Marchands de douleur

Performances of the main leads (Emily Blunt and Chris Evans) were good , their chemistry was okay. Story line was also okay. Though I do get why some people would give this movie a bad ratings. However in my own opinion, I found the movie to be interesting since it was base on real life story and a good reflection on people's never-ending desires for success.

If you ask me if it's worthy to watch or not, I'd say it is. We all have various standards about what a good movie should be like, therefore I'd suggest "give it a try". If you've read terrible reviews don't mind it ,that doesn't accurately reflect the entire movie.

Carried by a typically strong Blunt performance, Pain Hustlers is both watchable and eye-opening, even though its dramatic impulses do kind of cancel each other out.

Directed by David Yates, who has spent most of the last two decades helming "Harry Potter" movies and prequels and might not be the best fit for this material, Pain Hustlers aims to be a fast-paced, raucous, blunt and slick work a la "The Wolf of Wall Street" and "The Big Short," but winds up caught between the worlds of breezy satire and hard truth. Emily Blunt and Chris Evans are fabulous but you'll be hard-pressed to remember anything else by the time the credits are done rolling.

But the movie does succeed in unpacking the raw grift and exploitation of the pharma sales business, and the wider dysfunction of the American health care and legal systems that allows it to go unchecked. So a thumbs up on that part.

My Rating: 6.5/10.

First off, it's not like the pain killer shows from Netflix and Hulu, different drug. Secondly, I don't understand why people are hating on the movie. Story line is great, acting is great and it's an interesting story based on true events. Not sure what else you really need in a film to make it at a bare minimum enjoyable.

Saw a review said "it's not cool for a kid to start a forest fire." As that statement is true, the movie didn't make it cool n it's literally 7seconds of the film. Or someone else was comparing it to a Scorsese film? Lol I guess having music and interesting story makes that true? People are so sensitive and just can't enjoy a movie.

Like some other posters I am at a loss to discern why this got poor reviews. It's well made, has a great cast and is a pertinent moral tale. Blunt is the star of course and she carries the film along with Chris Evans. Based on a true story it exposes the corruption in the pharmaceutical industry that fosters greed and profit over the actual health of America's citizens. Once Blunt's character, her fellow sales people and all the immoral doctors involved in prescribing pain meds get hooked on huge payouts, no one cares about the damaged lives that resulted. It's very entertaining and very sobering and justice prevails.

I found the movie to be very watchable & more realistic than given credit for in other reviews. It's easy to dislike a character whose behavior is unprincipled & likely to harm others, as in the case of all the main players in this film. But in doing so, you ignore the fact that people are complex, usually not all good or all bad. Circumstances can dictate behavior & should be taken into account. Liza Drake wasn't a bad person. She was a smart, desperate person looking for a way out of her dead end job & seized an opportunity that looked promising initially. Pete was more comfortable behaving unscrupulously. I think both Emily Blunt & Chris Evans brought their characters to life in a realistic way. I also feel like Liza Drake was a good mother. The reviewer who was offended by Liza's response to her daughter's fire starting was a minor incident in the story. I found the movie to be quite interesting, as well as a decent portrayal of the pharmaceutical industry. You can't ignore the headlines of the last several years.