127 opiniones
- petra_ste
- 4 jul 2016
- Enlace permanente
- srdjan_veljkovic
- 18 may 2016
- Enlace permanente
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.
- r4nd0
- 4 feb 2016
- Enlace permanente
What dark deals were struck to persuade two of the greatest screen actors of all time to appear in this stillborn nonsense? What dirt do they have on Messrs Hopkins & Pacino that they can be lured into this manure-filled paddock?
The script for "Misconduct" seems to have been pieced together from scraps of paper harvested from the bin of a ten-year-old struggling to produce a piece of creative writing homework. Someone should take this ten-year-old to one side and have a quiet word about the rudiments of drama; firstly, have a protagonist who we care about. Secondly, don't expect us to believe an intelligent lawyer would make the most catastrophic, rudimentary slip-ups when committing a crime; thirdly, have the story make even a little bit of sense, without plot holes big enough for the orbit of Halley's comet.
Special mention must go to Alice Eve, an actress so monumentally bad that in a just world she would be laughed out of the room if she auditioned for the part of the back end of the donkey in her local comprehensive school's nativity play. She seems to think that what's required for this role is to approximate one of those kittens you see on Youtube falling asleep in its food bowl.
Only go to see "Misconduct" if you're atoning for sins committed in a previous life.
The script for "Misconduct" seems to have been pieced together from scraps of paper harvested from the bin of a ten-year-old struggling to produce a piece of creative writing homework. Someone should take this ten-year-old to one side and have a quiet word about the rudiments of drama; firstly, have a protagonist who we care about. Secondly, don't expect us to believe an intelligent lawyer would make the most catastrophic, rudimentary slip-ups when committing a crime; thirdly, have the story make even a little bit of sense, without plot holes big enough for the orbit of Halley's comet.
Special mention must go to Alice Eve, an actress so monumentally bad that in a just world she would be laughed out of the room if she auditioned for the part of the back end of the donkey in her local comprehensive school's nativity play. She seems to think that what's required for this role is to approximate one of those kittens you see on Youtube falling asleep in its food bowl.
Only go to see "Misconduct" if you're atoning for sins committed in a previous life.
- Filboid_Studge
- 5 feb 2016
- Enlace permanente
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.
- MT-15087
- 4 feb 2016
- Enlace permanente
...there are very few perfect movies that have been made, can't understand the venom and the hate coming from the other 4 reviewers...i'm the 5th. personally..i totally enjoyed the movie...because i didn't try to pick it apart, Alice Eve did just fine in the acting department and what a beauty she is too. not Oscar worthy but everything was professionally done...the movie kept me engrossed for its whole duration. personally, for me..i liked that little twist at the end. in my opinion this movie is a solid 6...which means its very watchable( for majority of people...not for the nitpickers). don't believe the naysayers who are ripping the movie, take a chance on it and make up your own opinion. hahaha compare to the movie (Heist) that came out 2015 this would look like an Oscar contender....now that was a bad movie and has a higher rating then this. i turn off that movie 1/2 way through..that was a bad movie..this one is not. again...don't believe the naysayers and do take a chance on this movie if you are a fan of decent thrillers.
- bcheng93
- 5 feb 2016
- Enlace permanente
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.
- michelle_kummer
- 6 feb 2016
- Enlace permanente
- kirbylee70-599-526179
- 8 may 2016
- Enlace permanente
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.
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.
- elineger
- 6 feb 2016
- Enlace permanente
"Misconduct" has some very strong elements, including a talented cast and solid production values. There's a clever reversal of fortune at the midpoint. The plot concerns individuals taking extraordinary steps to bring an individual who seems to be above the law to justice, although some characters have hidden agenda and things are not always what they seem.
Yet, it doesn't quite come together.
The motivations of the characters aren't always clear, logical or consistent. Sometimes, this works to its advantage, particularly with Hopkin's performance. Other times characters do things that don't make much sense. This seems particularly confusing with one incident involving a firearm and another involving a needle.
Characters often seem to know things they have no way of knowing. One character maintains a pied-à-terre under an assumed name that everybody seems to know about.
Police procedures are often unrealistic. The police can't simply arrest somebody unless they actually observe them committing a crime, even on the strength of a accusation supported by evidence of uncertain provenance. The Fifth Amendment guarantees, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury..." Even if an accusation is not brought before a grand jury, an accuser can't simply go to the police and ask them to arrest somebody in a dramatic confrontation.
Characters often show up at critical moments for no rational reason. Half the cast shows up for a climatic scene.
Many details seem contrived. A body is found holding a cell phone displaying a text message. A garment picks up traces of perfume by being in close proximity to somebody.
Many of the scenes don't quite end. Somebody shoots a guy in the leg, but faces no consequences, then holds a gun on somebody else and we cut to the next scene without knowing how the scene ends. Ticking clocks are set in motion, but largely ignored.
The dramatic perspective is muddled.
The story involves a major lawsuit that might be a class action tort or might be a civil action for fraud, but it's not clear whom the law firm represents or why they have standing. Much is made of whether certain evidence was obtained illegally; however, this is usually only relevant in criminal cases, not civil cases, and it's not clear that the evidence was obtained illegally by the parties to the suit.
Basically, the film is less than the sum of its parts. Some of the parts are quite nice, but they don't quite fit together to form a cohesive and compelling whole.
Yet, it doesn't quite come together.
The motivations of the characters aren't always clear, logical or consistent. Sometimes, this works to its advantage, particularly with Hopkin's performance. Other times characters do things that don't make much sense. This seems particularly confusing with one incident involving a firearm and another involving a needle.
Characters often seem to know things they have no way of knowing. One character maintains a pied-à-terre under an assumed name that everybody seems to know about.
Police procedures are often unrealistic. The police can't simply arrest somebody unless they actually observe them committing a crime, even on the strength of a accusation supported by evidence of uncertain provenance. The Fifth Amendment guarantees, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury..." Even if an accusation is not brought before a grand jury, an accuser can't simply go to the police and ask them to arrest somebody in a dramatic confrontation.
Characters often show up at critical moments for no rational reason. Half the cast shows up for a climatic scene.
Many details seem contrived. A body is found holding a cell phone displaying a text message. A garment picks up traces of perfume by being in close proximity to somebody.
Many of the scenes don't quite end. Somebody shoots a guy in the leg, but faces no consequences, then holds a gun on somebody else and we cut to the next scene without knowing how the scene ends. Ticking clocks are set in motion, but largely ignored.
The dramatic perspective is muddled.
The story involves a major lawsuit that might be a class action tort or might be a civil action for fraud, but it's not clear whom the law firm represents or why they have standing. Much is made of whether certain evidence was obtained illegally; however, this is usually only relevant in criminal cases, not civil cases, and it's not clear that the evidence was obtained illegally by the parties to the suit.
Basically, the film is less than the sum of its parts. Some of the parts are quite nice, but they don't quite fit together to form a cohesive and compelling whole.
- ginocox-206-336968
- 15 abr 2016
- Enlace permanente
The plot is twisting, twisting and twisting again, while characters that seem to be one thing are revealed to be another, interacting in all kinds of ways. However, in order for a story to be successful, the plot needs to be interesting and the characters well defined before you do the plot twisting. Bottom line: a lot atwist about nothing. Now there's some Shakespeare for you.
Yet somehow things are getting worse and worse: known actors have puny or plain bad roles, the acting is mediocre at best, the editing of the scenes, vague and not linear in time, confuses the hell out of the viewer. The girls: Julia Stiles, Malin Akerman, Alice Eve - they do the best with their roles, in fact they are the best actors in this film, far outclassing old farts like Pacino and Hopkins, who's only purpose in life nowadays is to give megalomaniacal speeches.
A special mention for Alice Eve. She did a weird kind of interpretation which was awesome. I don't know if it was her idea or the director's, but her character gave me the creeps. It just wasn't completely right for this movie.
Conclusion: a waste of time and talent. A confusing story that feels like someone's ego trip, a boring film, a pointless story.
Yet somehow things are getting worse and worse: known actors have puny or plain bad roles, the acting is mediocre at best, the editing of the scenes, vague and not linear in time, confuses the hell out of the viewer. The girls: Julia Stiles, Malin Akerman, Alice Eve - they do the best with their roles, in fact they are the best actors in this film, far outclassing old farts like Pacino and Hopkins, who's only purpose in life nowadays is to give megalomaniacal speeches.
A special mention for Alice Eve. She did a weird kind of interpretation which was awesome. I don't know if it was her idea or the director's, but her character gave me the creeps. It just wasn't completely right for this movie.
Conclusion: a waste of time and talent. A confusing story that feels like someone's ego trip, a boring film, a pointless story.
- siderite
- 21 may 2016
- Enlace permanente
First I wanna say that after reading most of the reviews about this movie, I couldn't help but laugh on almost all of them. Do not read them because none of them understood the movie and they all talk about the actors and their "bad" acting.
What you must know is that this movie requires your FULL attention! So leave your pop-corns, phone and everything else that can distract you, if you want to fully enjoy and understand this incredibly crafted movie.
This is drama/thriller where the rules of the casual movies doesn't apply here. The time-line is all messed up, so you have to keep up with it and connect the dots. Otherwise you will miss important clues and parts to complete the story in the end. You won't get the point served on plate. You gotta earn it, and that is what I love about this move!
It's nothing complicated if you are focused and think while watching. It's awesome actually, because it keeps you guessing, waiting, wanting more, feeling on edge even tho it's drama.
The script is beautifully done, the actors incredible, the music awesome, the camera great, and etc etc.
"Misconduct" is about an old billionaire who has a young girlfriend, there is an lawyer and the company where he works, the wife of the lawyer, and supporting characters. Beside the great acting, these actors and the director shows you the real deal, the unemotional ruthless people who are wild and ready to do anything for their goal and not care about anything but themselves.
Till the half of the movie, you will go forth and back in the story. At first it's confusing but then its easy to follow it up. You will find yourself in a chaos of questions but as the time passes the truth will reveal slowly and you will be satisfied at the end, if you are focused of course.
To keep it short, I rated this "Misconduct" with 8/10 because of the end that didn't surprised me. I wanted to be shocked and got even more question and think like crazy about the movie, but sadly it didn't happened because I predicted it long before the end. I love this genre of movies and they have pattern, so I know how they are being developed, their story.
Anyway, I'd recommend this movie to anyone with the nerves to stay tight and focused on the movie and use their brain instead of eating pop-corns and drinking soda! :)
What you must know is that this movie requires your FULL attention! So leave your pop-corns, phone and everything else that can distract you, if you want to fully enjoy and understand this incredibly crafted movie.
This is drama/thriller where the rules of the casual movies doesn't apply here. The time-line is all messed up, so you have to keep up with it and connect the dots. Otherwise you will miss important clues and parts to complete the story in the end. You won't get the point served on plate. You gotta earn it, and that is what I love about this move!
It's nothing complicated if you are focused and think while watching. It's awesome actually, because it keeps you guessing, waiting, wanting more, feeling on edge even tho it's drama.
The script is beautifully done, the actors incredible, the music awesome, the camera great, and etc etc.
"Misconduct" is about an old billionaire who has a young girlfriend, there is an lawyer and the company where he works, the wife of the lawyer, and supporting characters. Beside the great acting, these actors and the director shows you the real deal, the unemotional ruthless people who are wild and ready to do anything for their goal and not care about anything but themselves.
Till the half of the movie, you will go forth and back in the story. At first it's confusing but then its easy to follow it up. You will find yourself in a chaos of questions but as the time passes the truth will reveal slowly and you will be satisfied at the end, if you are focused of course.
To keep it short, I rated this "Misconduct" with 8/10 because of the end that didn't surprised me. I wanted to be shocked and got even more question and think like crazy about the movie, but sadly it didn't happened because I predicted it long before the end. I love this genre of movies and they have pattern, so I know how they are being developed, their story.
Anyway, I'd recommend this movie to anyone with the nerves to stay tight and focused on the movie and use their brain instead of eating pop-corns and drinking soda! :)
- mikipetreskii
- 8 feb 2016
- Enlace permanente
When first seeing the cast of Josh Duhamel, Al Pacino and Anthony Hopkins, among others, one would expect an intense thriller, yet "Misconduct" is an arbitrary endeavor that has seriously crippling pace and lacking any suspense. It may look nice at first, potentially promising a wit exchange, yet it's painfully slow and honestly a shallow display of crime drama.
Ben (Josh Duhamel) is contacted by her unstable ex-girlfriend who has secret files about her billionaire boss. He takes this chance without knowing that he'll walk on a series of increasingly dangerous conspiracy. The line-up is riddled with famous names, yet their performance is inconsistent. Duhamel looks decent for a leading role, although he doesn't have the poise or sense of urgency when the moments call for it.
The chemistry between him and veterans like Al Pacino and Anthony Hopkins is also shaky. There are some good thrilling moments, yet there are also times when they look ironically silly as though impersonating plot from Law and Order. Female characters share the same fate of incompatibility. Julie Stiles as the operator only appears too cocky for the tough female stereotype.
Meanwhile, Malin Akerman and Alice Eve are seemingly trapped in love triangle gig, and not a good one at that. Its attempt to showcase debauchery is appreciated, yet there's barely any passion involved here. Byung-hun Lee makes a supporting role, and it's quite intriguing when he makes an entrance, yet his character feels underutilized and only serves as a glorified henchman. When they interact it creates a tangled web of a plot.
It does have clear cinematography and direction to portray vices such as greed and lust, yet it shifts significantly slow between unintentionally detached characters that ultimately become mundane and restricting.
Ben (Josh Duhamel) is contacted by her unstable ex-girlfriend who has secret files about her billionaire boss. He takes this chance without knowing that he'll walk on a series of increasingly dangerous conspiracy. The line-up is riddled with famous names, yet their performance is inconsistent. Duhamel looks decent for a leading role, although he doesn't have the poise or sense of urgency when the moments call for it.
The chemistry between him and veterans like Al Pacino and Anthony Hopkins is also shaky. There are some good thrilling moments, yet there are also times when they look ironically silly as though impersonating plot from Law and Order. Female characters share the same fate of incompatibility. Julie Stiles as the operator only appears too cocky for the tough female stereotype.
Meanwhile, Malin Akerman and Alice Eve are seemingly trapped in love triangle gig, and not a good one at that. Its attempt to showcase debauchery is appreciated, yet there's barely any passion involved here. Byung-hun Lee makes a supporting role, and it's quite intriguing when he makes an entrance, yet his character feels underutilized and only serves as a glorified henchman. When they interact it creates a tangled web of a plot.
It does have clear cinematography and direction to portray vices such as greed and lust, yet it shifts significantly slow between unintentionally detached characters that ultimately become mundane and restricting.
- quincytheodore
- 6 feb 2016
- Enlace permanente
"New events have come to light that change the nature of this allegation." Arthur Denning (Hopkins) is a pharmaceutical executive that is being sued for negligence, and to top it off his girlfriend has disappeared. Ben Cahill (Duhamel) is an up and coming lawyer that is assigned to the case. When Ben becomes personally involved with what is happening lives and careers are in jeopardy. I was very excited about this movie. Al Pacino and Anthony Hopkins together seems like a dream paring and I was looking forward to seeing those two together. Little by little my hopes were vanishing and by the time they were on screen together it was so anti-climatic that I didn't even care. Pacino and Hopkins were on screen total for about 15 min, not together. The movie is told through present day and flashbacks, but I didn't realize that until almost the end. The movie is decent but because of my high expectations involving the first paring of Pacino and Hopkins I was severely disappointing. Overall, this for me was just too disappointing for me to have enjoyed like I could have if it was two lesser actors. I give this a very disappointing and frustrating C.
- cosmo_tiger
- 10 mar 2016
- Enlace permanente
With talent like Pacino and Hopkins I was expecting something stellar. What you get in sections is rather lukewarm, but other parts of the movie are on fire! In the end the twists of the movie are what saved it. The film makers leave you guessing until the very end and even then they pull a double twist that makes your jaw drop. Could have been better, but if you like the actors worth a rental.
- kz917-1
- 16 jul 2017
- Enlace permanente
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.
- caribbeanjack
- 25 abr 2020
- Enlace permanente
- blanche-2
- 30 ago 2017
- Enlace permanente
Really Al? Anthony? These two actors in whom I have the highest regard, must be grasping at paychecks at this late stage of their otherwise illustrious careers. The last couple of movies these gentlemen have been in have all been stinkers. Phoned in performances and improperly vetted scripts and or directors have made for the culmination of crap which resulted in this bomb. Directing, editing, composition...all poorly done. Josh Duhamel will jump at anything to keep his name in lights but Julia Stiles? Malin Ackerman? And the robot Alice Eve whose performance was a study in a pot-head on anti-depressants who is abusing Ativan. This movie had potential if any of the actors had bothered to read the script and gotten interested in actually telling a good story. I am sure they were all stuck with the directing being done but good performances can usually overcome bad directing. Sadly, this film was lacking in both.
- iandouglasb
- 5 feb 2016
- Enlace permanente
Dead on Arrival, this Exercise in Neo-Noir will Satisfy viewers who Love Their Style over Substance Thrillers.
Al Pacino and Anthony Hopkins are Show-Up Stars that add a Bit of Bravado to the Show but really don't have enough Screen-Time to be Remarked upon.
The rest of the Pretty faced Actors try Their Best to do what They are Paid for but seem like Props most of the time, only there to be placed for some Interesting Camera Work and Lurk in the Shadows to form a Mysterious Template.
Overall, the Script is Nothing to Write Home about and can be unnecessarily Complicated or to be Cruel, Clunky. There are Twists and Turns for Typical Genre Flourishes, but in the End are only OK if You Care that much when it is all said and done.
Worth a Watch, but the Movie has been Trashed by most Reviewers and was thrown in the Gutter of Released Indifference and all but Abandoned after completion. Just don't Expect too much and it can be a Lurid Misfire that is Eye Friendly but Brain Befuddling. The kind of Slick Stuff that Brian DePalma was so Good at.
This doesn't reach to that Level of Enjoyment but it isn't for lack of Trying. An Effort that is Adequate but Not quite Acquired.
Al Pacino and Anthony Hopkins are Show-Up Stars that add a Bit of Bravado to the Show but really don't have enough Screen-Time to be Remarked upon.
The rest of the Pretty faced Actors try Their Best to do what They are Paid for but seem like Props most of the time, only there to be placed for some Interesting Camera Work and Lurk in the Shadows to form a Mysterious Template.
Overall, the Script is Nothing to Write Home about and can be unnecessarily Complicated or to be Cruel, Clunky. There are Twists and Turns for Typical Genre Flourishes, but in the End are only OK if You Care that much when it is all said and done.
Worth a Watch, but the Movie has been Trashed by most Reviewers and was thrown in the Gutter of Released Indifference and all but Abandoned after completion. Just don't Expect too much and it can be a Lurid Misfire that is Eye Friendly but Brain Befuddling. The kind of Slick Stuff that Brian DePalma was so Good at.
This doesn't reach to that Level of Enjoyment but it isn't for lack of Trying. An Effort that is Adequate but Not quite Acquired.
- LeonLouisRicci
- 29 may 2016
- Enlace permanente
Misconduct is by far the worst thriller I ever saw. A movie with neither head nor tail, the screenplay makes no sense, the actors are at their worst, and since Pacino and Hopkins are 2 of the best actors in the world, I assume the reason is the screenplay and the filmmaker. I only do not understand why they accepted to play such a movie. They should not destroy their image accepting such a junk movie just for money, which I suppose they have more than enough. On top of that the filmmaker has no idea of photography and light. Saying it is a B movie will offend for sure B movie filmmakers. Nothing to save, except your money if you avoid to see it.
- nicoloszenberg
- 4 feb 2016
- Enlace permanente
- mktanks
- 8 feb 2016
- Enlace permanente
- nogodnomasters
- 17 abr 2018
- Enlace permanente
There have been rare occasions where a movie with headliners such as are in this movie agree to act in a poorly written, poorly scripted, complete dog of a movie.
The dialogue, plot, and completely unbelievable circumstances all dovetail into absolute stupidity.
This movie and any media on which it is copied should be burned and the producers should apologize for bringing it to the screen.
There is no way a lawyer would jeopardize his career like this.
There is no way a billionaire could be so easily duped.
There is no way police could be so completely clueless.
The kidnapping team was inept.
There is no back-story on anything or anyone.
Completely random events are depicted to explain nonsensical behavior.
Overall a rating of 2 is being very kind.
The dialogue, plot, and completely unbelievable circumstances all dovetail into absolute stupidity.
This movie and any media on which it is copied should be burned and the producers should apologize for bringing it to the screen.
There is no way a lawyer would jeopardize his career like this.
There is no way a billionaire could be so easily duped.
There is no way police could be so completely clueless.
The kidnapping team was inept.
There is no back-story on anything or anyone.
Completely random events are depicted to explain nonsensical behavior.
Overall a rating of 2 is being very kind.
- j_misunas
- 26 abr 2016
- Enlace permanente
I like refrigerator movies. Hitchcock called the serviceable thrillers that because while they were very entertaining to watch, after you go home and are going through the refrigerator, you start to pick apart the plot. In case of Misconduct, you might as well carry a portable refrigerator because you start picking the plot apart while watching it!
Some good direction and clever plotting can help cover a deeply flawed movie to an extent. This movie however is extremely tone deaf. There is no sense of directorial style. There is an insulting use of non- linear chronology which serves no purpose other than to hide the fact that the plot is paper thin. It goes without saying that Al Pacino and Sir Anthony Hopkins are legends. They can make Troll 3 at this point and their legacy won't be hurt. Well maybe a little bit, but they are still legends. But this movie wastes their talents especially Hopkins who seems like he is waiting to cash in his check. Pacino gets a scene to go bombastic but you just don't care and just feel sad for the guy. Josh Duhamel tries but the ridiculous script defeats him. The standout is Alice Eve who gives the worst performance I have ever seen in a big budget movie. There is emotionally distant and there is whatever the hell Eve was going for.
I was in a flight and looking for a quick movie to kill the time but this movie despite a promising start, completely goes off the rails and ends up being a waste.
There is a scene about 70% into the movie where Hopkins and Pacino are on-screen, for the first time EVER...and you just don't give a damn! That is all you need to know about this junk.
Some good direction and clever plotting can help cover a deeply flawed movie to an extent. This movie however is extremely tone deaf. There is no sense of directorial style. There is an insulting use of non- linear chronology which serves no purpose other than to hide the fact that the plot is paper thin. It goes without saying that Al Pacino and Sir Anthony Hopkins are legends. They can make Troll 3 at this point and their legacy won't be hurt. Well maybe a little bit, but they are still legends. But this movie wastes their talents especially Hopkins who seems like he is waiting to cash in his check. Pacino gets a scene to go bombastic but you just don't care and just feel sad for the guy. Josh Duhamel tries but the ridiculous script defeats him. The standout is Alice Eve who gives the worst performance I have ever seen in a big budget movie. There is emotionally distant and there is whatever the hell Eve was going for.
I was in a flight and looking for a quick movie to kill the time but this movie despite a promising start, completely goes off the rails and ends up being a waste.
There is a scene about 70% into the movie where Hopkins and Pacino are on-screen, for the first time EVER...and you just don't give a damn! That is all you need to know about this junk.
- stencilman
- 10 feb 2017
- Enlace permanente