Misconduct (2016) User Reviews (122)

Please pardon the theatrics

[petra_ste · 5/10 · 5 July 2016]

Misconduct is the most disappointing type of drama/thriller, the one which seems kind of watchable for thirty minutes or so and then, twist after twist, turns into a moronic potboiler.

Lawyer Ben (Josh Duhamel), whose marriage with Charlotte (Alice Eve) has seen better days, meets old flame Emily (Malin Akerman), who teases him into rekindling a relationship and at the same time turns out to be the current girlfriend of rich executive Denning (Anthony Hopkins), against whom Ben's firm, led by Abrams (Al Pacino), has clashed before. Emily shows Ben incriminating data from Denning's personal files, but is then abducted... or is she? And that's just the beginning of a series of labyrinthine, increasingly silly events.

The movie is a ball of noir tropes crumpled together, like a dead-serious version of The Big Lebowski, with femme fatales, trophy partners of smug millionaires, fake kidnappings, mysterious henchmen and a befuddled protagonist stumbling into a string of red herrings and non-sequiturs. Unlike the Coens' sharp, hilarious classic, Misconduct oozes stupidity from every frame.

Duhamel portrays his amoral lawyer doing an effective "Timothy Olyphant passing a kidney stone" impression - at least I suppose that was the intended goal. Byung-hun Lee plays the world's least proficient hit-man, one who attacks his victims by punching them while riding a motorcycle and yet fails to kill someone tied to a chair.

Former titans Hopkins and Pacino probably high-fived between takes at the thought of the umpteenth easy paycheck. Although Pacino does get to utter the line I put in the review title, which serves as a nice meta commentary on the last part of his career.

Poor Alice Eve is uncannily stiff and dead-eyed - not the world's greatest actress to begin with, she gets saddled with an absurd character. Also, casting lookalikes Eve and Akerman (both statuesque, clear-eyed, round-faced, long-haired blondes in their mid-thirties) as, respectively, the protagonist's spouse and potential lover, was an idiotic choice. You want COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPES for the contrasting roles of the Wife and the Temptress (think Emily Mortimer/Scarlett Johansson in Match Point), not clones.

Add Julia Stiles (in a minor part as a detective) as another long-haired blonde of similar age and facial structure, and this is starting to look like The Stepford Wives.

5/10

A thriller that confuses more than it thrills

[srdjan_veljkovic · 5/10 · 19 May 2016]

The general idea/story is interesting, if well known - a young ambitious man caught in more than he can handle and some very rich old men and young beautiful women pulling his strings. The plot is not great, but OK, involving a touch of modern litigation and pharmaceutical "mythology". Having Pacino and Hopkins in the same movie is also interesting. The "retro-feel" of a 80s/90s thriller is a nice touch.

Unfortunately, that is about as much as good you can say about it.

Every actor seems "off base" here. Not the same "off base", mind you, but, off base indeed. Anthony Hopkins is not interesting. Al Pacino is pretty flat. The rest have issues, but, these are not as deep, as they are not as well established actors. Oh, lest not forget, Pacino and Hopkins pretty much don't interact - actually one of the best scenes in the movie is when they do interact, the small interaction that it is.

Towards the end, there are serious issues with the story/plot. Significant pieces are missing, there are contradictions and some things just don't make any sense - while coming from highly rational people (there are some crazy people in there, so we're gonna forget about their stuff that don't make sense).

The very end, while playing a well-known twist from the thrillers of the 90s, is also poorly done, and more an "are you kidding" than "wow, I didn't see that coming" experience. It is not just that Alice Eve is not playing her part during the movie the way she should for the twist to "hold water", the whole thing, again, doesn't make much sense.

One is left with a feeling that with just a little more effort on the writer and director's part this could have been a "good enough" movie, rather than a bad one.

A movie you can skip in my humble opinion.

[nickpeev · 4/10 · 5 February 2016]

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.

Tony & Al sell soul, destroy legacy

[Filboid_Studge · 1/10 · 6 February 2016]

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.

Misconduct Massively Misfires

[MT-15087 · 5 February 2016]

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.

if you are not a hater and don't pick apart the movie, you'll enjoy it

[bcheng93 · 6/10 · 6 February 2016]

...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.

not worth watching

[michelle_kummer · 3/10 · 7 February 2016]

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.

Red Herrings Found

[kirbylee70-599-526179 · 6/10 · 9 May 2016]

Movies made by the famed director Alfred Hitchcock were known to contain more than a few red herrings, a term defined as "…something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue." He didn't invent this item but he used them to his advantage in numerous films, making you look to the left while something happened on the right. It became associated with him as often as he used it. It's become something that can make a thriller just that touch more special and is used well in the film MISCONDUCT.

Anthony Hopkins plays Arthur Denning, a billionaire pharmaceutical CEO who has faced countless lawsuits brought against him by superstar attorney Charles Abrams (Al Pacino). As the film opens his temperamental girlfriend Emily (Malin Akerman) has gone missing until a text for a ransom comes in. Things turn odd at the money drop and the film drops back to the week prior to these events.

Ben Cahill (Josh Duhamel) is an up and coming attorney in the office of Abrams. Ben is a man willing to do anything to win a case. Married to Charlotte (Alice Eve), the two have hit a rocky patch after a miscarriage several month prior. One night after Charlotte has gone to work, Ben receives a friend request online from Emily, an old flame from college. Accepting the request they meet for drinks and Emily lets him know she has another reason for contacting him.

As Denning's employee and girlfriend Emily feels trapped and wants out but Denning is unwilling to let her go. To find her way to freedom she shows Ben that she has information concerning Denning's falsification and payoffs to FDA officials, information that could help Ben win a huge lawsuit against Denning. She also attempts to win back his affection and he almost complies but leaves instead with the evidence.

Approaching senior partner Abrams, Ben pushes to handle the case on his own. A win will result in his becoming a full partner, a loss his career at the firm. Everything seems to be going to plan until the disappearance of Emily and Ben's then finding her dead of an overdose in her hidden apartment. Her death could lead to an end for the lawsuit. But things twist and turn even more as the story unfolds. Better yet is that those twists result in more and more items and events altering from moment to moment, never confusing but always making for an interesting movie.

The film is an entertaining jump into a genre made popular by author John Grisham with lawyers facing off against hidden agendas and old grudges and the story here while not quite up to par with those Grisham has offered does a decent job of holding your attention from start to finish. And by finish I mean until just before the credits roll so pay attention.

Hopkins and Pacino both do a good job here but seem to be less than enthused about the film. Don't get me wrong, they both do a tremendous job. But there just doesn't seem to be the spark here seen from either actor in other films. Duhamel shows that he has the ability to carry a film and do it well. The fact that he doesn't get near the opportunities he deserves is a shame when you see some actors less deserving getting better chances. With any luck this film will draw more attention to his abilities.

If this film played in any theaters I have little doubt it was a limited release. That's unfortunate because there have been other unworthy films that have had much more push behind them. That's one of the great things about movies coming out on DVD, the chance to discover a small gem that will hold your interest, entertain and keep you guessing. This movie qualifies on each of those counts and makes a good movie to take home for a nice evening as you try to figure out what will happen next with each passing minute.

Do not waste your time

[elineger · 1/10 · 7 February 2016]

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.

Misconduct As a Way Of life

[mostafa-magdy-mahmoud-al · 7/10 · 7 February 2016]

Good movie. Talking about the idea of misconduct as a way of life has never been discussed in a movie that way ever before.

The lawyer who's misconducting with his job principles to polish his image as a husband. The business man who is manipulating the society to gain more profits by putting out killers instead of painkillers. The maven lawyer who's conceiving his conscience to serve his reputation and the wife who finally has killed to have revenge against her husband's old girlfriend although she knew deeply in her heart that he has never cheated on her.

I'm giving it 7 because acting could be way better specially from Al Pacino and Anthony Hopkins. This could have been a real masterpiece if it has been taken more seriously by the director.

Generally, I enjoyed it.

Failed on so many levels

[siderite · 5/10 · 22 May 2016]

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.

Pretty good ride and was worth every minute!

[mikipetreskii · 8/10 · 9 February 2016]

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! :)

Great Actors, story a little blah, the twists saved it!

[kz917-1 · 6/10 · 17 July 2017]

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.

With such clear visual and talented cast, it's a truly misfortune that the result is agonizingly boring

[quincytheodore · 4/10 · 7 February 2016]

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.

My excitement over Pacino & Hopkins together slowly disappeared. I can not express enough my disappointment in this movie.

[cosmo_tiger · 4/10 · 11 March 2016]

"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 actors. nothing more

[Kirpianuscus · 3 January 2024]

Obvious, a film to see only for cast. Or, more exactly, for their try to save a very strange story, looking for impress but only mixing familiar cliches.

The problem is the feeling to see a kind of improvisation. Nice intentioned but less generous for actors ( Julia Stiles is the good example ).

So, a sort of chain of movements behind the deep fall in water and asfixion. The consolation - always Al Pacino and Anthony Hopkins are good motives and Josh Duhamel is interesting, yet, for his look , first. So, a ball of death , ambition, mistakes and unrealistic events. And the inspired cast for sustain it at reasonabble level.

Less than the sum of its parts

[ginocox-206-336968 · 6/10 · 16 April 2016]

"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.

Misinterpreted

[caribbeanjack · 5/10 · 26 April 2020]

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.

THE WORSE VICE IS ADVICE

[nogodnomasters · 6/10 · 18 April 2018]

Arthur Denning (Anthony Hopkins) is the CEO of Pierson Pharmacy which is responsible for the deaths of individuals during clinical drug trial testing, in which they had tampered with results to get the drug approved for testing. Emily Hynes (Malin Akerman) is the young sexy girlfriend and employee of Dr. Denning who is urging him to leave the country. Our protagonist, Ben Cahill (Josh Duhamel) ia a lawyer who works for Charles Abrams (Al Pacino). He wins cases, but has an inside man who can hack files, i.e. doing the wrong thing for the right reason as he justifies it. His wife Charlotte (Alice Eve) is a nurse. Later we find out they lost a child due to a miscarriage. The film opens with Emily going missing, then jumping to one week earlier when Emily contacts her former boyfriend Ben Cahill with Arthur's personal files.

Yes it starts out with a twist, but that is hardly a plot spoiler. There are numerous twists as this thing goes on, twists that don't make sense or have decent clues, but exist for the simple reason as if to say, see how clever we are? I felt the film would have been better if they had left off the last twist or two. Josh Duhamel was deadpan in his role and our two headliners were rather boring, although it was clear Hopkins was trying to play an evil heartless man not named Hannibal. There was enough misconduct to go around with the miscast of Josh Duhamel being the worse.

Bourne girl Julia Stiles did good as a security agent, but she had a minor role.

Guide: F-bomb. No sex (sorry about the plot spoiler). No nudity.

oh my

[iandouglasb · 1/10 · 6 February 2016]

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.

it's official - I'm going crazy

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 31 August 2017]

I'm embarrassed to say I actually liked this film.

Let me say up front, despite some of the reviews here, I had no trouble following it.

I also admit I did figure most of it out. This, however, did not keep me from being entertained.

I am surprised Pacino and Hopkins signed on for this as neither role is especially great.

Someone, somewhere, greenlit this thing and gave it a decent budget, even though it's a first-time director (Shintaro Shimosawa).

The story concerns am ambitious young man, Ben Cahill (Josh Duhamel) who goes after fraud perpetrated by a pharmaceutical company owned by Arthur Denning (Anthony Hopkins). Cahill has been cutting corners to make his cases all along; this one is no different, as he obtained the information illegally from an old girlfriend (Malin Akerman). Ben's boss (Al Pacino) gives him the go-ahead to pursue it.

Things unravel pretty quickly, as Ben is threatened not only with danger to himself but his wife (Alice Eve); he finds his ex- girlfriend dead and goes on the run.

Okay, I happen to think this was an excellent plot clumsily handled by this director, who maybe should have started with something simpler. This is a very complex story to put across, and while some of the camera angles are interesting and I would say this man has talent, it wasn't put together quite right. He tried for a Pulp Fiction thing that didn't quite come off, for one thing; and for another it's just too all over the place.

Another problem is that every suspense or mystery movie nowadays has to end with a twist since Usual Suspects. Well, now the twists are expected and passe, so what writers are doing now are putting twists within the twists. It's too much.

The acting was okay, but the husband-wife thing between Alice Eve and Duhamel was sketchy and not fleshed out. Not sure who to blame there.

Nevertheless, this was a good rental - not sure how I would have felt with these big names attached if I had paid $12 in the theater.

Worst movie ever

[nicoloszenberg · 3/10 · 5 February 2016]

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.

Exquisitely stlized with a star studded cast

[mktanks · 9/10 · 9 February 2016]

What a movie - the style of it and the way it looked was exquisite, really. The scenes were poetic in that they were mostly shot from behind, out of view and with a sense of urgency that brought forward the viewers attention. The realism and yet twisted and maddening build through the film was delicate and at the same time, urgent and forceful. The talented director, the tasteful cinematography, award winning actors, beautiful musical score and minimalism and tasteful wardrobe - I felt this sense of simplicity and clarity followed by a stlized turn of events that culminates the film. Check out Misconduct and see for yourself what talent exists in this new film February 2016. Well done!

Overall, not bad

[brutzel · 7/10 · 20 April 2016]

Young ambitious lawyer Ben Cahill (Josh Duhamel) has evidence to take down a big drug company run by Arthur Denning (Anthony Hopkins) and he has proof that this company rigged drug trials and made millions. Ben's boss Charles Abrams (Al Pacino) gives him full rein to get the job done. There is a murder, and Ben is now a hunted man. How did this happen? Oh, oh………

Overall not bad. Nice to see Hopkins and Pacino from time to time. I thought they would only do cameo stuff, but they appeared more than expected. Pacino did not do his usual harangue - like from a soap box - but came close at the restaurant with Ben. As for Hopkins, he probably has it written into his contract that he provide a long detailed accounting of what happened the way he saw it. Still not bad and quite enjoyable. Yes, I kind of rag on both, but truth be told both are expected to do these things and more truth be told: both Hopkins and Pacino give credibility to this story. So there.

There is a twist – sort of - and I am sure we all figured out who murdered Emily (Malin Akerman), Denning's girlfriend. Ben's wife Charlie (Alice Eve) had previously lost a baby and acted in a catatonic way and wasn't sure about how committed Ben was regarding the marriage. Both women are eye-candy for the story. (Thought you would say that)

We liked Josh Duhamel as Ben, a good guy, and we cringe when we expect he will do something stupid and he does exactly that Oh, no! And, of course, we cringed away.

Two things didn't make any sense to me. The Hit-man on the motorcycle had medical issues. We needed to know that? Also there was a scene where we see Ben coming out of a drug store and we see a bloody gash on his stomach. What was that all about? Did someone say that scene didn't fit but forgot to take it out of the movie? Strange, because we see Ben continue on hiding from the police with no apparent problem with his stomach. Very strange.

A very interesting aspect in this movie was camera angles, which added to the suspense from time to time. (7/10)

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: Yes, very briefly from a distance. Language: Yes,

A Stinker

[j_misunas · 2/10 · 27 April 2016]

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.