Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Syl This British mystery film starred Liam Neeson and Laura San Giacomo (Pretty Woman) in an early the 1990s. While the film is set in Brighton, England in the late 1950s, the film has a startling mystery to solve as to who killed a famed art collector and the private detective's wife. I was stunned by the ending of the film itself. While the film steers the audience to one direction, the absolute truth wins in the end. I have to say that the film haunts you long after you watch it. Laura San Giacomo is an under-appreciated actress who wasn't utilized much as should have been. When she is on screen, she is captivating even in the end. Liam Neeson also does a fabulous job in this role as the private detective accused of murder. You should just have to be surprised!

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU An English film on some thrilling murder. Fascinating because of their strange system of justice. We are in the 1950s, just before the passage to 1960. The death penalty seems to still be in practice then, by hanging of course. They dropped beheading several centuries ago.A private investigator, in 1959, is arranging adulterous affairs for men who want a divorce. The law was strict in those days in England. A lot stricter than in Henry VIII's times. He uses his wife as the necessary actress for the deal and thus doubles the profit, and yet he is not rich, far from it.He has a bad past with a 1957 police business when he was a policeman. He did something not exactly professional that ended up with the accidental death of a colleague. In other words a pretty bad character. His last adulterous collage turns dramatic with two deaths. The man is a very rich artist and he has an official wife from whom he is trying to get a divorce with this particular adulterous affair, and a mistress whom he wants to marry. What's more he has just changed his will for this mistress to get everything, particularly all the works of art, the paintings. We can think of at least four possible suspects, persons of interest that could be put under suspicion. One nearly gets hanged, not the one we may think is the real culprit, but who cares. It ends up with a couple who have arranged everything and are selling the paintings to be as rich as a gold mine. It is not too badly done, and it is even slightly dynamic. If you add the touch of English humor you have to find in an English film taking place in Brighton, England, that even has a sign for Christmas and the tourists that says "WELCOM" the first time you see it and WELCOME" the second time, it is in a way funny Ah! Ah! I guess misspelling is an English characteristic. They are just checking if we are not sleeping.Good entertaining evening. And welcome (with an E if possible) to Miami at the end, the Homeland of Dexter and CSI. A predestined place.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

AZINDN "Under Suspicion" is a crime drama with several plot twists that entertain and provide sufficient ambiguity that the entire storyline is never fully revealed until the last scene, this is a good thing. Staring Liam Neeson as Tony Arrandt, a disgraced cop and sleazy private investigator who will do anything but the right thing to make an easy buck, this thriller centers on the double murder of Tony's wife, and a famous painter. Laura San Giancamo is Angelique, the stunning mistress of the painter, who stands to inherit everything while the painter's dumped wife, Selina, gets zero in the new will. As Tony tries to find the killer of his wife, while bedding Angelique in the painter's house, the police are building a case for murder with the opportunistic widower as prime suspect. With the collection of the last works of the artist hanging on the walls, the value of the art relies on the authenticated signature of the painter and his thumb print in the oils, but, the thumb was amputated when he was murdered. As Tony seems to try and discover the true murderer of his wife, the police, who resent his presence because his sexual activities once resulted in the death of one of their own when Tony was on duty, build a case for his arrest. His only friend is his former partner, who remains loyal and believes in his friend's innocence.This is a tight drama with wonderful settings and interiors of 60s English seaside hotels and modernism architecture. The wonderful costumes are already commented on, but on the short, too contemporary San Giancomo, they look like she is wearing her mother's wardrobe. With too pale and heavy face makeup and ruby red lipstick, she is uncomfortably miscast next to a towering Tony, who is too low class for any believable liaison with the ambitious Angelique.Neeson as Tony is a wonderful, amoral, and easy on the eye gumshoe whose desire to make an easy buck underscores his every move. San Giancomo is miscast in a period film where she is far too contemporary to be believable but, nevertheless, gives a restrained and credible performance. However, it is the story which must be watched closely as the guilty are proved innocent, and the art of deception and adultery just don't pay off in the end -- or does it?

xfile1971 The whole time I was watching this film I just couldn't shake the feeling that it seemed like something that would appear on the Lifetime Channel here in America. As the credits scrolled by there were three interesting words toward the end: London Weekend Television. It explained a lot.Sorry if that sounds snobbish. It's not meant to be. In fact, one of my all-time favorite movies was made for television. It's just that "Under Suspicion" has a silly plot and throws logic to the wind on many occasions. Anyone who seriously refers to this film as being "clever" must still wonder how those little people got into their television.Please note that my short overview of this movie contains a major spoiler!!! The general plot of the film has already been touched on several times so I'll just cover a couple of major problems. The first is the ridiculous police work done on the case. Granted,this took place in 1959 and it was way before high-tech forensics and whatnot but...really. Why would police allow a key suspect of a double homicide to pose as a Detective? How about allowing him to freely go in and out of the home of your other key suspect? Had police ever heard of murder-for-hire? Did they ever in their lives understand the concept of planting evidence? It just goes on and on.What is completely inexcusable is the second major problem. This is a total spoiler (to some) so beware of reading any further. The film very clearly and concisely tells the viewer TWICE who the murderer is. Really. I'm not joking around or reading between the lines. They tell you definitively, without any doubt, who the killer is. The film then twists and turns and somehow tries to trick you into thinking that you don't really know. When the film draws to its conclusion the killer is...EXACTLY WHO THEY TOLD YOU IT WAS!! How this amateurish drivel has fooled so many people into thinking it's clever is the one thing beyond my comprehension. 2/10