since the day before.
I think the what they are trying to show in the movie was that sometimes a persons love for somebody else could be so strong that even though they know the other person does not love them back they are willing to sacrifice everything to appease the other person. In this case Henry new that the only way Chantal would be truly happy was to be totally correct and not believe she has 'wasted' the past two years and possibly her life. Thus making it okay for him to take the fall. =OR= you could take it as he just figured "you know what.the girl of my life thinks im a child rapist/murderorif i cant prove my innocence to these people whats the point.
anyway I give this movie a 8 out of 10. It could have been better without that horrible detective in the movie. But i must say the flashbacks and memory recolections were superb
-
pzak — 21 years ago(February 03, 2005 10:47 PM)
Chantal didn't have anything to do with the murders. She just saw that her suspicions about Henry were being confirmed piece by piece. As for Henry, he did know those two girls, which explains the black and white photos, and which also helps explain why he was lying about the dog and everything else early on. As someone said earlier this is more a psychological and character piece than a whodunit, but we're so conditioned to expect plot twists and shocks that we're reading too much into the plot.
I thought one of the main problems with the movie was that so much of it hangs on the flimsy and unbelievable idea that Chantal would be so jealous of her husband talking to her niece that she would willfully destroy her marriage over it. They've known each other for 25 years and this has never cropped up before? It just doesn't ring true,yet it's what Henry's whole downfall is based upon. -
Jackar03 — 21 years ago(March 24, 2005 08:22 AM)
Just to add a few notes:
When living with someone really jealous, you watched your every move and in fact you change your way of thinking and living to avoid any problem with your love. It's hard to explain except if you live it.
When Hackman went to the police station the first time, Belucci looked at him suspisciously. Like she had doubts he may be in trouble or even connected with the murders. So she thinks he's guilty.
Also, if your watch on the DVD at the bonus section. Monica Belluci tells that her caracter seems strong but is weak in fact. So it means that even from her point of view. She didn't plan anything. She lives it like we do. If she had planed it, I assume she would be strong and acted like a weak person.
At the end, I believe that Hackman confess only so he doesn't have to continu to live with the suspicion of his wife. The last scene, we see that Monica wants to grab him, like her suspiscion had left. But he turn her down cause now he has to live with his own weakness, he's just realise how much control her wife has on him.
What do you think??
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that we are given" -
cisne-vulgar — 20 years ago(June 20, 2005 12:43 PM)
so pretty much no one really knows what happened, right? some say the photos of the dead girls sleeping (or lying dead) were found in hackman's property, some others say they weren't, etc.
what frustrates me is that such a stylish thriller had such a muddy ending without being obvious about it. take for example a film like Mullholland Drive, where there's not a clear ending but you, as an audience, KNOW this, so you try to make heads and tails of it in a PERSONAL WAY. Under Suspicion is not clear about its intentions, it leaves an audience wondering if there really WAS a specific ending, or if it shoud TRY TO FIGURE ONE OUT.
I have no problem with films which are shadowy about their plot, but I do have problems with films which are unclear about their intentions. -
ugadawgs6910 — 19 years ago(December 25, 2006 09:12 PM)
Obviously the photos were not Hackman's, they belonged to the man the police just caught. This also dispels the "copycat" idea
watch the end of the movie again if you can't see that. They wouldn't have released Hackman if they just found those photos in his car, and they explicitly say that they found them in the other guy's car. -
cozinefam — 19 years ago(January 09, 2007 06:50 PM)
There were different sets of photos. Hackman had photos of the same girls in his house that he had taken while they were playing outside. the murderer had photos stashed in his car of the girls after he killed them.
-
jantrygve — 20 years ago(October 02, 2005 03:42 PM)
Hey!
As many others of you, im baffled by this film. Confused, but very intreged! (Sorry about my written english, im Norwegian)
I just saw the film on TV for the second time this year, and as I saw it now, I could get deeper into the dialouge.
I dont have the "truth" about the movie, and have not cracked the mystery either. But I have some questions/theories I'd like to share.
The two girls that were killed. I find the idea of them beeing Harrys and Chantals children compelling. There's alot that dont make sense in that thoery, but some things interest me. Harry says: "The extra bedrooms were for the children, which were never used." I know they say they did'ent have children, but Harry says its beacause Chantal can't, she quickly denies that in the white interrigation room later with Victor.
I have no explanation for the murders etc, it's just a thought.maybe with no basis.
A comment on the photographs, and weather Harry did it or not. I dont think he did it. I think there is some suttle hints from the filmmakers that undermine that though. For example, the pictures taken by the "killer" were Polaroids. I dont think Harry would take Polaroids, on basis of his love of photography. On the other hand, is'nt it a bit wierd that the killer actually took pictures? The police didnt have any evidence of anyone taking pictures of the bodies. The just assumed that since Harry love photography, that he would. Or am I wrong there?
Last, about the ending. I love that sort of endings. Were you as an audience have no clue what just happened. Some feel thay know more, some have their own theories, and some dont care. We are the ones who cares, and thats why the film is great. I loved it the first time, and loved it the second time as well.
JT -
giuseppetu — 20 years ago(October 04, 2005 11:22 PM)
Just keep in mind that the movie is based on the book entitled "brainwash". It explains the confession with no guilt. Police tactics can sometimes draw out false confessions in emotional scarred or generally depraved people as they begin to be brainwashed into their own guilt as they have underlying guilt over their lives.
-
dgris33 — 20 years ago(October 07, 2005 07:13 PM)
(hmm i donno how to create my own post, so i guess ill just reply to this one)
i thought it was an awesome movie, and i thought sidnee analyzed it wonderfully.
a new perspective on it that has been hinted at in this thread but not exactly mentioned is simply that Henry is as good as guilty if his wife believes he's guilty.
It's obvious he didn't commit the murders nor did his wife. But Henry is obsessed with his wife..her love and affectionespecially coming from such a young, beautiful womanand when she believes he's guilty, he's lost all hope. There is nothing else to hope for. His wife has emotionally betrayed him. In his mind, if she thinks he's a murderer, he might as well be. So he confesses.
It was also, like many other mentioned, a commentary on officials' ability to force false confessions. -
brownslytx — 20 years ago(October 27, 2005 09:37 PM)
I haven't read all of the posts but I have read several which seem to have similar theories of "who done it". I believe that this is the scenario:
- Henry believed that his wife committed the murders out of jealousy and confessed at the end to save her.
- When he made the statement "I didn't think she would go this far", he believed that she had killed the girls AND set him up as the murderer, all out of jealousy It was the "If I can't have you, nobody will!" syndrome.
- Consider the wife's account of when she caught him in the bedroom with her niece. As innocent as it was, she knew that that was how he used to talk to her when she was a young girl and it infuriated her. Not only that but her niece responded just as she did as a young girl so she knew that he could draw her niece in just as he drew her in years ago. Remember her comment? "He had no right making her laugh/smile like that." Something to that effect. She felt that those kind of reactions belonged to her and only her. Her jealousy was out of control from that point on.
- After Henry was held so long at the police station, the wife began to believe that he was guilty. This would only validate her jealousy all along. When the pictures of the girls were found at the house, she was sure of his guilt.
- In the end, both were wrong. Neither was the murderer and both were shocked to find that the other was innocent.
- The wife didn't realize how much her husband loved her until she realized he was confessing to save her. At the end when they were outside and sat away from each other (note: she ran up to him in a physical attempt at forgiveness and reconcilliation but he turned away from her), it was because they both realized (him more than her) how damaged their relationship had become and that it couldn't be resurrected. More importantly, she realized that it was all her fault. Of course she knew all along that he had an attraction to young girls. How could she not know considering how old she was when they got together? Yet, he truly loved her but her jealousy ruined what could have been a happy, fulfilling life with children. This is why it is implied at the end that she was going to jump of the cliff and kill herself, as in the original film. She was tormented with guilt.
It is important to note that she COULD have children. When she was being questioned at the police station, the caption said " but when you couldn't have children?" she replied "Of course I can.". This goes back to the husband's earlier slip of "she won't can't have children.". She could have children and her husband knew it. He lied because he knew that the reason she wouldn't have children was also out of her jealousy. She didn't want him to adore a child, even if it was their child, the way that he had once adored her as a child and, potentially, more than he adored her. There may have also been the concern of becoming unattractive to her husband after childbirth, which many woman experience. Remember his comment during questioning, "sometimes a woman's beauty is her only talent.". Again, I may be paraphrasing.
Sadly, I believe this movie is very true to form. There are many women who don't trust men or believe "all men are dogs". They may have a good man but their jealousy and unwarranted distrust is the ultimate cause of the relationship failing.
Sorry this was so lengthy but that's my story and I'm sticking with it!
-
AddyBaddy87 — 19 years ago(June 22, 2006 04:33 PM)
Well
What Can I Say A Really Intresting Film
I've just seen it 4 the first time today on one of the 3 dvd's you get in the paper, i remembered it caught my eye because it had Morgan Freeman in it and the person who at the time i only knew as "the busty french woman from the matrix" who i now know is Monica Belluci who is Italian - not forgetting Gene Hackman of course
Anyway the film, well it was a very intresting film, i had to pause and play back when the woman goes "the killer's downstairs" i just couldn't believe it.what a wierd and untimed twist!
I have to agree with what most other ppl have sed about the ending
I thought that Henry was the killer all along but thought that perhaps some1 had done the murders wiv him, some1 that we'd maybe see during the later stages of the film.
I thought that Chantel cud've been the killer especially when she was going on about Camile especially when she said "he shudn't have made her smile/look like that", and i alike at least 2 posts on here was thinking she's jealous of her niece because thats what she was like when she was younger wiv Henry ogling after her.
I thought Tom Jane cud've been the killer but only when we see Henry talking and there's clips of one of the mudered girls holding a male hand, but that was only briefly.
Now 2 The Evidencehow did it get there? Im not even going to comment on this because im still bloody confused.
I guess the whole film shows that if you have been reptitvly told something over and over again that eventually you will beleive it and thats what happened to Henry.
I give Under Suspicion an 8/10a good film..shame about the somewhat confusing ending -
dubida-1 — 19 years ago(July 30, 2006 08:45 PM)
This movie has a very simple structure in my opinion. You just need to take the flashbacks and think about them for a moment.
There's something more to the presence of M. Freeman "inside" G. Hackman's memories. Besides the smooth touch to the editing in the movie, which in my opinion works very well, creating a space where everybody can see what happened and not just us and G. Hackman; it also works as a metaphor for the mind games that are happening throught the dialoges. I believe that these parts didn't only have a simple aesthetical point, otherwise, in terms of direction/concept it wouldn't make any sense to have a memory in which M. Freeman can enter without discription.
It's a way to show us a mind being manipulated. And as the movie comes to an end, we realize that G. Hackman's mind had already been manipulated by the cruel obcession of his wife, that's why he gives up on trying to overcome the whole problem, using the exact discription given by both detectives without adding anything else because there was nothing else in his mind to tell.
I liked the movie, but i don't consider it a "very good" movie, because in my opinion there are some problems with the direction. There is an excessive use of spatial context for a movie that runs inside a mind, taking us to a place that becomes too relevant. Just an opinion though.
6/10 -
cozinefam — 19 years ago(November 14, 2006 09:35 AM)
I have been wondering about the question 'why Puerto Rico?' too. Today I read an interesting connection, that Puerto Rico's age of consent is 14, which would make his conduct with his wife before they married legal.
If you have questions about the film's plot and haven't read the entire thread, I recommend that you locate Sidnee's entry. Illuminating and well written. -
trking8 — 19 years ago(March 25, 2007 04:26 PM)
the ending was just plain clumsy and inartful. all of the other elements were great (the acting, dialogue, etc.), but the plot was an absolute dud. it was like the monty python skits where a barbell just comes out of the sky and ends it all. terrible.
t -
detlev-hackenberg — 18 years ago(May 08, 2007 03:03 PM)
Read Sidnee's and brownslytx' entries and you will have two logical and comprehensive explanations of the movie and maybe understand what you didn't understand after watching the movie.
brownslytx differs in his interpretation of the movie in that he believes that Henry confesses because he thinks Chantall killed the two girls. I'm not so sure about this. How would Henry explain to himself the raping of the two girls? Obviously Chantall couldn't have done that. For the rest brownslytx' review is among the best in this thread.