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 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.