Suspect (1987)

So much average

Simply A Masterpiece

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Fantastic!

This is a completely implausible legal thriller/romantic thriller. The lack of credibility becomes more obvious as the movie grinds on. The things that Cher and Dennis Quaid's characters do would get them arrested and the case thrown out, and Cher's character would get disbarred. The case involves a dead Supreme Court Justice, yet the characters do things that would embarrass a first-year law student. I realize this is fiction, but even escapism has to be somewhat believable. The Perry Mason series was not reality, but at least it was somewhat credible. Also, the climactic scene is something that Agatha Christie would have been too embarrassed to use. A defense lawyer and a juror having an affair during a trial? Some have praised the chemistry between Cher and Quaid. It does help, but not enough.

This story had so many holes in it you could drive an oil tanker through each of them.Cher wore black leather in court as a defense attorney? The suspect is deaf and dumb, but Cher talks to him constantly? The suspect overpowers several policeman before he is subdued. But then Cher goes into his cell alone to talk to him? The suspect hits her, but then she continues being around him? What a wreck of a movie.At various points the dialogue was so bad it must have been written by a graduate of a junior high school creative writing class.In the middle of jury selection Cher has a lengthy tete a tete with prospective juror Quaid? In cross examinations the lawyers don't ask questions but speak in declarative sentences constantly? How can you take a movie seriously with so many preposterous moments in it?

SUSPECT is a very watchable little courtroom mystery that deepens as it goes along spinning a plot about corruption in higher places. And there's a nice surprise at the end for anyone trying to figure out who the guilty party is. But it still seems contrived and the quirky relationship between CHER and DENNIS QUAID doesn't help. He's a cocky juror with knowledge of the judicial system who gives her help in solving the case of a man wrongly accused of murder whom she's defending.LIAM NEESON is the wrongly accused and he's excellent in a role that has him as a homeless deaf mute accused of murdering a girl for a mere pittance. Cher is the lawyer assigned to defend him. She does so with sincerity and warmth but the plot line which has her discovering the truth is too far-fetched to be believable.Nevertheless, the tale is constructed in a way that will have you absorbed until the courtroom ending. Good performances by JOE MANTEGNA and JOHN MAHONEY help sustain some credibility. There's a well done chase scene toward the end with the killer revealed only in shadow or shown only from shoes to knees, so that the final revelation of the killer in the courtroom does come as a surprise.Watchable but easily forgettable, with a not too convincing relationship established between CHER and DENNIS QUAID.

Cher plays the role of a dedicated public defender who is given a case just as she is about to collapse from overwork. The poor guy has been living on the street for years and is accused of killing a young woman for a lousy $9. He won't talk to police and Cher has to draw him out before she can even begin to find some way to defend him. There are several well planned surprises and I never had the feeling any of the cast were "acting". This is one movie that had me fooled as to who the real culprit was right to the end. I like that! If I can guess the outcome halfway through the movie it is a turn off and total disappointment to me. Seven stars is high for me. It takes a "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Gone with the Wind" to get 10 stars from me.