Reviews

Rappeneau is not a prolific director: eight films over a span of some 45 years; there is a gap of some 8 years between "Le hussard sur le toit " et "Bon Voyage"; of these 8 years , 3 were used for working and reworking the Bon Voyage script as a co-writer. The story is set during the tragic days of Spring 1940, when the French army collapsed and the English one reimbarked with much difficulty in Dunkirk. However they elected to shed with the numerous military and civil dead and casualties, the bombing of the refugees by the German Stukas etc.., thus avoiding to make the story a drama. It is not a comedy either, perhaps a satire, but rather an hybrid of all genres, and not a too successful one; further the story is quite predictable in spite of its numerous twists, and the protagonists very trite ones. Director Rappeneau however manages quite well with crowds, thus describing accurately the chaos created by the refugees, once safe. He is moderately successful with his cast, which includes seven main parts **SPOILERS AHEAD**. Of the seven, Jean-Marc Stehlé has almost nothing to do but cut the dignified figure of the Jewish scientist with a careworn face.Isabelle Adjani, unkempt and made-up, with a plumper face than previously, is doomed with the relentless part of the wide-eyed actress, so obviously self-centered that you are surprised when most men fall in her nets.Depardieu,not too successful in most recent films, is just average here. It is no surprise when Peter Coyote is revealed as a spy, but he does a decent job; so does Yvon Attal in the hackneyed part of the thief-with-a-heart. Virginie Ledoyen is rather good as the ugly(?) duckling-turning-swan assistant to the scientist. The good surprise however is unknown Gregori Berangère, handsome and attractive, who makes the most of a not-too-original part; note however that there is a gap of some 10 to 15 years between Adjani and him, so you are left wondering how he can have been smitten with her, who in all probability had left her birthplace long before he came in his teens.... Among the rest of the cast, Michel Vuillermoz and Nicolas Vaude manage to be noticed, respectively as the scientist harassed assistant and the obnoxious nephew of the man killed by Adjani. Though my review is rather negative, I want however to point out that it was a good idea to begin the film and to end it with the showing of the same Adjani picture: knowing she was dubbed for the song, Berengère definitely realizes the true void and falseness of Adjani and his love for Virginie Lemoine .

I read some time ago that Morgan Freeman tried unsuccessfully for many years to produce a remake of the French movie, GARDE à VUE ( Claude Miller, 1981) before getting Gene Hackman interested in the project; despite their notoriety, a few more years were required before the UNDER SUSPICION filming started, with the two players acting also as executive producers (Hackman's sole attempt to date, Freeman's second out of five ones). SPOILERS AHEAD SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES. Both movies have (of course) the same basic plot: a VIP, having found the corpse of a young girl, reports it and soon becomes the main suspect of two rapes and murders for the police, but also for his wife; the man, entangled in lies about his doings during the night of the first murder, and facing adverse testimonies in connection with the second one, is unable to reverse the growing inner conviction of the police; the last straw occurs when his wife supplies a piece of circumstantial evidence; he then gives it up and confesses crimes he is innocent of.. Both have four main protagonists: the suspect (Michel Serrault/Gene Hackman) and his wife (Romi Schneider/Monica Bellucci), two inspectors (Lino Ventura/Morgan Freeman and Guy Marchand/Thomas Jane). In both cases the marriage has previously crumbled. Not having read the "Brainwash" novel by John Wainwright, I do not know which movie is the closer to it. But the treatments of the films are very different. Claude Miller sets his story in a middle-sized country town of (presumably) the North of France, on a cold rainy night, and most of it takes place in the dreary ill-equipped defectively-lighted office shared by the two inspectors in charge of the inquest, thus establishing a grim depressive atmosphere; the necessary flashbacks are few and as short as possible. UNDER SUSPICION on the contrary is situated in hot and sunny Puerto-Rico, and the police office is large, clear, and apparently suitably fitted: hence we do not understand why Morgan Freeman, sole inhabitant of the room, complains about it; and the defective lamp, if it has its meaning in GARDE à VUE, leads to nowhere in UNDER SUSPICION; the colourful Carnival has atmosphere, but unfortunately the police precinct has none; and there are many lengthy flashbacks, in which Freeman is inserted as a witness,- a gimmick which soon becomes rather tiring.

CHARACTERS. The characters too are treated differently: in GARDE à VUE Michel Serrault is bitterly ironic, rather uncouth, and on the whole unattractive; he never met before stern chief inspector Lino Ventura, who relentlessly strives to establish his guilt; the other inspector is a bully, who beats up Serrault when left alone with him. Romi Schneider comes from a family with a high social position but no money. She willingly admits to Ventura that she married Serrault in her mid-twenties for his money, after having been his mistress for some time and condoning with his sex fancies though she has no physical needs; nevertheless they were happy till the Camille incident (see hereafter), when she shut her door to him; divorce is out of the question, - for the husband because divorce is looked askance at in the town where he has his office, for the wife because she is totally dependent on him for money. Gene Hackman is a more genial suspect, but his rather special tastes regarding very young prostitutes reinforce (rightly or wrongly) suspicion; inspector Freeman shared his youth and has remained in speaking terms with him; however, if the policeman has grounds for suspicion, he is also strongly jealous of Hackman's huge fortune and beautiful wife; he is therefore biased in his judgement - which complicates matters to no avail; the second inspector behaves more in accordance with his chief's politics than in GARDE à VUE, and is less important. Hackman has known his wife since she became an orphan, paid for her studies, and seduced her when she was 14. From the Camille incident on, their marriage has been just a front.

THE CAMILLE INCIDENT UNDER SUSPICION uses some of the GARDE à VUE dialogue - unfortunately, often not in situation; more, it is misused in connection with the Camille incident (Camille being the daughter of Serrault's sister in GARDE à VUE, but that of Monica Bellucci's sister in UNDER SUSPICION): on a Xmas night at her niece's home, Schneider enters unexpectedly the dim-lighted dining-room, finds her husband and her niece gazing raptly in the other's eyes, and realizes that they share a universe of their own from which she is excluded and shall never be a part of. She develops an instant hate for her husband. She says later to Ventura "He had no right to have her gaze upon him like a woman "; there is no inkling of any improper behaviour. Monica Bellucci goes into Camille's room, finds her very excited, in the company of her rather drunk husband: as she is convinced that he behaved badly, with the girl's consent, uttering the same words as Schneider is nonsense.

ABOUT REMAKES What with the number of movies and TV films, the shortage of original stories is unavoidable, and therefore you cannot object to remakes on principle, nor demand that they be carbon copies; but the changes brought must be as least as effective as the abrogated parts: in that respect, making Hackman a photography addict has a use; but other alterations are not so welcome. For instance, Serrault's wife does not want children, and her refusal can explain his unhappiness and attraction towards Camille. In UNDER SUSPICION, Gene Hackman loves children, (his speech leaves no doubt about it…), but he had been married for several years prior to the Camille incident, his wife says she is not sterile, and still they have no child … no explanation is given hereof. Further, the discovery of the real culprit in UNDER SUSPICION is narrated (rather badly, what is more), not shown, and fails to attract your attention. And the discovery of a third victim, Ventura's admonishment, the ultimate suicide of Romi Schneider and Serrault's despair result in a far more impressive ending than Gene Hackman going back home alone and presumably leaving his wife for keeps.

THE CASTS The characters in GARDE à VUE are better delineated and more incisive than in UNDER SUSPICION, and give more opportunities to the actors: if Hackman is excellent, his character is less complex than Serrault's, who fits his to perfection; Freeman's performance is not one of his bests, while Ventura is outstanding as an inspector who fails to remain objective, and whose future accordingly is bleak; Romi Schneider's delicate features and calculating coldness are perhaps more suited to the story than Monica Bellucci's earthly beauty; Thomas Jane has not much to do, while Guy Marchand's sadistic impersonation earned him a Cesar, the French equivalent of Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. The Puerto Rican bit-players are non-existent, where all the French ones are good (compare the native commissioner in UNDER SUSPICION, who has no substance and whose warning to Freeman to proceed carefully fall totally flat; on the contrary the French one is established in two scenes as a man of power, incisive and demanding).

END OF SPOILERS THE TECHNICAL TEAMS Many of the best directors love to lend a hand in the writing of their movies; such is the case for Claude Miller, co-writing a closely-knit script with Jean Herman prior to directing it, incisively and faultlessly; witty vitriolic dialogue by Michel Audiard and a perfectly suited musical score by François de Roubaix are priceless contributions. The result is a taut fascinating movie which never drifts from the trend of the story.

Viewing UNDER SUSPICION, you have the feeling that the writers brought most alterations regardless of their impact, for the sole purpose of justifying their salaries. As to Stephen Hopkins's direction, it is uneven; together with the loose treatment of the plot and its superfluous complications, it fails to ensure the unity required for such a film.

CONCLUSION. Those who have not seen GARDE à VUE can be attracted by UNDER SUSPICION 's cast and may find it a slightly better than average thriller; most of the others will judge UNDER SUSPICION the unnecessary

Many reviewers have stressed ( quite rightly ) the excellency of Ken Lonergan's work both as writer and director of this film. Most of them too have praised ( equally rightly ) the quality of the performances of its main three actors( I should like to add that the fourth one, far less known, Jon Tenney, is rather good as Laura Linney's former lover, whom she invariably turns to in periods of need ), in fact of the whole cast. However, part of the cast's praise should rightfully be credited to Lonergan. It must be pointed out that the best performances by casts often occur when the director is also a part-time good actor ( Sidney Pollack, for instance ), or an actor turned director ( Clint Eastwood, Sean Penn, Mel Gibson... ). And Lonergan gives a totally wonderful performance as Ron, the Minister.

Another acting gem must be credited to J. Smith-Cameron ( Mrs Ken Lonergan ),as Emma, the dour-faced colleague of Sammy 's (Linney. *******SPOILER There is a short mute marvelous scene where Emma has her eyes riveted on her lurid-colored computer-screen, while gnawing something; and then comes Sammy, entrusted by her boss ( Matthew Broderick ) with the task of having the screens changed to less aggressive colors. A look of Sammy at Emma, and she decides to postpone her uneasy ( and potential source of trouble) query and withdraw...

Several comments on John Bailey's 'China Moon ' ( Ed Harris, Madeleine Stowe, Charles Dance, Benicio del Toro ) make a reference to Lawrence Kasdan's 'Body Heat ' ( William Hurt, Kathleen Turner, Richard Crenna ). ******SPOILERS AHEAD As a matter of fact, both movies depict a woman planning the murder of her husband, and managing to set up her lover as the scapegoat; but where William Hurt is a shady attorney willingly murdering the villainous but rich Richard Crenna, Ed Harris is the upright cop, agreeing against his better judgement to become an accomplice after the murder of the even more villainous but rich too Charles Dance. And the similarity ends there: the Kasdan film is a masterpiece, where " China Moon " has not the halting sultriness of the 'Body Heat ' atmosphere, nor its wonderful photography and haunting musical score, and has indeed for sole asset its very good ( but not better than 'Body Heat's ) cast.

'China Moon's main defect is its full-of-holes plot: with the photos of her philandering husband taken by del Toro, and the testimony of two cops against Dance for attacking his wife, Stowe could have got a very very juicy divorce.. O.K. she wants all the money. But setting-up Ed Harris as the fall guy is an unusually tricky business : among others, it demands first that del Toro steals from Harris his .38 police gun and replace it by an other .38; it requires later that del Toro has in hand the 9mm murder bullet before Ed Harris does, and exchange it UNNOTICED against a .38 one fired previously from the Harris gun and sand -ingrained ( ! ), which cannot but rouse Harris's suspicion ( and he is a very good cop ); Harris could also have agreed to come clean when so offered. The plot does not explain that anonymous phones calls attract attention on Harris as the 'guilty' person because the corpse must be found in order that Stowe gets her money. And at the very end,when Harris exposes del Toro, the police is called by a witness and arrives ten seconds later ( !! ), at the very time when Ed Harris goes out, a gun in hand, and is killed without warning shots.***** but if you do not look too closely at such errors and holes, you can enjoy the acting of the four above-mentioned players,... and Madeleine Stowe's extraordinary beauty.

To make an action movie, start with an unbelievable situation ( apparently the crazier, the better ), develop it to its full extent ( don' t worry if it is full of holes, Hollywood has directors galore, whose craft and rhythm will make them up! ), and carefully select the hero and the villain. For the hero, you have the choice between stars ( but they are very expensive ), and martial arts specialists: a few are good actors too ( but often too exotic ), some are passable ones, many are lousy ; the rest cannot play, and unfortunately Seagal belongs to this category. Sometimes you have an other hero ( as a foil to the main one ), and it is customary to add a girl . Selecting the villain is a difficult task, as some say he is more important than the hero. Some of the best actors make super villains ( expensive , too ) ; but they limit the number of such parts, not to erode their image. So most often you have to recourse to specialists, but they lose their impact if too often seen... In "UNDER SIEGE ", they have Steven Seagal ( see above )as the sole hero,with Erika Eleniak as the girl, probably for her silicon breasts *** possible SPOILERS : We can understand that the villains brought her on board to divert the sailors' attention; but her usefulness ends there, and the writers would have been well inspired to confine in her cabin for the duration of the film, because once free, she keeps hampering the hero's progress! Two villains here - two good ones: Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey ( but the reason of his grotesque female impersonation remains a mystery). The result is a moderately entertaining movie. But when they say that it is Steven Seagal 's best film, don't believe them. The best one is "EXECUTIVE DECISION "... because Seagal is bumped off after some 20 minutes !!

I saw this film on the TV, dubbed in French, and the sound was poor.. which may explain part of my disappointment... but part only of it. I am tempted to write that the general's daughter suffered many hardships, the last of them having been made the plot of a movie!The story leaves many things unexplained:***SPOILER for instance who killed Wood ?, Hutton ? why? fear of exposure ? how? Simon West 's direction ( so brilliant in "Con Air ") seems here uninspired and uneven. I am no fan of Travolta, but he is acceptable here. Lovely and talented Madeleine Stowe is wasted in a hackneyed part, playing second fiddle to Travolta; I felt no alchemy between these former ( and maybe future - unexplained ) lovers; and she does not appear in the last minutes of the film, no hint being given as to her fate.James Cromwell seems somewhat fed-up with relentless parts, while James Wood is good as usual; good also is John Benjamin Hickey as his lover. ......But to sum it up, for me the result is a mess.

I was a bit dubious about seeing this film, because of its length: indeed,after a rather auspicious start, my attention began to wane during the overlong jail sequence, and I was tempted to quit. Fortunately, I did not, as the plot regained interest, culminating with the following issue : faced with total helplessness and absolute despair, must one cede or go on fighting, whatever the cost? While the need of the demon for a child is of the utmost importance, he does not kidnap him: he is adamant that the child be given to him, the island inhabitants must cede, and decide which, or face the consequences.

The islanders do not and cannot get any help whatsoever from anybody in their abysmal plight. The demon ( and Stephen King ) reveals the vicar as a pedophile, so that the inhabitants cannot find solace in religion through him. Everybody has to come to a decision all by itself and its sole conscience.

The direction is almost faultless, but for the recurring showing of the fangs of the demon ( noted by several reviewers ), which seems pointless ( though 'pointed' and rather impressive ), as he does not suck the blood of any of his victims. Justification hereof comes only at the every end of the movie, when the youth accompanying the demon displays the same " dental work" too, and then it is extremely effective,... while it would have been inane to have a Happy End . As for the cast, Tim Daly is excellent as the sheriff, while Debra Farentino as his wife has not much to do but appear constantly scared; good support is given by Jeffrey deMunn, Casey Siemasko, Steve Rankin and newcomer Joanne Nicholson . But the wonderfully frightening composition of the demon by Colm Feore tops all, ensuring him a top rank among all villains of the screen.