SUSPECT

This 1987 legal thriller has a fair bit of talent at its disposal.  

The director Peter Yates and the screenwriter Eric Roth managed to accumulate loads of Oscar nominations between them over their careers (the latter winning for 'Forrest Gump').

The film features decent actors in Dennis Quaid and Liam Neeson, but best of all is Cher who at the time was on the verge of superstardom (her next film was 'Moonstruck').  Maybe she's miscast but she carries this picture, playing a public defender, Riley, worn down by the endless conveyor belt of hopeless cases that come her way.

The latest is a murder charge against Anderson (Neeson) who is a homeless deaf-mute, prone to occasional eruptions of violence.  He's accused of killing Elizabeth Quinn, a young law clerk whose body is found in the Potomac river (we're in Washington).  

The trial is going badly for Riley until she starts getting help from a member of the jury, Sanger (Quaid), a ruthless political operative who somewhat implausibly starts playing private detective and even more implausibly starts getting some evidence that supports Anderson's claims of innocence.

Quite why Sanger is doing this is not apparent.  Does he relish the opportunity to do some good for a change?  Or does he simply fancy Riley?  A little from column A and a little from column B, I guess.

Quinn worked at the Department of Justice and it slowly emerges that the motive for her murder might have something to do with corruption she uncovered (again, implausibly) in a trial case some twenty years earlier.

And could what she uncovered be connected to the odd opening scene in which a senior judge happily hands over a package to Quinn before blowing his brains out?

The film does a good job of making us suspect the current Deputy Attorney General but another person we should keep our eye on is Judge Helms who was keen to get the Anderson case, and who is played by John Mahoney who is a long way from the gruff but lovable father of Frasier.  

He’s a conservative judge who seems to disapprove of Riley from the outset, and his attitude to her doesn’t improve when he (rightly) suspects her of involvement with Sanger.  Jury tampering is a serious offence and she could be disbarred.  There’s a surprisingly tense scene in a legal library where Riley and Sanger are doing some research when who should turn up but Helms himself!

I certainly found this scene more tense than a climactic one that takes place in the empty courthouse at night when the killer is stalking Riley, which is too contrived and clichéd.  

This is followed up by a final dramatic scene in the courtroom where Riley wants to put Helms himself on the witness stand because (guess what?) it turns out that he’s the one who killed Quinn in an effort to conceal his part in the corruption.

Whilst this denouement is not that satisfactory from a dramatic point of view I would disagree with Roger Ebert who complained that the revelation of Helms as the killer comes out of nowhere.

It's one of those curious films which holds the attention from scene to scene, thanks to the dialogue and the performances, but at the end one can only reflect on all the unlikely things going on here.

Whilst I can just about believe in Helms murdering Quinn but on top of this Roth has him killing another homeless guy who was a witness to the crime.  And then there’s the ridiculous business of Quinn’s car being left for days (or is it weeks) in the car park where she left it on the night she was murdered, just so Riley can break in and discover a vital cassette tape there.  

This tape contains a confession, and was what was given to Quinn in that opening scene.  Under the circumstances the judge's relaxed and friendly attitude to Quinn doesn't make any sense and is an egregious example of a film not playing fair with the audience.  

Oscar winner he might be this, this film certainly demonstrates that Eric Roth was no John Grisham.