That was an excellent one.

One of the best films i have seen

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

This film is well worthy of your time. If you are into crime movies with more atmosphere than fast action, I mean.Why Simon Moore didn't direct more, I really don't know. The film is skilfully composed, actors' performances are admirable (with exception of Laura San Giacomo who's acting is under average). Photography is something to appreciate, too.I was often surprised at how few people know of this title and I am personally always glad when I find such a gem outside of hype area.I like noir and I like different, yet not bizarre. If you think alike, try this film.

A great cast of British actors in this colour film noir style thriller from the early 90s. Neeson plays a private eye in Brighton in the early 50s when they needed evidence of adultery for divorces. I won't spoil the plot but it is a good movie and very nostalgic for those who love the old British films of the 50s. Has a bit of Hitchcock about it with a hint of Albert Finney's "Gumshoe" without the black comedy. I watched this movie being shot on outside location Portmerrion of "The Prisoner" fame in 1990/1. It is a good plot and one of Neeson's early meaty roles before he hit the big time as Schindler. I guess I must invest in a DVD player that can show region 1 and I can enjoy this movie again.Unfortunately not out on DVD in the UK which should be rectified.

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

i want to give a STRONG plug for this very fine film that has received almost no acclaim. if you enjoy cinematic plot twists and suspense, sexuality and greed, but not blood and guts, this is a film you should see. when i say it keeps you guessing up till the last minute, i mean just that. art, money, sex, mistresses, wives, good cops, bad cops, murder! got it all-give it a try.