movie plot under suspicion

Under Suspicion Ending, Explained

‘Under Suspicion’ is a crime thriller that follows a murder investigation where the cops have locked down their suspect. The only thing they need now is a confession and the case would be officially over. As the interrogation begins, a lot of secrets and lies come to the fore, and we experience a tug of war regarding the guilt of the suspect. Nothing is as it seems in this case, and by the end, a shocking revelation changes everything about it. The movie cleverly plays with the suspicion of the characters and the audience to deliver an engaging crime drama. Here’s what the ending means. If you haven’t seen the film yet, come back to this article later. SPOILERS AHEAD

Plot Summary

Henry Hearst is on his way to a charity event when he receives a call from Victor to come down to the police station and talk over his statement regarding a murder investigation. It is supposed to be a ten-minute meeting but stretches to an all-out probe into his personal life. Bit by bit, his worst secrets and thoughts are dug out and while Victor pushes to prove his guilt, Henry claims that he is completely innocent.

Is Henry the killer?

One of the great things about ‘Under Suspicion’ is how well it plays with our intrigue regarding Henry’s guilt. It keeps moving back and forth to refute and then support his innocence, making us question if we can trust his claims or the judgment of a seasoned police officer.

The interrogation starts out with his lies coming to the fore. He is an upstanding member of the community and is due to deliver a speech at the charity event to raise money for the kids who have been hit by a recent hurricane. This starts to outline the case in his favor, where even Victor’s superior doesn’t want to believe that Henry is the one they might be looking for. In contrast to this is Victor, and his junior Owens, who believes that Henry’s lies are enough to show that he is the murderer. Because Victor is a good person, and not hot-headed like Owens, we tend to believe that he might be right about this. Also, why wouldn’t we believe Morgan Freeman !

But then, there is no concrete proof against Henry. There is no DNA evidence, he didn’t leave anything behind at the crime scene to link it to him. All the cops have is circumstantial evidence. This is where the interrogation goes into the moral standing of the characters and makes us question what we believe. We discover that Henry seduced his much-younger wife when she was still a teenager. Through her, it is revealed that the reason she might as well file for divorce is that she found him seducing her niece, a teenager.

Henry’s visits to the prostitutes in a shady area of San Juan and his particular liking for young girls doesn’t do him any favors either. On top of that, the sheer number of loopholes in his story, and the lies regarding his acquaintance with the victims, convinces us that he is the killer. When the photos of the victims are found at his house, Henry relents and confesses to the crime. And then, the twist arrives.

It turns out that while Victor and Owens were busy with the interrogation, another girl was killed in the same manner as the previous victims. Only this time, the cops caught the killer in the act and arrested him just when Henry had confessed to the crime. This means that Henry had been telling the truth all along, and this makes us reconsider our thought process regarding the compartmentalization of morality and guilt when it comes to solving a crime.

Is Henry a pervert? He refuses to call himself one, but considering all the things he told the cops about himself, he just might be. But just because he likes young girls doesn’t automatically make him a criminal. This does put him in a suspicion whenever he would be found around young girls; for example, because Chantal is aware of this inclination of his, she doesn’t think twice before assuming that he is trying to seduce Camille. It turns out that he hadn’t been lying about what happened that day and that Chantal had misunderstood the situation. Nonetheless, it is much easier to suspect him, because we already know what he’s like.

The only wrong thing that happens in this film is that the cops are not able to separate their personal opinion of Henry to the actual crime. The more they find out about his life, the more it convinces them of his guilt. Instead of using some sureshot evidence to form a theory, they form their version of the events first and then try to find the evidence to prove it. And that’s their biggest failure.

The interrogation of Henry and Chantal and the search of their house leads to the strings that tie Henry to both the victims and convinces Victor that his suspicions were right. They get the confession from Henry, who realizes that his wife hates him so much that she helped the cops come up with the evidence to prove that he is the murderer. However, just when he confesses, Victor discovers that the real murderer has been caught. While this washes all the accusations off of him, Henry’s life has been changed forever.

Chantal realizes how she let her anger towards him almost ruin him entirely. Feeling guilty, she briefly considers killing herself, but then goes back to Henry to ask for forgiveness. But he is too dejected to forgive her now. Whatever trust had remained in their marriage is gone, and there is no repairing the damage that the interrogation has done. While Henry and Chantal ponder over their situation, Victor thinks about the damage he has done and how he completely went off track and almost framed an innocent man for a heinous crime.

Editor's Picks

Under suspicion ending explained.

Under Suspicion: Morgan Freeman and Monica Belluchi.

Page Contents

Under Suspicion: Main Plot

This corpse is of a young girl who had been raped and murdered. Since Hearst is unable to recall the true events and changes the course of events every time the police question him, Captain Victor Benezet (Freeman) and Detective Felix Owens (Jane) are doubtful about his involvement in the murder and rape and question him about his inconsistencies in how he found the dead body. No sooner than later, Heart realizes his conflicting recollection may make him guilty, this resulting in a cold war between him and Victor and Felix. This leads to an intense drama wherein many loopholes are discovered and many people are found to be involved. The pace of the movie is thrilling, to say the least, and that’s why so many people would want to know what happened in the climax, after all.

Under Suspicion: Climax Explained

As Hearst keeps moving back and forth trying to absolve himself of the crime, audiences get more and more suspicious about his involvement in the movie. First of all, besides the refuting claims, there is no actual evidence against Henry, leading to the detectives’ frustration. Time and again, he stresses he’s a well-respected member of the community and all set to deliver a speech at the charity event to raise money for the kids who have been hit by a recent hurricane.

Victor’s superior doesn’t want Hearst to be involved at any cost, but he himself disagrees and keeps hunting for more clues against Hearst. Owens and the rest of the police team also think Hearst’s lies are enough to pin him down. Everyone would like to see him go away freely off this mess and without any concrete DNA evidence, there’s no way to hold him accountable. However, Hearst is known to have a particular character flaw. He visits the prostitutes in a shady area of San Juan and his particular liking for young girls.

Chantal (played by Monica Bellucci) is Hearsts’s young wife, who would very much like the police to take him away. In between the interrogation, Hearts realizes that his wife despises him and she helped the detectives come up with the evidence to take him away. Even though Hearst confesses the crime once, the actual criminal is caught. In the end, Chantal and Hearst ponder over their life.

Under Suspicion Cast: Main And Supporting

The film Under Suspicion stars Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, Thomas Jane, and French actress, Monica Bellucci in the lead roles. Since each and every character in the movie has a consequential role, it is very important that we define who all played what in the movie. The main supporting cast of Under Suspicion includes actress, Nydia Caro as Isabella, Miguel Ángel Suárez as the superintendent, Pablo Cunqueiro as Detective Castille.

Under Suspicion: Gene Hackman stars as the lead Henry Hearst

The rest of the cast members are Isabel Algaze as Camille Rodriguez, Patricia Beato as Darlita, Marisol Calero as Sergeant Arias, Vanessa Shenk as Sue Ellen Huddy, and Noel Oscar Alicea Colon as a man in white at the carnival.

Seher Mir is a grad student who prefers to spend her time judging fictional characters. She inhales pop culture in many forms, from being an Oscar junkie to still bingeing episodes of Seinfeld. Mir is thrilled to be at OtakuKart.

Under Suspicion (2000)

Submitted by spectre.

Tony Aaron (Liam Neeson) IS GUILTY OF THE MURDERS. He conspired with Selina (Alphonsia Emmanuel) to kill their respective spouses and frame Angeline (Laura San Giacomo) for the crime.

Angeline is sentenced to life in prison, and Tony is met by Selina in America who writes him a big check for his help.

With Angeline in jail for the murders, Selina has regained control of her husband’s paintings which she plans to slowly sell off as they become more valuable.

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 181 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Movies & TV Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for movie and TV enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Ending of "Under Suspicion"

I just watched Under Suspicion (1991) and I'm not sure I've understood the outcome of the movie. Is it that Tony and Stassio's first wife screwed up everyone, framed Angelina, and got away, or I missed something?

This blog post explains:

But Tony turns out alright, with Frank coming in at the nick of time to save his life (literally) finding the dude's thumb in Angeline's things. Angeline is caught and convicted - whew that was close - she almost got away with it! If only things ended where they did, but no, they had to keep beating a horse that had died many scenes ago. Tony Aaron is revealed to be his wife's and Stasio's killer and planting the thumb in Angeline's house. Apparently, Tony was in cahoots with Stasio's wife to get some of the money from Stasio's paintings. Whoa - wait a tick - say what?

Nice. Pretty close to what I thought, but now that's even clearer and nicer with him being the crook. Good movie it was. – Shimmy Weitzhandler Apr 21, 2016 at 17:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged plot-explanation ending under-suspicion ..

Hot Network Questions

Your privacy

By clicking “Accept all cookies”, you agree Stack Exchange can store cookies on your device and disclose information in accordance with our Cookie Policy .

MPAA Rating

Produced by, under suspicion (2000), directed by stephen hopkins.

Synopsis by Mark Deming

Characteristics, related movies.

Letterboxd — Your life in film

Forgotten password ?

Where to watch

Under suspicion.

1991 Directed by Simon Moore

How close can you get to a killer before you're too close?

In the late 1950s, British police officer Tony Aaron resigns from the force after sleeping with Hazel, wife of the man whose house he was supposed to guard. In his new job as a fake private investigator, he helps couples get divorces by photographing Hazel having "affairs" with the husband. When she is murdered during a job, Tony begins having an affair with the dead man's mistress, Angeline, while trying to prove his innocence.

Liam Neeson Laura San Giacomo Kenneth Cranham Alphonsia Emmanuel Maggie O'Neill Stephen Moore Malcolm Storry Richard Graham Alan Talbot Martin Grace Kevin Moore Alan Stocks Lee Whitlock Nicolette McKenzie Pamela Sholto Alex Norton Kenneth Hadley Danny Schiller Noel Coleman Michael Almaz Stephen Oxley Colin Dudley Alison Ruffelle Victoria Alcock Tony Hughes Tommy Wright Joanna Brookes Andrew Dunford Roy Sampson Show All… P.J. Davidson Steve Murray Christopher Whittingham Gordon Salkilld Terry John Max Cane

Simon Moore

Brian Eastman Nick Elliott George Helyer Fred Turner

Tariq Anwar

Cinematography

Vernon Layton

Production Design

Tim Hutchinson

Art Direction

Tony Reading James Wadeson

Set Decoration

Stephenie McMillan Beth DeSort

Christopher Gunning

Stan Fiferman Ken Weston

Costume Design

Penny Rose Catherine Halloran

Peter Frampton

Columbia Pictures The Rank Organisation Film Productions Carnival Films LWT

Alternative Titles

Ideális gyanúsított, V podezření, Под подозрением, Under Suspicion - Unter Verdacht

crime thriller

99 mins More at IMDb TMDb Report this film

Popular reviews

Review by Benjamin Green ★★★

I walked into a door, and then it kicked the shit out of me

First time watch: July 2021 Source: Talking Pictures

Under Suspicion is the 1991 British murder mystery written and directed by Simon Moore. Starring Liam Neeson, Laura San Giacomo and Kenneth Cranham the story focuses on private detective who finds his wife murdered and becomes the number one suspect.

The film would have easily suited a one hour TV special and some of the uninspired direction matches that level of quality too but I have to admit to being drawn into the story. I can't ignore the fact that I was intrigued by the developing plot, was invested enough to hang on for the eventual reveal and…

Review by Rob Hill ★★½ 3

Pretty replacement level 90s thriller schlock. I'd only recommend this if you're a fan of the niche. Closer to 2☆ than 3.

Review by Mark Cunliffe 🇵🇸 ★★★½

What's this an early 90s British film that I haven't seen? Shock horror!

Even the shortest term follower of mine is likely to know that late twentieth century British movies are my jam, but what's even jammier for me is a British neo noir from the 80s and 90s that harks back to the seedy glamour and postwar austerity of Britain in the 1950s. There was a great run of these, from Dance With a Stranger and Let Him Have It to Scandal, but writer/director Simon Moore's Under Suspicion had thus far eluded me.

On the surface, Under Suspicion has all that you would expect from a noir, following the template of the dame with a past and the guy…

Review by GordoFlower ★★★½

Wish this were a little sexier, though I certainly appreciate the equal opportunity full frontal on display, and also ambiguous. But enjoyed very much how it all comes together.

Review by freeZy030 ★★½

90er Neo-Noir-Thriller mit cleveren Ideen, insgesamt aber doch zu langweilig. Bei der Story, welche 1959 in Brighton spielt, kommt erst zum Ende wirkliche Spannung auf. Die Zeit bis dahin, ist mit zäher Kost gefüllt welche die Handlung nicht interessant genug voranbringt. Trotz den negativen Aspekten, macht Liam Neeson keine schlechte Figur als Privatdetektiv unter Verdacht. Auch sonst haben wir es hier mit einem gut agierenden Cast zu tun, der das Drehbuch nicht retten konnte aber immerhin für Schadensminimierung sorgt. Eine Stärke dieses Thrillers ist sicherlich der Twist am Ende, der zwar irgendwie auch teils Lachhaft daherkommt aber mich überraschen konnte...Also wenn man den Mittelteil großzügig überspringt, kann man sich hier nen kurzen & knackigen Neeson zusammenbasteln.

It being August Bank Holiday weekend, it seems entirely fitting to head down to Brighton.

See previous review here .

Review by Jason Still ★★★

As erotic as a week-old bag of kippers, the main interest here (other than how YOUNG Neeson looks in the days before he ran around punching everyone) is the idea behind the story - it’s easy to forget how foolish divorce laws were just 60-odd years ago.

Don’t be fooled by the poster or the blurb; this is an adequate, occasionally creaky British Wrong Man thriller that feels much longer than its 90 minute runtime and relies a lot on Neeson’s likeability for you to care what happens to him given his daft choices - the plot is all over the place as are supporting character motivations. And then sultry San Giacomo appears, promising to add a bit of body…

Review by AnonymousAndy ★★½

"I can't believe you're cross examining me while we make love!"

Before he had a second career as a B-movie action hero, Liam Neeson wasn't too good to get down and dirty with some grade-A cinematic trash. Exhibit A: 1991's Under Suspicion.

Neeson plays Tony Aaron, a disgraced police detective turned professional scam artist. Because this is late 1950s London, divorce laws are so strict that no one can get one without just cause. Aaron and his beautiful wife, Hazel (Maggie O'Neill), decide to help out these poor men who are just stuck in marriages with these women . The scam goes like this: the client meets up with Hazel for a dinner date. They then proceed to a hotel room,…

Review by Luke Thorne ★★

Simon Moore’s drama in which a divorce detective becomes a suspect when his wife and a client are murdered. Starring Liam Neeson and Laura San Giacomo.

Towards the end of the 1950s, British cop Tony Aaron (Liam Neeson) leaves his position from the force after sleeping with Hazel (Maggie O’Neill), wife of the man whose home he was assumed to protect.

In his new occupation as a false private investigator, he assists couples get divorces by taking pictures of Hazel having ‘affairs’ with the husband.

When she is killed in the middle of a job, Tony starts having a romance with the deceased man's lover, Angeline (Laura San Giacomo), while attempting to verify his innocence.

Liam Neeson gives an okay…

Review by suttercain ★★½

A bit too buttoned up and predictable. Liam Neeson is great playing sleaze-balls, though, he should go back to that well.

Review by Zulu_Shaun ★★ 6

Underwhelming 1950s set British thriller that starts off like some kind of basic Basis Instinct but just ends up being basic instead. Liam Neeson may be billed as the star but I always found it more interesting whenever Kenneth Cranham was on screen. Sadly not that interesting though.

Review by Joshua Drake ★★★

First Time Watching

Under Suspicion is quite an interesting neo noir erotic thriller from the early 90s here that I overall like despite it's shortcomings.

Well directed movie by Simon Moore for the most part, it's shortly paced with the 100 minute long runtime and it does keep you intrigued with the love affair and the mystery involved here, the film is well shot and well lot, technical aspects such as music and editing are fine and the main central performances of Liam Neeson and Laura San Giacomo are pretty good here.

Where this falters a bit is there's a few minutes here that kinda drags, some of the supporting cast while good, they're not very well written here, the script at times can be very cliche and at times, not very surprising in it's climax.

Overall, it's a fine movie that did keep my interest but something I won't go back to all that much.

Grade: Stream this Thing

Upgrade to remove ads

Letterboxd is an independent service created by a small team, and we rely mostly on the support of our members to maintain our site and apps. Please consider upgrading to a Pro account —for less than a couple bucks a month, you’ll get cool additional features like all-time and annual stats pages ( example ), the ability to select (and filter by) your favorite streaming services, and no ads!

Select your preferred poster

Posters are sourced from TMDb and Posteritati , and appear for you and visitors to your profile and content, depending on settings. Learn more.

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Stay up-to-date on all the latest Rotten Tomatoes news! Tap "Sign me up" below to receive our weekly newsletter with updates on movies, TV shows, Rotten Tomatoes podcast and more.

OK, got it!

Movies / TV

No results found.

Movies in theaters

Movies at home

Certified fresh picks

New TV Tonight

Under Suspicion

1991, Mystery & thriller, 1h 39m

Where to watch, rate and review.

Super Reviewer

Rate this movie

Oof, that was Rotten.

Meh, it passed the time.

It’s good – I’d recommend it.

So Fresh: Absolute Must See!

What did you think of the movie? (optional)

You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.

Step 2 of 2

How did you buy your ticket?

Let's get your review verified..

AMCTheatres.com or AMC App New

Cinemark Coming Soon

We won’t be able to verify your ticket today, but it’s great to know for the future.

Regal Coming Soon

Theater box office or somewhere else

By opting to have your ticket verified for this movie, you are allowing us to check the email address associated with your Rotten Tomatoes account against an email address associated with a Fandango ticket purchase for the same movie.

You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.

Under suspicion photos.

Cast & Crew

Critic reviews for under suspicion, audience reviews for under suspicion.

Movie & TV guides

Most Anticipated 2023 Movies

TV Premiere Dates 2023

Best Horror Movies 2023

Best Movies 2023

Connecticut native Putnam was 27 years old and just out of the FBI Academy when he found himself stationed in Pikeville, Kentucky, a small Appalachian town three hours from Lexington with a practically unsupervised two-agent outpost. He moved there in 1987 with his wife Kathy and their two young children.

A few months earlier, a robber had stolen $18,000 in cash from a bank in nearby Meta, Kentucky, and it was up to the local agents to identify and catch the thief. After some false leads, they focused in on Carl Edward “Cat Eyes” Lockhart, a local eccentric and repeat offender who had a pesky habit of wildly spending his loot.

“Cat Eyes’ chief virtues were gregariousness, loquaciousness and generosity,” wrote Joe Sharkey in his book “ Above Suspicion .” “Qualities admirable in law-abiding citizens, but problematic in bank robbers.”

The partners approached Lockhart’s best friend, Kenneth Smith, and his 25-year-old ex-wife Susan Smith. Despite no longer being married, they still lived together. But Kenneth proved unreliable, so Putnam picked Susan to be an informant instead.

In the film, Susan (Emilia Clarke) has a rocky relationship with her ex-husband, now called Cash (Johnny Knoxville).

The pair would meet two to three times every week, and Smith quickly told Putnam she believed Lockhart was planning another heist because she discovered a duffel bag with two sawed-off shotguns and ski masks in their home, Sharkey writes. Putnam would pay her thousands of dollars for tips, while she became increasingly enamored with her handler.

Susan began calling Putnam’s home constantly, and his wife Kathy would pick up the phone and play the role of therapist for hours on end.

“On the one hand, she seemed to have the idea that it was like a regular job, and Mark was her boss,” Kathy says in Sharkey’s book. “Then, on the other, I think she saw him and her as Bonnie and Clyde.”

The strange situation became more unhealthy and desperate. Besides the nonstop phone calls, Susan cut her hair short to look like Kathy’s. For Christmas, she bought Putnam expensive running shoes and a Nike shirt — a big no-no for an FBI informant. One day, Smith went looking for Putnam at the courthouse and flashed her breasts at the security guards, seemingly to make him jealous.

According to Sharkey’s book, a concerned Kathy warned her husband: “Don’t you ever get involved with this woman . . . She will get pregnant, and she will ruin you.”

Mark Putnam clasps his hands in front of his face in Pikeville, Kentucky on June 12, 1990, prior to being sentenced to 16 years in prison for the strangulation death of Susan Smith.

His marriage strained, Putnam took Susan on a drive through the mountains a week before Christmas, and they had sex in his car. Putnam claims the pair made love five times over a two-week period, just in that vehicle, and then he called the relationship quits.

After local townsfolk threatened his family in connection with ongoing cases, Putnam was transferred to Miami, much to his relief.

But according to Sharkey, while Putnam was away, Susan began fabricating a more involved two-year relationship between them and shouting about it from the rooftops. They were in love, she said, and she was pregnant with his child.

While visiting Pikeville to wrap up a case, Putnam took Smith on a drive to Peter Creek Mountain one night. He claims he told her he would get a paternity test once the baby was born, and that he and Kathy would adopt the child. This threw Smith into a violent rage. The two physically fought, and Putnam strangled Smith. Her body went limp, and the agent realized she was dead.

Putnam put Smith’s body in the trunk of the car, where it stayed for an entire day, until he dumped it into a roadside ravine the following night. It would have remained there if not for Putnam, wracked with guilt, confessing to the crime and leading investigators to the corpse a year later.

Prosecutor John Paul Runyon was flabbergasted. He told the Associated Press that ″we had absolutely no evidence. Not one scintilla or shred of evidence to bring a charge or convict this man.″

″In the 28 years that I have been a prosecutor, this is the first experience that I have had where a lawyer called me on a telephone and said, ‘I have a man who wants to confess to murder, or homicide, and wants to go to the penitentiary,’ and we had absolutely no evidence.”

Putnam was sentenced to 16 years in prison, but was released after 10 years, early in 2000, on good behavior. Two years prior, Putnam’s wife Kathy died of organ failure — likely from heavy drinking — at age 38.

Today, Putnam is remarried and lives in Georgia. But strangely, Kathy’s parents always stuck by their former son-in-law.

“He’s a wonderful man,” her mother Carol Ponticelli told the Hartford Courant when he was let out of prison. “It was a crime of passion.”

Share this article:

Great Movies

Collections, tv/streaming, movie reviews, chaz's journal, contributors, above suspicion.

Now streaming on:

The case of Susan Smith is a tragic one. In the ‘70s, as a teenager, Smith hooked up with a Kentucky drug dealer named Kenneth Smith and found herself deeply embedded in the local drug scene, one that was growing with prescription drugs and other illegal substances. In 1987, a young hotshot FBI agent named Mark Putnam moved to the area to try and track down a local bank robber, and he crossed paths with Smith, turning her into an informant that allowed him to break multiple cases in the area. For extra income and a sense of self-importance, Smith was excited to help Putnam, and the two formed a relationship that turned sexual. When Putnam tried to end things after he no longer really needed her, Smith threatened to expose him, and the FBI agent killed his informant girlfriend. He was arrested in 1990 and the case is credited as the first time an FBI agent was convicted of murder. There’s more than enough meat on the bones of this true story for a film like “Above Suspicion,” but director Phillip Noyce can’t figure out how to tell it in a way that's more interesting than a Wikipedia entry.

In this tragically dull recounting of events, Emilia Clarke (“Game of Thrones”) plays Smith and a fellow HBO drama alum in Jack Huston ("Boardwalk Empire") plays Putnam. Neither seems quite comfortable in their roles. Clarke does her best to hold it together but is woefully miscast and Noyce can’t get her to the right place regarding the darker issues of this story like addiction, spousal abuse, and shocking violence of the final act. The whole project has a sense of “hillbilly dress-up” not unlike a certain divisive Ron Howard film of last year. Bluntly, and like that film, I never bought that any of these people were real.

The characters of "Above Suspicion" are not quite hillbilly caricatures but they verge so closely to them that you can see overqualified actors like Clarke struggling against the superficial script and filmmaking choices. Smith’s story is one of violence and broken dreams, one in which she replaced one garbage male with another who she thought was at the other end of the social spectrum but turned out to be just as awful. “Above Suspicion” isn’t brutal enough, it isn’t dark enough, and the stakes don’t feel high enough. It does a disservice to Smith’s story.

As for Huston, he too seems under-directed, playing Putnam as a man who goes through the motions more than he does a monster or even an attention-grabber who so desperately wanted to have it all—the family, the girlfriend, the high-profile arrests, and all only on his own terms. It’s a non-performance from a typically interesting actor who seems bored at times by the entire production. The whole cast feels under-directed outside of Clarke with familiar faces like Sophie Lowe , Johnny Knoxville , and Chris Mulkey barely making an impact. As if to compensate for the flat storytelling, it’s often over-edited and over-shot, with extremely sweaty close-ups meant to increase tension but only calling attention to themselves.

Ultimately, “Above Suspicion” fails the test of a true story film in that reading about the actual case is more interesting than watching the movie about it. Shot ages ago and delayed multiple times, it’s the kind of project that people like Clarke and Huston can walk away from and pretend never really happened. (They probably already have.) It’s just a shame Susan Smith’s story will be a footnote in their careers.

Now playing in select theaters and available on digital platforms.

Brian Tallerico

Brian Tallerico is the Editor of RogerEbert.com, and also covers television, film, Blu-ray, and video games. He is also a writer for Vulture, The Playlist, The New York Times, and Rolling Stone, and the President of the Chicago Film Critics Association.

Now playing

Sheila O'Malley

Still the Water

Matt zoller seitz.

Seriously Red

My Happy Ending

The Amazing Maurice

Waking Karma

Film credits.

Above Suspicion (2021)

Rated R for sexual content and drug use throughout, language and some strong violence.

104 minutes

Emilia Clarke as Susan Smith

Jack Huston as Mark

Johnny Knoxville as Cash

Thora Birch as Jolene

Sophie Lowe as Kathy Putnam

Austin Hébert as Randy McCoy

Karl Glusman as Joe-Bea

Omar Benson Miller as Denver Rhodes

Phillip Noyce

Writer (based on the book by)

Cinematographer

Latest blog posts

A Well-Executed Combination of Humor and Vulnerability and Emotion: Kaitlin Olson on Champions

Malibu’s Most Wanted at 20: Black Culture as Food For All

Tracy’s McMillan’s UnPrisoned Uses Humor to Tell Truth

The Power of Lashana Lynch

Movie Details

Under Suspicion

Know when tickets go on sale.

We'll notify you when tickets go on sale for Under Suspicion

Details for In Theaters

Calendar for movie times. is selected., movie times calendar.

Loading calendar

Filter movie times by screen format. is selected.

Theaters near

How To Watch On Demand

Stream over 150,000 Movies & TV Shows on your smart TV, tablet, phone, or gaming console with Vudu. No subscription required.

In theaters on Sunday, Oct 29, 2000

Get notified by email as soon as tickets become available in your area.

Your information may be used in accordance with our Privacy Policy .

Featured News

IMAGES

Under Suspicion (2000)
Under Suspicion (Film, 2000)
Under Suspicion (2000)
Download Under Suspicion (2000) in 1080p from YIFY YTS
Schuster at the Movies: Under Suspicion (2000)
Under Suspicion

VIDEO

SUSPICION
Under Suspicion
Unnecessary Suspense
Woman Trapped In A Bunker, Forced To Watch How Her Boyfriend Cheats On Her
SUSPICION 1941 and SUSPICION 1988 (aka BEFORE THE FACT) Scene comparison
Best 6 Suspence thriller movie|| Must watch these movies||

COMMENTS

Under Suspicion (2000)
A wealthy attorney in San Juan comes to the police station for "10 minutes" of follow-up questions to finding a 12-year-old girl's body in a park. Another young girl was also raped and murdered weeks earlier and the evidence points to him.
Under Suspicion (1991)
Crime Drama Thriller Brighton, England, 1959. Disgraced cop turned private detective Tony Aaron falsifies adulteries for use as evidence in divorce cases. He involves his wife as the fictional co-respondent for painter Carlo Stasio but the pair are shot dead in a hotel room. In charge of the case is ... Read all Director Simon Moore Writer
Under Suspicion (2000 film)
View history Under Suspicion is a 2000 American-French thriller film directed by Stephen Hopkins and starring Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, Monica Bellucci and Thomas Jane. The film is based on the 1981 French film Garde à vue and the 1970s British novel Brainwash, written by John Wainwright.
Under Suspicion (2000)
A wealthy attorney in San Juan comes to the police station for "10 minutes" of follow-up questions to finding a 12-year-old girl's body in a park. Another young girl was also raped and murdered weeks earlier and the evidence points to him. Director Stephen Hopkins Writers John Wainwright (book "Brainwash")
Under Suspicion
"Under Suspicion" is an intense, psychological thriller, with veteran Police Captain Victor Benezet squaring off against prominent tax attorney Henry Hearst -- two life-hardened and well-matched...
Under Suspicion (2000)
Under Suspicion (2000) Plot Showing all 5 items Jump to: Summaries (4) Synopsis (1) Summaries A wealthy attorney in San Juan comes to the police station for "10 minutes" of follow-up questions to finding a 12-year-old girl's body in a park. Another young girl was also raped and murdered weeks earlier and the evidence points to him.
Under Suspicion (1991 film)
An amoral private detective, who with the help of his wife provides phoney photographs and paid witnesses for divorce cases, becomes a prime suspect when his wife and a wealthy artist client are murdered. Cast [ edit] Liam Neeson as Tony Aaron Laura San Giacomo as Angeline Kenneth Cranham as Frank Maggie O'Neill as Hazel Aaron
Under Suspicion Ending, Explained
'Under Suspicion' is a crime thriller that follows a murder investigation where the cops have locked down their suspect. The only thing they need now is a confession and the case would be officially over. As the interrogation begins, a lot of secrets and lies come to the fore, and we experience a tug of war regarding the guilt of the suspect.
Under Suspicion (1991)
Synopsis by Paul Brenner Simon Moore 's directorial debut (his also wrote the screenplay) is a brooding thriller that takes place in the melancholy British resort town of Brighton in the 1950s. Liam Neeson stars as Tony Aaron, a disreputable ex-cop who now makes a living as a sleazy private eye.
Under Suspicion Ending Explained
Under Suspicion is based on the 1981 French film by the name, Garde à vue and partly also adapted from the 1970s British novel Brainwash, written by John Wainwright. The movie was competing at the 2000 Cannes Film Festival and was screened out of competition there.
Under Suspicion
Under Suspicion (2000) Submitted by Spectre. 1 votes 1. Share: ... Because sometimes, you vaguely remember an old movie that had some sort of plot twist at the end of it, but can't remember what it was. ... Because sometimes, your trip ends before the in-flight movie does, and you really don't want to ask the pilot to circle the airport ...
Ending of "Under Suspicion"
Angeline is caught and convicted - whew that was close - she almost got away with it! If only things ended where they did, but no, they had to keep beating a horse that had died many scenes ago. Tony Aaron is revealed to be his wife's and Stasio's killer and planting the thumb in Angeline's house.
Under Suspicion (2000)
Under intense questioning by a confident young cop named Owens ( Thomas Jane) and gentler but firm interrogation from Benezet, several cracks begin to appear in Hearst's story, but he's able to persuade the police to allow him to leave long enough to take part in a fund-raising function he'd promised to attend.
‎Under Suspicion (1991) directed by Simon Moore • Reviews, film + cast
Under Suspicion is the 1991 British murder mystery written and directed by Simon Moore. Starring Liam Neeson, Laura San Giacomo and Kenneth Cranham the story focuses on private detective who finds his wife murdered and becomes the number one suspect. ... The film would have easily suited a one hour TV special and some of the uninspired ...
Under Suspicion
Movie Info. In the late 1950s, British police officer Tony Aaron (Liam Neeson) resigns from the force after sleeping with Hazel (Maggie O'Neill), wife of the man whose house he was supposed to ...
Under Suspicion (1991)
Under Suspicion. 1h 54m 1991. Overview; Synopsis; Credits; Film Details; Notes; Brief Synopsis. Read More. Set in late 1950s England, an amoral divorce detective, who sets up fake adultery cases with the help of his wife, becomes a prime suspect when his wife and a wealthy client are found murdered. ... Shown at Cannes Film Festival (market ...
The true crime behind Emilia Clarke's 'Above Suspicion'
In real life, FBI agent Mark Putnam was given a 16-year prison sentence for the strangulation death of Susan Smith. AP His marriage strained, Putnam took Susan on a drive through the mountains a...
Above Suspicion movie review & film summary (2021)
In 1987, a young hotshot FBI agent named Mark Putnam moved to the area to try and track down a local bank robber, and he crossed paths with Smith, turning her into an informant that allowed him to break multiple cases in the area.
Wives Under Suspicion
Wives Under Suspicion is a 1938 American crime film based on a 1932 Ladislas Fodor play that was previously adapted into the film, The Kiss Before the Mirror. This version was directed by James Whale and stars Warren William, Gail Patrick, Ralph Morgan, and Constance Moore. It released by Universal Pictures.
Under Suspicion
Under Suspicion. R, 1 hr 50 min. "Under Suspicion" is an intense, psychological thriller, with veteran Police Captain Victor Benezet squaring off against prominent tax attorney Henry Hearst -- two life-hardened and well-matched opponents motivated by reasons more complex and personal than the pursuit of duty or the defense of reputation.