Misconduct

This movie was horrible. It's shocking to take so many good actors and make them look like they should be acting in a school play instead of Hollywood. This is my first ever review and I felt I owed it to the public to help save themselves.besides for the horrible acting there was nothing in the plot that made sense. Nothing in the Way each actor reacted to their situation would have ever happened Even the final twist which is supposed to be so shocking that you never saw coming is because it never made sense to ever have happened. Please don't waste your time go watch the Kardashians. You'll feel smarter.

Magandang pelikula!

Magandang pelikula!

Magandang pelikula!

Magandang pelikula!

source: Misconduct

Review: Although Hopkins & Pacino are 2 of the best method actors in the game, there names aren't enough to pull in audiences. The director had the chance to make an all time classic with these 2 top actors but he chose to make an mediocre thriller, which had a sketchy script and a unrealistic plot. Hopkins plays Arthur Denning, whose a successful pharmaceutical business man, who goes out with Emily Hynes (Malin Akerman). Emily becomes friends, on Facebook, with her ex-boyfriend, Ben Cahill (Josh Duhamel), whose an ambitious lawyer, who is willing to do anything to climb to the top. When Emily gives him some secret documents about Arthurs business, Ben takes it to the head of his company, Charles Abrams (Al Pacino), who tells him to go ahead with the case, even though Arthur is a brutal business man. From there, the movie goes down many different avenues, of murder, kidnap and deception. Hopkins is only in a few scenes, so he totally got wasted but Pacino puts in a good performance, even though he didn't play the lead. Josh Duhamel didn't bring the intensity that his role needed, and most of his decisions throughout the movie, we're totally ridiculous. For a lawyer, he should have known that his DNA was going to be all over the crime scene and I don't know why he just didn't go to the police right from the beginning. Anyway, it's a watchable movie, mainly because there is loads of twists and turns throughout but the director didn't take full advantage of the great cast. Watchable! Round-Up: At 76 years old, Al Pacino hasn't made a decent film since the awful Jack & Jill. With 4 projects in the pipeline, which include, The Irishman, Retribution, The Trap and Where the White Man Runs Away, I really don't think that he will hit the form that he had during the Godfather days. Anyway, this movie was made by, first time director, Shintaro Shimosawa, who has produced and written mostly for TV, which explains why this movie was such a big task for him. He must have thought that he won the lottery when Pacino and Hopkins decided to accept there roles but be should have done more scenes with them together, accept for concentrating on Josh, who seemed to be played by everyone. On the plus side, it doesn't drag on get boring, because there is enough material to keep the audience interested but the silly actions from the lead character made me question the dodgy storyline. Budget: $11million Worldwide Gross: $938, 750 I recommend this movie to people who are into their drama/thrillers, starring Josh Duhamel, Anthony Hopkins, Al Pacino, Alice Eve, Malin Akerman, Byung-hun Lee and Julia Stiles. 4/10

The general idea/story is interesting, if well known - a young ambitious man caught in more than he can handle and some very rich old men and young beautiful women pulling his strings. The plot is not great, but OK, involving a touch of modern litigation and pharmaceutical "mythology". Having Pacino and Hopkins in the same movie is also interesting. The "retro-feel" of a 80s/90s thriller is a nice touch. Unfortunately, that is about as much as good you can say about it. Every actor seems "off base" here. Not the same "off base", mind you, but, off base indeed. Anthony Hopkins is not interesting. Al Pacino is pretty flat. The rest have issues, but, these are not as deep, as they are not as well established actors. Oh, lest not forget, Pacino and Hopkins pretty much don't interact - actually one of the best scenes in the movie is when they do interact, the small interaction that it is. Towards the end, there are serious issues with the story/plot. Significant pieces are missing, there are contradictions and some things just don't make any sense - while coming from highly rational people (there are some crazy people in there, so we're gonna forget about their stuff that don't make sense). The very end, while playing a well-known twist from the thrillers of the 90s, is also poorly done, and more an "are you kidding" than "wow, I didn't see that coming" experience. It is not just that Alice Eve is not playing her part during the movie the way she should for the twist to "hold water", the whole thing, again, doesn't make much sense. One is left with a feeling that with just a little more effort on the writer and director's part this could have been a "good enough" movie, rather than a bad one.

This is a movie about a man on a motorcycle who is dying, moves a corpse and stabs a girl for no reason at all. Or it could be a movie about an obscenly rich lawyer who tries to protect his CEO friend by renting a nearly dead motorcycle guy who moves a corpse and stabs a girl for no reason at all. Could just as well be a movie about a CEO that is bored of his wife, does not care less if she dies and has a weird rich lawyer friend who knows a guy with a motorbike that likes to move corpses and stab girls for no reason at all. Then again it could be a movie about a young starting lawyer who does not talk with his wife much and runs into a guy with a motorcycle and so on. However it really is a movie about a zombie like beautiful girl was has a miscarriage and kills her husbands ex girlfriend. And can someone tell me the motive of motorcycle guy , the rich lawyer, the zombie girl, and just about everyone else in this movie ? Strangely enough it was an enjoyable watch, however this must be the movie that makes the least sense in the current decade, by far. Conclusion , switch off your brain watch pokey nipples and actors who needed a paycheck make a total mess of a total mess, in a enjoyable way.

Putlocker showed the rating for Misconduct as 9.8 out of 10. I guess it was someone's idea of a cruel joke. From almost the first five minutes of this film I started hearing this little voice in the back of my mind: "9.8? 9.8?? No seriously----9.8?!?," the little voice said over and over. At about minute 20 the voice said, "Oh, c'mon. Gimme a break. NO ONE thought THIS movie was 9.8." That'll teach me not to go on IMDb first and maybe, as is my usual routine, lightly scan user reviews---the reviews with no spoilers--- before deciding if I should watch this or not. I can't remember the last time I saw so many scathing reviews on IMDb. This movie misses the mark in so many ways, I feel I could write a three-page essay on just HOW MANY ways. PLEASE, if you like Josh Duhamel at all or Malin Ackerman or Pacino . . .PLEASE don't watch this movie. You will lose so much respect for them. I can't even blame the director on this one, because I know these actors are better than this. They had to have all got together, read the script and said, "Welp. Let's just get through this. We've all got bills to pay, right?" All in all, this movie was SLOW (like George the Galapagos tortoise slow or maybe even a 3-toed sloth slow-----whichever one is slower. I guess that'd be George now, since he's dead.) Alice Eve had me groaning out loud, her performance was SO BAD. What's the one word that means exponentially bad?---that word. That's the word that describes her in this film. And Pacino? When did he get so doddery and OLD? It was painful to watch him in this. I kept thinking he was talking to Keanu Reeves again (Devil's Advocate), except that here he was being all sullen and stony, with no sass at all. And they had him quoting Shakespeare, for Pete's sake. Was that quote from The Merchant of Venice? An inside joke? I don't wanna know. His Louisiana accent was all over the place. How come no one else had an accent? Too lazy to even try? They could have tried. The movie couldn't have been anymore painful. One saving grace: I got to see Byung-hun Lee and that bad-ass motorcycle. I'm adding two stars for that. Now for the big reveal: The only reason I am writing this review is because I want someone to PLEASE explain to me why "Charlotte" (Ben Cahill's wife) had a perfumey piece of clothing stuffed into a pillowcase. Am I supposed to know this is because she was pushing Ben into discovering her great crime? Why was he packing pillows away anyway? Don't men handle their own junk and let the women do the bedclothes and living room pillows and other fluffy stuff? What are the chances he'd find that one pillow and decide it contained something lumpy? Why was the piece of clothing all perfumey anyway? Is it because Charlotte hugged Emily after she killed her? I don't get it. And why is Ben, the good guy, going to overlook what she did? The whole ending was in keeping with the rest of the movie, I suppose. Mismanaged, misconducted. Whatever.