If you frequently do riddles, the answer is obvious from the very beginning but takes an extremely long time to resolve, including a slow motion cut at the end for a 'reveal' that left me nearly fast forwarding the video.

Vague spoilers:
[spoiler]
Not only that, but the ending also doesn't match up for me. This interview claims to be for a certain type of company, but the people who came closest to winning and the winner were arguably not the most qualified of the people in the group. I say arguably because clearly the characters (and thus the writers) seemed to agree the winner was the best choice of the lot, but the winner's actual actions and natural outcomes that happened as a result of them do not seem to align with what someone would want for the hiring position...
[/spoiler]

Bigger spoilers:
[spoiler]
The person in second place was a murderous sociopath, the person who won basically sat back and made vague suggestions while not doing much and allowing others to disqualified or even die (as far as she knew.) A leader, or administrator, needs to be able to make decisions, I'd think. Furthermore, two of the candidates who were disqualified were so because they were trying to help someone else, one of which who even has experience in the company. Making decisions rather than light suggestions--especially when someone is being tortured--seems more worthy of a leadership role to me.
What I believed would happen after learning the truth of the company, was a sequence of them going back to hire several of the disqualified agents, in essence, instead of behaving like the notoriously rejected google interview questions, this would have been the personality portion of the test--unrelated to any answers/victory.
Alternatively, if the company had been evil or something, it wouldn't have mattered what type of person (or the competence/willingness to take action thereof) made it to the end.
[/spoiler]

Overall, I enjoyed the movie, I just think the ending failed to impress.