MovieChat Forums > Under Suspicion (2000) Discussion > The ending explained

The ending explained

posted 10 years ago by chinaskee-418-613225
3 replies | jump to latest

I could be way off base here but I think people are thinking too hard about the ending. In my opinion what the ending was all about is that if the police grill you long enough without an attorney present to protect your rights you'll confess to pretty much anything they're accusing you of just to make them stop interrogating you. Happens all the time. Moral of this story ? Always lawyer up if the police detain you, otherwise you're liable to find yourself charged with a crime you didn't commit.

[–] burk4 9 years ago

Uhh a little deeper than that. See other reviews Spot on. An eccentric man with flaws that feels totally abandoned by his wife . He throws the towel in. Fate intervenes and in the end he moves on while his wife is left to consider what could have been

[–] Rolltide (964) 3 years ago

I think you have it. This was a man accused of murdering children! Despite the problems he had with his wife he loved her and knowing that she could believe he would do that would have devastated him to the core.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

I liked the film and the nuanced ending but… I didn’t buy that Hackman would confess to raping and murdering two young girls when he did no such thing.

I can see why someone might do that, someone either mentally ill or a healthy person pushed to an extreme psychological and emotional state, or someone extremely weak-minded and susceptible to advanced manipulation.

I didn’t get any of those from Hackman’s character. He was too self-aware, intelligent and in control to utterly annihilate himself like that. Sure, he got pushed around and stressed out, but not broken to the point he didn’t know which way was up and ready to throw a noose around his own neck.

Anyone else struggling to believe Hackman’s choice?