This movie is just not worth the time and the effort. Michael Douglas must be either very hard up for money or paying back a very big favor (or maybe both). My one question is why the client couldn't just let the guide reported the shooting as an accident? It was certainly not intentional and not a crime. Did I miss something?
share[deleted]
Response to original OP:
He didn't have a license to hunt. Notice he paid off the sheriff and then had to pay Ben when Ben asked him to see if his license covered hunting males or something like that. Sure his high powered lawyers could've gotten him off, but he was involved in selling his company and didn't need something like this deterring it.
@Just-Jimmy: Thanks for the explanation.
shareIt was not too good a movie.
It's that man again!!
Agreed - pretty crappily made - and Michael Douglas' acting wasn't great in this either.
No redeeming qualities.
It depends upon taste. I enjoy the thought-experiment of situations of one man being stalked by another. Its a primal reduction. Much as Westerns are primal reductions.
Whether it is all entirely plausible isn't that important - that is the pretext.
The bribing aspect is yet another interesting thought experiment. If one doesn't take it too seriously, it is an entertaining film.