MovieChat Forums > Under Suspicion (2000) Discussion > What's with all the wild theories? SPOIL...

What's with all the wild theories? SPOILERS

posted 16 years ago by p-stepien
3 replies | jump to latest

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...

FEW THINGS:
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...

[–] kingg-2 16 years ago

That's my general conclusion. Henry lied about small stuff up front, and it spun out of control from there.

I will admit, I'm not sure why he went home to call the police instead of running to the closest house. He could have said he knew her, she lived in the neighborhood, etc. He didn't have to say he took pics of her, just that he knew her.

The dog thing is a red herring. Of course, Henry remembered he ran into the dog on the trail and not at the pickup after he started lying, so it was unbelievable at that point.

The parts in La Perla, I would imagine it's tough to say to a cop "I was in the slum to see cheap hookers and get drunk and that's why my truck was there, I go there frequently", but it would have cleared that matter up. The falling asleep drunk on a bench in the slum was a dumb excuse. Actually saying you were there whoring, as usual, is so totally truthful they would believe it.

The rest was conjured up suspicion as one thing led to another. Henry almost certainly was a closet pedophile who had never really harmed a child. He liked them as young as possible, and Chantele was his ward who he practically raised from 11 and then bedded and then married. That's creepy. The story with the niece, extra creepy. The pics of the kids, not creepy if you didn't know the rest, is now creepy too. The separate bedrooms, the hookers who look young, these are all individual things that, if seen independently, would be no real cause for alarm. Together, they paint a nasty picture of Henry.

The police caught the killer in the park. The killer had the pics of the previous victims in the car. So Henry didn't kill the girls. And there's no proof he's a pedophile, which he isn't. He would probably like to have sex with an underage girl or kid, but never has, and probably never will. Fantasy and such is as far as he would go. Creepy? Yes. Illegal? Nope.

And that's the movie.

[–] waltermagic 16 years ago

Not to be rude, of course, but your answer seems to leave out any explanation of his confession. Which, if left out, makes the movie extremely easy to explain. Check out my answer "ANSWERS. It's long. But hey, you asked". The ommission of the need for the confession, i feel, leaves your answer a bit incomplete. Simply my friendly opinion, of course.

[–] Soxsista 8 years ago

Thank you for a very reasoned explanation of the movie. Those who think the wife killed the kids cross the boundaries of all reason and I can't help but wonder if they paid any attention at all to the movie.

There are many false confessions on record and I suppose there are various explanations as to why people do it. Also, I might add that Elvis Presley met his future wife, Priscilla, when she was 14 years old, yet no one ever referred to Elvis as a pedophile.