AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
5,3/10
19 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Quando um jovem advogado ambicioso enfrenta um grande caso contra um executivo poderoso e implacável de uma grande empresa farmacêutica, ele logo se vê envolvido em um caso de chantagem e co... Ler tudoQuando um jovem advogado ambicioso enfrenta um grande caso contra um executivo poderoso e implacável de uma grande empresa farmacêutica, ele logo se vê envolvido em um caso de chantagem e corrupção.Quando um jovem advogado ambicioso enfrenta um grande caso contra um executivo poderoso e implacável de uma grande empresa farmacêutica, ele logo se vê envolvido em um caso de chantagem e corrupção.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Prêmios
- 1 vitória no 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)
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Elenco e equipe completos
- Produção, bilheteria e muito mais no IMDbPro
Avaliações em destaque
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.
...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.
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.
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.
"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.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesMade just £97 (about $125) in its U.K. opening weekend, with an average of four viewers per screen.
- Erros de gravaçãoIt would be close to impossible for any law firm to draft, finalize, and arrange formal service of a fraud complaint against a billionaire, plus schedule a deposition with him, all in less than one week. A demand for production of documents is usually needed first, with a minimum of two weeks for the plaintiff to respond, then a deposition is scheduled to obtain the plaintiff's testimony about the documents.
- ConexõesReferenced in Cinematic Excrement: 2nd Look: Hillary's America (2023)
- Trilhas sonorasHead Trip
Written & Performed by Lee Coombs
Courtesy of Cutting Edge Music (Holdings) Limited
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Misconduct?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Central de atendimento oficial
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- Falta de ética
- Locações de filme
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 11.000.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 2.049.761
- Tempo de duração1 hora 46 minutos
- Cor
- Proporção
- 2.35 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente