Manipulations

"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.

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.

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.

"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.