Pain Hustlers

Pain Hustlers-1080P

Pain Hustlers-720P

Pain Hustlers-360P

Pain Hustlers-480P

Pain Hustlers

I was busting my brain to try and remember where have I seen the same pharmaceutical sales and bribes and couldn't remember. So, WOWS ("Wolf of Wall Street") it is, from the point of comparison, but it still meets with the other movie I can't seem find in my private memory lane. Emily Blunt's character and beginning of story are more or less the same, almost until the final act of the plot, but rather different in some ways. Blunt's Liza Drake is motivated to break her poverty cycle and wants to give better life to her daughter so she hustles with a pain killer, which she believes can do good for the pain of people with cancer. The directing of David Yates (who got his fame from directing half of "Harry Potter" films and then plunged down with directing all of "Fantastic Beasts" trilogy) is no different or special then other movies which are based on a true, ecstatic-rise from the gutters story. He is telling a story and the narrative is of his protagonist, which is also an antagonist for some of the time. The cast is phenomenal and Blunt leads in a spectacular way. Its fun watching Evens become a swearing dick and not the polished and shiny Captain America. Andy Garcia is stoic and good and it was nice to meet, once again, Catherine O'Hara (which her face is so recognized with 90's movies, such as: "Beetlejuice" and Kevin's mom from "Home Alone"). The grade until now is not flattering and the fact it is a Netflix production, which includes two mega stars - all are pointing it is going to be a flop and a failure, but the fact I was not interested to know the time or how much time is left sets this one as a successful big N production.

guys can I have this

The Zanna pharmaceutical company has rigorous standards in hiring practices of their sales forces. Ph. D.s are required. However, the company's definition of a Ph. D. is as follows: poor, hungry, and dumb. There was an over-the-top approach to satirizing a serious topic, namely, the greed of big pharma that led to senseless deaths due to fentanyl addiction and overdose. Every segment of the food chain was the subject of satire in this film, including the pharma executives and their sales staff; the greedy doctors; and the pitiful, gullible, and sheep-like patients. Emily Blunt was good in the leading role of Liza Drake, the * who may have been poor and hungry, but she was not dumb. She dynamically used her natural gifts in sales to hoodwink doctors into promoting the miracle pain reliever Lonafen. The minor character of Stephanie may have been central to the tragic side of Liza Drake's life. Stephanie was a fellow resident at a fleabag and noisy motel when Liza's life had reached a low point. Stephanie gave Liza the gift of a comforter and some ear plugs. She later sat in court and watched Liza's sentencing to fifteen months in prison. Stephanie was leading a modest, happy life in the motel and was the modeling basic human values of decency that were missing in Liza's life. The motto of the slick Zanna group was "Own the doctor and own your destiny." Stephanie's life was a demonstration of how dispiriting and evil the lives of the pain hustlers could be.

I lasted barely two minutes into this shameful detritus before switching it off and deleting it. The acting was horrendously bad, and the script written by someone on the sort of medication highlighted in the movie. Was I supposed to just remember all the names spouted out in the opening scenes (by an actor whom would be better placed as a waiter in a cheap café), and their respective roles, through mere mention of them? Worse yet, there was a cut to an actress whom, without any prior warning, was talking while eating, which is absolutely repellent. Why did the director include this? Was it purposefully to disgust his audience, and to teach his audience bad manners? The movie I watched before Pain Hustlers was the original 1937 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. In that movie, Snow White took a bite from an apple, but did the audience even see her take the bite and did the audience hear her crunch the apple? No, because back in 1937 moviemakers had better manners than to inflict such things upon their audiences; they had respect, and they were civilised, quite unlike the director and producers of Pain Hustlers, whom clearly have no shame. This movie is a modern disgrace fit only for waste management.

It's a nine, instead of a 10 out of 10. This movie doesn't spend every moment on high glamour shots, though it could have with this tale. It doesn't need to for this genre, as the story itself is a sensationalization of a blockbuster true story. Th there a lot of stories coming out about the big players in the opiate epidemic. I think this one is important because it shows more than just the executive and accounting and lifestyle side. We actually get very little lifestyle outside of the company actions, which I appreciate. Also, it shows ways that legal fentanyl managed to penetrate the market for off-label pain management prescriptions. The acting is well done, the casting fits, and it's well told. I like this style of narratives based on a true story. "I, Tonya" did this too, where they have little cut ins of the people who consulted on the movie, which are also characters in the story of course. Allows them to give you little tastes of what the people are like, but also highlights that this is a fictional Account of a real thing, as told by public sources and the people in the story telling the story they want told. It's clever and it's entertaining Well made movie about an interesting and important subject. Doesn't feel like a documentary, but in a good way. And I love documentaries. It also illuminates something that happens in most corporations' decisions, but which can be a dangerous mindset in the dark. Which is that a demand by stockholders for growth in a company, rather than strong corporate governance practices and market share resilience, can drive executives (who tend to get a large portion of their pay in shares) to drive the demand into adjacent markets. In the health sector, this would be patient groups. Combine this with a strategy that does make sense for most companies, but here became the framework the pill mills could be built on: targeting the smaller doctor practitioners who weren't being courted by the Big pharma reps. Less expensive marketing, which is good because it allows small and midsize companies to compete in the market at all, but doctors whose patient volume and share of advanced cancer patients is going to be smaller because they have less patients in general, and because the larger doctors and hospital groups will be doing other care for many of these types of patients and often handle the pain management as well. I'm sure you can see how this could easily lead to patients finishing up cancer care or specialist care or experiencing side effects from cancer treatments they want to have documented but wouldn't need an oncologist appt for, hitting up their local Dr to see what can be done. This doctor will see them after the cause of the pain subsides. How can it even be determined properly that, when taking a pain medicine-which doesn't target specific pain-you can tell when the pain subsides to not need it? After all, taking this stuff chronically leads to feeling pain from withdrawal when you don't have it. Which feels just like, well, pain. It's a difficult situation. But greed at the small level scales too.