Fracture (BD) [Blu-ray]

My brother Brad Pitt was telling me how great the movie is, he was not kidding. Great suspense movie with a lot of twists. Great Movie.

Two great actors...interesting twist.

Good movie. Worth the price

Fracture is a 2007 legal thriller film, starring Anthony Hopkins and Ryan Gosling, and directed by Gregory Hoblit.[1] It is the story of a man who shoots his unfaithful wife, and then engages in a battle of wits with a young assistant district attorney.Worth noting, but the definition of a fracture is the breaking of a hard object or material - we'll get back to this later.The choice to cast Gosling and Hopkins in this film together gives life to one of the most powerful aspects of this viewing; the tense chemistry between these two characters is so strong it is almost palpable. Hopkins is very cunning and stays true to his reputation as a "mad genius", whereas Gosling is dripping with his typical "young blood" energy. These differences alone lend a hand to the antagonist nature that their characters have throughout the entire movie, and in doing so make the plot that much more interesting.The success of a legal film is dependant on a lot of storytelling elements, but one that is almost necessary is the use of dramatic irony. Dramatic irony works to immerse the audience in to the story by revealing information that the other characters in the film do not know or are unsure of. The aforementioned murder is shown on screen (the entirety of that single event), so the audience shouldn't be surprised that the mystery of it all isn't whether the murder did or did not occur, but it's a matter of waiting for Beachum (Gosling) to finally figure it out. With that said, the way in which William discovers the truth is withheld and used as a "plot twist", so the audience is both pleasantly surprised and satisfied by the time this film is due to be concluded.This last point isn't really a criticism of the film itself but more of an observation - so, take this with a grain of salt if you will. There is a romantic subplot that simmers in the background of this entire movie that isn't necessary in addition to not making any sense. Early on William's entire case is dismissed because (SPOILER ALERT) the victim was having an affair with one his key witnesses, so it seems illogical for him to pursue a relationship that could also have a negative impact on his career. Is this an attribute that makes the entire movie lose its value? Absolutely not. It is just something worth complaining about. . . .even if just a little.An engaging story that will keep you guessing.I would recommend!

Stop notch movie. Great acting, Shakespear would be envious.

Great movie

I see that many people liked this movie, and I respect that, but I respectfully disagree. First, the music was often much too loud, forcing me to watch with my finger on the mute control to save my hearing. Second, the prosecutor, Beachum, played by Ryan Gosling, is supposed to be a hotshot lawyer, winning all his cases in the DA’s office and on his way to making big money in a big law firm. I am a graduate of Harvard Law School and knew, as a student and afterwards, lots of hotshot lawyers, men (and a few women – Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a classmate) whose intellectual capacity was awesome. This guy is nothing like any of them; he doesn’t do or say a single thing in the film which demonstrates any special level of intelligence or insight. In the very first case we see him try, he puts on the stand a witness central to his case without preparing him and, in the process, fails to discover a problem which virtually destroys the case. What is shown, is that he was distracted by a party at his new firm; and even afterwards, he allows himself to be further distracted by his new duties, though he is involved in this major case. This is totally unacceptable, even unethical, nor does it make any sense – a firm taking on a new lawyer would expect him to finish any cases he was working on in his old firm or, as in this case, as a public attorney; indeed, they would be horrified if he did not. I was frankly horrified and feared the worst for this movie. My apprehension was justified in how the movie ended.Edit: Please note that I do not mean that only a few of the many women in my class were awesome - there were only around a dozen women in my entire class of over 500 and they were all awesome - Harvard Law School had only recently admitted women.SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! STOP HERE IF YOU HAVEN’T SEEN THIS MOVIE AND INTEND TO!Beachum thinks he has outsmarted the Hopkins character, Crawford, and can now try him for murder though he was acquitted of attempted murder. The act which Beachum appears to think amounts to murder is that, in consultation with her doctors, Crawford agrees that his wife, long in a coma and diagnosed with irreversible severe brain damage, could be removed from life support. It is in fact what any loving husband would do in the circumstances. How does that constitute a crime? Beachum no doubt intends to argue that Crawford’s consent to termination was the last step in a series of acts committed by him, including shooting her in the head, which resulted in her death. But Beachum’s attempted murder charge against Crawford was dismissed for lack of evidence; in other words, as a matter of law, Crawford did not shoot his wife. Now, perhaps some court might allow proof at a second trial that he did shoot her and that the decision to remove her life support was simply the last step in her murder. But such an argument, which some lawyer might think wonderfully clever, must climb a very steep hill, for double jeopardy is taken very seriously by the courts; the prosecution is not entitled to a second bite of the apple, which is exactly what Beachum wants in order to salvage his career. This movie makes it seem like it’s a piece of cake; it’s anything but.There is in fact a much easier, indeed obvious path to a second trial: the first trial never took place. Crawford was not acquitted of shooting his wife after a jury trial, the case against him was dismissed by the judge for lack of evidence. Depending upon how the judge worded her decision, and the specifics of California law (with which I am unfamiliar; I am not a member of the California bar), the prosecutor may be free to retry that case when sufficient evidence can be produced. That is the danger of moving to dismiss the case against your client rather than allowing it to go the jury which, if there is insufficient evidence, should acquit your client and end the case forever. And if the prosecutor, realizing he has not made out a strong enough case, should move for dismissal, the defense can ask the judge to dismiss the charges with prejudice, which is the same as an acquittal. This movie does not show what the judge did, so it is not possible to know whether double jeopardy applies or not, but this hotshot lawyer doesn’t even consider this obvious path to a second trial. Most unimpressive.

I’ve always loved this movie. I watched it at least three times during the rental. I watched it with my husband once and he doesn’t like anything but sports and news but he enjoyed this and I had my niece rent it as well. I love this movie

This was going well - good suspense, entertaining story, excellent production values - until the man we had seen shooting his wife in the head at the beginning of this film was released by the court due to insufficient evidence - and this despite the fact that she clearly had been shot and that the man was the only other person in the house at the time, without any doubt. At that point we realised that the script had been written by an idiot. OK so the man's admission of guilt was ruled inadmissible (although the jury already knew it existed) and they could not find the gun (but they presumably had the bullet!). Are we supposed that a jury should not have been given even the opportunity to deliberate. Even the California legal system cannot be that bad.

I found this film fascinating, not for the fantastic performances by the main actors, not for the twists and turns of the slightly unlikely plot, not for the wonderful construction by director Gregory Hoblit, or the lighting and photography by Kramer Morgenthau, but because I simply wanted to know what sort of person was Ted Crawford, the cold, calculating psychopath who appeared to believe that by superior insight and intelligence he could achieve his ends regardless of the death and destruction that might result, and for whom considerations of right and wrong simply did not exist. Find a person's weak spot and use the knowledge to destroy them. Do such people exist? How common are they? Do they succeed?

If you love a really good film, then I implore you to watch the superb 'Fracture'. Starring the fantastic Anthony Hopkins and Ryan Gosling, 'Fracture' is a brilliant crime thriller.The opening to this movie is so well constructed as we follow Ted Crawford (Hopkins) secretly watching a couple as they frolic in the sun and the pool at a hotel. When he returns to his home we discover that the woman he was watching is his wife and he raises a gun and shoots her. When the police arrive, one of the detectives on the case is, yup you guessed it, the man she was having the affair with. All the facts are shown to us, we watch as Crawford shoots his wife, we watch as he readily confesses, we see the lead detective retrieve the gun from him and all seems straight forward, it would appear that Crawford's fate seems obvious right?Well, to Willy Beachum (Gosling), the young deputy DA who is assigned to prosecute him, this also appears to be an open and shut case, however following some clever twists and surprises in court, and the apparent lack of evidence, a battle of wits ensues resulting in Willy's obsession to see him proven guilty.This is a very clever and compelling thriller, and there are some very witty moments. The performances from the two lead actors are seriously impressive. Ryan Gosling plays this role so well, his character is a cocky hot shot lawyer and you really get that his focus, at first, is not really on this case. It seems so open and shut and it’s his last case with the firm he is with before he moves on to a bigger and much more prestigious company, and that is his focus, but as the case progresses we see his determination, focus, and ultimately his ethics, take a turn.Hopkins is, as always, magnificent and the way he portrays Crawford with such a cool, calm and actually quite witty confidence is actually quite creepy, and you find yourself really rooting for Willy to get this guy put away.There are some great stand-out scenes and the reveal to the court of the detective’s affair is so well done and the way that Gosling reacts you could almost think that he, the actor, didn’t even see it coming. Superb.The director is Gregory Hoblit, who was also the director on another brilliant courtroom drama, ‘Primal Fear’, with Richard Gere.He really knows how to take you along and draw you into to the story.Please get to see this film.

This is a wonderfully plotted movie in which the clearly guilty Antnyony Hopkins (as Ted Crawford) shoots his wife. The prosecution's case is hampered by the fact that the gun has mysteriously vanished. A delightfully cat and mouse game follows between Hopkins and Ryan Gosling (as Willy Beachum, who is just about to move into corporate law). Part of this reminds me of 'Dial M For Murder', when the location of the key could not be determined.What was disapointing was the ending. It was definitely an anti climax, one the makers had put in after trying out two other endings that are featured in the 'extras'. For me, I thought that the first alternate ending was the best one. It had scenes in it which I'm sure were in when I saw it on tv a while back. It shown more detail of how Hopkins did what he did, rather than just listening to it.My advice is, if you want a good cat and mouse thriller, go for this, but make sure you see the alternate endings.

Ted Crawford (Antony Hopkins), is a wealthy man who has it all, highly paid job, a wonderful house and a beautiful wife. However, he learns that his wife is having an affair with a local policeman, and takes terrible revenge.When the police arrive he hands over the gun he shot her with, and signs a confession. Deputy DA Will Beachum (Ryan Gosling) is assingned for an easy, open and shut case, prosecution. Crawford even refuses representation in court. Surely it is impossible for Beachum to lose the case. Apparently not, gripping action in and out of court, and for most part difficult to tell where the film is going with all its twists and turns.Will Beachum is an ambitions lawyer. Young, but destined for great things. Ted Crawford has a brilliant but ruthless interlect. Which one will prove the more clever, or perhaps will one be too clever for their own good ?Perhaps not everybodies cup of tea, but never the less, quite addictive enjoyable viewing for the majority.