Very disappointing...

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Not a bad film as such and Cher gives a reasonable performance as a lawyer, for someone who once believed the sun revolved around the earth(according to Sunny). The main fault is the plot. There are so many holes; for example, would a lawyer *really* get into such a relationship with a juror? What was Michael doing at the station? did he follow the juror? if so how? why did Cher go to the judges' home? to confront him? why did she back off when she saw the deputy attorney general? surely this was a chance to to present her evidence to him. Would the deputy a.g. allow all of the confrontation in the court at the end or would he have quietly called off the trial and have the judge arrested at home(he obviously knew what was happening or else why was he there?). And that sappy ending! perhaps it was a bad film after all...Really expected better from Peter Yates.

The highlight of this movie for me was a wonderful performance from Cher. She was playing the part of Kathleen Riley, a public defender who gets caught up in more than she bargained for when she takes on the case of a homeless man accused of murdering a 24 year old woman. The case is a lot more complicated than that, and the story keeps viewers on their toes. We're quite sure that Carl (the homeless man played by Liam Neeson) did not kill the young woman. The question is - who did? And why? The movie disorients right off the top, beginning with a Supreme Court justice committing suicide. But them that seems to disappear. But surely it's connected? Basically, we settle into a waiting game, as we look for the connection.The movie settles down for a while into a pretty standard courtroom drama, and Cher (and Joe Mantegna as the prosecutor) are quite credible in their courtroom activity. Another twist is added to the story by Kathleen's growing involvement with juror Eddie (Dennis Quaid) - a congressional lobbyist who gets involved surreptitiously in helping to build the case for the defense. Quaid was also very good in his part, as was John Mahoney as the presiding judge. There really were no weaknesses in among the cast. I have to give real credit to Neeson. As Carl he did a magnificent job, especially given that he was playing a character who was both deaf and mute. His entire performance had to be conducted without voice, and he was very convincing. The whole thing builds up to a surprising courtroom twist that would have done Perry Mason proud, and that I didn't see coming at all.My basic criticism of the movie is that it tries perhaps too hard to keep the viewer off balance. So many layers are added on that there is a temptation every now and then to drift away, because it's hard to keep everything straight. But in the end, when all the pieces are put together and that dramatic twist comes, you're glad you stuck with this. (7/10)

Cher plays a tireless, put-upon defense attorney who's handed a seemingly winless case, the murder trial of a homeless man (Liam Neeson) who also happens to be deaf and mute. With the aid of a trusty, nosy juror (Dennis Quaid), she solves the crime. The film is set in Washington, D.C., so you know there are machinations and duplicity and such, so it's really a question of whether Cher and company can make the twists and turns seem plausible. (Hint: Not especially.) Stuck in a high-pressure, dead-end job as public defender, Kathleen Riley is handed a thankless assignment - defend a homeless man accused of killing a young woman. Physical evidence is on the side of the prosecutor, but her client insists he's innocent. A concerned juror decides to help her out, illegally. What follows in an intricate web of deceit and such that's a basic carbon copy of most legal thrillers.Cher's not bad, although she would fare far better the following year with Moonstruck. There is one scene in which she's carjacked (early in the film, nonincidental to the plot) and cries out a very stilted and unbelievable EEK! Seriously, it sounded like a pretend-yell, as in "Eek, help, I'm being attacked by a killer beagle!" Even so, Cher was appealing and acceptable in the lead role.Dennis Quaid was good as well, although his character wasn't exactly deep. First of all, I can't imagine anyone making a concerted effort to aid a lawyer in a case in which he or she is a juror - unless the juror has a vested interest in doing so. Second, the chemistry between Quaid and Cher was barely palpable - they looked like they'd be more comfortable playing siblings. Third, Quaid's character manages to show up at all the right times, sometimes incredibly so. Made it all that much tougher to swallow.Rounding out the notables in the cast are Joe Mantegna as the prosecutor and John Mahoney in a great role as the presiding judge.Suspect would have been a winner if the writing had been a little tighter. I think movies in which there's a strong female lead who's about to nab the bad guys but OH NO they're meaner and tougher and she goes to pieces. You know what I mean? You rarely see female leads that are strong emotionally, intellectually, and physically.

When a deaf-mute homeless man is accused of murdering a federal worker in Washington DC, the public defender assigned to the case assumes he is guilty--until she begins to receive tips about the case from the most unlikely of sources: a member of the jury seated for the trial.Any one even remotely conversant with the law will find the story so full of loopholes that it is more than a little ridiculous, but it scarcely matters: the cast carries it off in fine style, playing the script with exceptional precision and poise and generating plenty of suspense along the way. Cher is particularly noteworthy as the public defender assigned to the case.Cher? Playing a Washington D.C. attorney? It's hardly typecasting, but once more Cher demonstrates the depth of her talent: not only is she extremely effective, she is completely believable. The same might be said for both Liam Neeson, who plays the deaf-mute on trial, and Dennis Quaid, who plays the smarmy juror who begins to put two and two together; SUSPECT is clearly Cher's picture, but her co-stars are every bit as good as she.Although it has its share of courtroom pyrotechnics and suspenseful moments, SUSPECT is a surprisingly low-key and all the more successful for it. When all is said and done we like the characters as people, believe in them, and are glad we met them. While it will never compete with the likes of Hitchcock, SUSPECT is a good, solid, and very unpretentious courtroom thriller executed with a great deal of style. Those whose tastes run in that direction will be very pleased indeed. Recommended.Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer