"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.