IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,3/10
18.746
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Als ein ambitionierter junger Anwalt einen großen Fall gegen eine mächtige und rücksichtslose Führungskraft eines großen Pharmaunternehmens übernimmt, gerät er schnell in eine Affäre von Erp... Alles lesenAls ein ambitionierter junger Anwalt einen großen Fall gegen eine mächtige und rücksichtslose Führungskraft eines großen Pharmaunternehmens übernimmt, gerät er schnell in eine Affäre von Erpressung und Korruption.Als ein ambitionierter junger Anwalt einen großen Fall gegen eine mächtige und rücksichtslose Führungskraft eines großen Pharmaunternehmens übernimmt, gerät er schnell in eine Affäre von Erpressung und Korruption.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
- Auszeichnungen
- 1 wins total
Christopher Rodriguez Marquette
- Giffords
- (as Christopher Marquette)
Nathan Moore
- Lawrence
- (as Nathan J. Moore)
Chris J. Fanguy
- Cop #2
- (as Chris Fanguy)
Kamilla Bjorlin
- Susie
- (as Milla Bjorn)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
I didn't liked this movie. The acting seemed to me unnatural, all of the actors were over-calm an emotionless, it was like a film for androids, at least in most of it. The plot had a potential but it was unrealized for a lot of reasons, I think mostly the directing. As the action was moving towards the end the whole thing became even more messy and sporadic and it all ended with a grand finale of nonsense.
Sorry about my poor English but I felt obliged to prevent other people from seeing that movie. I'm a simple man and I don't know much about the art cinematography but I can distinguish a bad movie when I see it, believe me.
Sorry about my poor English but I felt obliged to prevent other people from seeing that movie. I'm a simple man and I don't know much about the art cinematography but I can distinguish a bad movie when I see it, believe me.
Despite a great cast this film could mot be salvaged. It has way too many holes in it and just wasn't believable. It had little redeeming value. Glad we were able to watch it for free.
Somebody mentioned the emotionless acting, and even if I can second that to some degree, there was a requirement for some of them to display that psychotic trait so the movie would make sense, and therefore a strange thing to comment on in my opinion. I wouldn't bash on the acting so much as maybe the screenplay. The movie is built up as a true thriller should, to leave clues along the way until the last final scene which then will uncover the truth. It got a little too scrambled up, to try to follow the timeline, but I still enjoyed the dark feeling to the movie. Although I'm still not quite sure I understood what really happen I think I will give it another look to pick up clues I didn't get the first time. I think there's something to be told here, I'm just not sure the director got the message clear.
The genre of the movie is described as a drama/thriller. In fact, the only thrilling thing about it would be having to decide what's more dubious here – the writing or directing. Or what's less interesting about the lead – his face or his acting. The only remotely redeeming quality of this movie in terms of its performances is the participation of those two gentlemen you can see on the poster in the background. They at least somewhat deliver – a minor feat given the material that they're given. So, obviously, the material itself has none. And the only real mystery you may need to unravel is why three men responsible for a handful of mediocre horrors conspired this time to produce a horribly mediocre thriller which literally contains nothing. If you want a comparatively decent drama involving corrupt corporations and providing some social commentary - watch "The Constant Gardener". If you want a stylish "corporate thriller" subterraneanly reflecting upon human nature - watch "Demonlover". This one is hardly any good for anything. However, there is still something really dramatic about it – it's realizing that this kind of stuff is all Hollywood has to offer to the great ones like Pacino today.
I was so excited to see this film when i saw the preview and all the a list actors. Al Pacino, Anthony Hopkins, Malin Ackerman and Josh Duhamel, are among my favorites. What a disappointment, the plot is a mess and makes no sense. Al Pacino speaks with a ridiculous southern accent, Alice Eve is one of the worst actress, its like shes on anti depressants the entire film no emotion or connection with Josh. It was so frustrating to watch. I don't know whats happening in Hollywood, maybe they are running out of ideas but this film had so much potential. This film is up there with Knock Knock. Don't waste your time seeing it.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesMade just £97 (about $125) in its U.K. opening weekend, with an average of four viewers per screen.
- PatzerIt would be close to impossible for any law firm to draft, finalize, and arrange formal service of a fraud complaint against a billionaire, plus schedule a deposition with him, all in less than one week. A demand for production of documents is usually needed first, with a minimum of two weeks for the plaintiff to respond, then a deposition is scheduled to obtain the plaintiff's testimony about the documents.
- VerbindungenReferenced in Cinematic Excrement: 2nd Look: Hillary's America (2023)
- SoundtracksHead Trip
Written & Performed by Lee Coombs
Courtesy of Cutting Edge Music (Holdings) Limited
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Misconduct?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Offizieller Standort
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Falta de ética
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 11.000.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 2.049.761 $
- Laufzeit
- 1 Std. 46 Min.(106 min)
- Farbe
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.35 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen