Did he do it?

Well, that's the whole point. The film isn't going to make it easy for you. I initially thought Fleming was unquestionably guilty of everything he confessed to, but the more times I watch the film and notice details, the less certain I am. The police clearly lie in some instances to trap him and fabricate evidence. But would an innocent man readily admit to several murders after only a few hours in jail? Fleming is either a killer or a disturbed man with an obsession for crime stories and a grudge against the police. I think Steele honestly believes he's guilty and is trying to arrest a dangerous man. But apart from the initial flashback about the disappearance/murder that propels the investigation, which has a visceral quality, Fleming's confession sounds made up, with few details and careful calculation to provoke a reaction in the officers. Both lead characters lie to and manipulate each other. Steele's motivation is elucidated by his conversations with other officers and the reporter, but Fleming remains a mystery to the end. We can't really know if he's smiling at the end because he put one over on the police or because he's gotten away with murder.

I lean towards the guilty part, but sometimes I can completly believe his innocence. It's hard to decide.

After four odd years I finally got hold of this fantastic film and watched it tonight. Anyway, here are my thoughts on it (keep in mind I've only seen it once).

Looking at all the evidence on both sides I think that whether Flemming is guilty or not is entirely up to the viewer. Basically you are given Sgt. Steele, who believes Flemming is guilty, and Flemming, who believes he is innocent. Then you are given evidence supporting both sides. And in the end neither is proved or disproved: either way could be right. In that respect this movie has no ending: Flemming walks free, but a new detective is in charge of the case and will be shadowing him. In such convolutions where two sides have conflicting beliefs and both think they are right the truth can fracture and split.

No. What I think this movie is really about is a study of the human character under pressure: how everyone, in the end, is trying to further his own ends. You can see how differently the characters act when confronted with different situations, people, and circumstances. How rules that were made to help people can end up just making things more complicated. And how, although some people have more power or are in better situations than others, everybody can bend the rules in their favor.

I guess what I liked most about this movie is that you never end up rooting for anybody: nobody is the good-guy ot the bad-guy, so you can just sit back and enjoy the show.

Although speaking for myself, I tend to go for Eddie, because I am a Weaving nut. It was really nice to see him in a more dramatic role where he didn't have to put on his gravelly American voice (see V for Vendetta, LotR, Matrix, and Babe). It's cool and all, but his Australian accent is easier on the ears.

Tony Martin did a good Australian accent, probably because he IS Australian. :)

On the Extra Features of the DVD, one of the deleted scenes was a closing scene where Sgt. Steele goes after Fleming on a solo vendetta and catches him in the act. I think the director was correct in cutting this as it does leave the answer up to the audience as to Fleming's guilt.

In my opinion the more obvious answer is that he is guilty, and certainly you get that impression the first couple of times you watch it. But when you think about it, it is equally as plausible that he is simply a crime buff. The smile could easily have been one of enormous satisfaction that he was able to use his extensive interest in crime and criminal behaviour to escape some very hot water.

I still lean towards him being guilty though, given his lack of mental stability and his recent life history, coupled with the evidence (as flimsy as it might be).

In real life, the "toecutters" would never have pushed for Fleming's release based on unethical conduct in the interview room.

I think that this very discussion is the purpose of the movie.

"The Interview" deals in no hard answers. Both guilt & innocence are likely in their own way, but it comes down to so many different & often foggy details that making a definite conclusion may be impossible. After watching this movie a number of times I've vacillated between the two outcomes & have finally decided that I should probably give up-- that the point may not be a concrete conclusion (*******spoiler********- like "The Usual Suspects", which someone else mentioned, where it was obvious in more ways than one that Spacey was Soze. This movie does not offer such a luxury. Pinning down Hugo's smile in that last scene is almost like trying to nail down water).

It somewhat reminded me of a play I acted in in high school called "The Night of January 16" by Ayn Rand (who, as far as I'm concerned, was a scumbag, but that doesn't matter right now). Anyway it was a courtroom drama where members of the audience were selected as the jury. The ending of the play differed depending on the ruling of said audience/jury. However the whole thing was composed in such a way that whether the jury convicted or acquitted the defendant, they were always wrong (or at least considered wrong, at the judge would make clear that he disagreed with their ruling). Written in 1934, and actually not half bad.

Anyway...
In closing, if you liked the feel of this movie I suggest checking out "Picnic At Hanging Rock" by Peter Weir. It's possibly the ultimate in Aussie mystery cinema.

[deleted]

methinks the expression on his face during the final scene says it all ...

I think we are meant to believe he's guilty - in the opening scene when the police break down his door and he is thrown facedown onto the carpet, what does he do...? He smiles to himself. So he was apparently expecting them.

On the other side, does it matter? There is no way of knowing for sure, the points of the movie are: "Police brutality could happen to anybody", and "Anybody could be a murderer", plus: "Bad cops can get caught in their own slings".
I would add: "Don't try this yourself, you`d likely end up on Death Row".