Warner Bros. | Release Date: March 15, 1991 CRITIC SCORE DISTRIBUTION
Generally favorable reviews based on 23 Critic Reviews
Watch Now
Buy On
San Francisco ChronicleJudy Stone
A gripping film that re-creates the fear, bewilderment and anguish felt by thousands during the anti-Communist witch hunt in Hollywood. Robert De Niro gives one of the finest and most modulated performances of his career as David Merrill, a famous director trapped in the miasma of suspicion that haunted Hollywood in the '50s and '60s. [15 Mar 1991, p.E1]
The Seattle TimesMichael Upchurch
The movie bristles with an insider's knowledge of the film world. It's wry, intelligent, impassioned. [15 Mar 1991, p.22]
Robert De Niro is so good as a politically blacklisted filmmaker in Guilty by Suspicion that even his hair seems right. [15 Mar 1991, p.4D]
Guilty by Suspicion is a morality play innocent of moralism and manipulation. It's what almost nobody thinks Hollywood is: decent. [15 Mar 1991]
St. Louis Post-DispatchJoe Pollack
Guilty By Suspicion isn't easy, but it's a powerful and gripping story, and the fact that it's true makes it that much stronger during the action and slightly incredible afterward when considering the fact that it happened at all. [15 Mar 1991, p.3F]
Cool yet engrossing story of Merrill's fall from grace for refusing to cooperate with HUAC. [15 Mar 1991, p.7]
Winkler fills the screen with some first-rate actors doing first-rate work. It's a handsomely crafted film as well as an honorable one. But it's also, on the whole, dramatically flat. [15 Mar 1991, p.41]
Guilty by Suspicion isn't a bad movie, but it isn't compelling entertainment either. [15 Mar 1991, p.C]
De Niro is solid in a role that requires little more than righteous indignation. The stretch, however, is by Sam Wanamaker in the role of a Los Angeles attorney who specializes in getting his Hollywood clients out of trouble by feeding them names to inform on. Wanamaker himself did 10 years in exile in England rather than answer a congressional subpoena after publicly defending the Hollywood Ten among other witch-hunt victims. The film is worth seeing if only for a look at him in this role -- these days, when the word hero is tossed about with something approaching desperation, Wanamaker gives us a glimpse of the real thing. Maybe he should have directed this one. [15 Mar 1991, p.G5]
Winkler is so interested in making Merrill admirable that he neglects to make him interesting. That's true of the movie too. In the ethics department, it's commendable. In the drama department, it's bland. [15 Mar 1991, p.F1]
If Winkler's heart is in the right place, his head is often somewhere else. There's a great movie to be made about the blacklist period, but this just isn't it. [15 Mar 1991, p.8]