This is an average movie, maybe slightly above. The plot is too slight to have this slow pacing. It's pretty simple, so I'm having a hard time remembering how they filled those two hours.
I hate to point out plot holes, but I haven't seen anybody mention two that really jumped out at me. The first one being the mole people. Out of the thousands of homeless people in NYC, I would guess those would be just about the hardest and most dangerous ones to get. Makes no sense.
The second being that once Hackman's research was successful, how the eff was he going to explain it to the FDA and the medical board? Did he just want to open a clinic called BACKS R' US and hope nobody asked how he made this discovery?
Also, there is no ethics dilemma here. If you think there is, maybe you didn't finish the movie. Because Hugh Grant spells it out very succinctly: it is not okay to experiment on people without their knowledge and consent. If you think there is really a big dilemma here, consult a doctor.
I hate to point out plot holes, but I haven't seen anybody mention two that really jumped out at me. The first one being the mole people. Out of the thousands of homeless people in NYC, I would guess those would be just about the hardest and most dangerous ones to get. Makes no sense.
The second being that once Hackman's research was successful, how the eff was he going to explain it to the FDA and the medical board? Did he just want to open a clinic called BACKS R' US and hope nobody asked how he made this discovery?
Also, there is no ethics dilemma here. If you think there is, maybe you didn't finish the movie. Because Hugh Grant spells it out very succinctly: it is not okay to experiment on people without their knowledge and consent. If you think there is really a big dilemma here, consult a doctor.