Falta de ética

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.

"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.

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.

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.