Fracture (2007)

Fracture

Anyone else catch this one?

Stumbled onto this gem while flipping through the "New Releases" section in the paper... just totally by accident...

As soon as I saw the premise, I knew it’d be good—but man, I didn't expect it to be *this* good.
Ted Crawford (A. Hopkins) kills his wife. Will Becham's (Ryan Gosling) big final job before moving on to a massive law firm in NYC is to lock Ted up—who's already signed a confession. Easy, right? Too easy... or so it seems...

Hopkins is his usual incredible self as the villain, but Ryan Gosling? Absolute standout.

It's an amazing thriller—apparently there are two different endings... honestly, I'd be cool with either one.
The movie is titled "Perfect Crime" over here in the States, but I feel like that title might actually be a sneaky little spoiler 😉

If you love thrillers, you seriously can't miss this.

Raymond Palmer8 said:Has anyone actually sat down and watched this movie yet?

I've seen it! Honestly, it was absolutely killer. 👍

You actually think this is good?
I'm barely scraping by with a passing grade... 👎

Caught this a few days ago. Nothing to write home about.
Anthony Hopkins is back at it, playing the genius villain again. Honestly, one Hannibal Lecter is plenty, so there’s really nothing new on the menu here.

Larry Cooper40 said:Anthony Hopkins is back at it again playing some genius criminal. Honestly, one Hannibal Lecter is plenty—this doesn't really bring anything new to the table.

So, besides A. Hopkins playing both roles, what actually makes these two villains similar in your eyes? Just curious since you said it's all "the same old thing."

By the way, the movie's sitting at a 7.1 on IMDb—could probably be even higher if you ask me—but either way, that's a pretty solid score.

I read all those scathing reviews out there, so I decided to skip seeing this one in theaters.

Honestly, I have no clue why everyone here is raving about it when they usually aren't.

I'll just wait and catch it on my TV at home instead.

This movie is just plain, undeniably bad.
I didn't even have high expectations, yet somehow it still managed to let me down.😬

I wanted to sit here and write a massive, deep-dive analysis, but honestly, it all boils down to one thing: the people behind this project had the exact same flaw as that rookie prosecutor in the movie—they were superficial and way too full of themselves.😁

The dialogue is terrible. It’s totally lifeless. Even though the plot drags on forever through these pointless conversations meant to build up Will Becham’s character, we never actually get to know him. The lines feel like they were written by a kid... or like the screenwriter had zero creativity and no clue how actual human beings talk. It kills any sense of realism.

My second gripe is the psychology—or lack thereof. There isn't a single subtle detail or scene that gives us a real look into why these characters do what they do. We aren't just left in the dark; we're left unable to believe them at all.
The biggest, most glaring mistake is how they handled the "mastermind," Ted Crawford. If you look closely, there’s absolutely no real motivation shown for why he’d cold-bloodedly murder his wife and take out her lover in one go. Why does he choose this path? Is it just because he’s a cold jerk who nitpicks everyone and is bitter that his wife cheated? That’s all we get from a few surface-level scenes. To me, that’s a weak excuse. It’s naive and totally unconvincing. It just doesn't work.

Also, the cinematography is just tacky. You can't miss how much they force the lighting and those glass surfaces. The camera is constantly peering at the actors through doors or windows, always watching them... and then there's that light.
It might have worked if it weren't so aggressive. They basically shove this symbolism in our faces, making it so obvious that it becomes ridiculous.

I don't know... the whole thing feels shallow. It’s not even a fast-paced movie; it's slow and filled with this fake "depth" that serves no purpose. It just drags.
Don't waste your money seeing this in a theater. The only reason to watch it is to see just how bad it really is. 😉

Raymond Palmer8 said:So what makes these two criminals "the same" in your eyes? Aside from the fact that A. Hopkins plays them both, what’s actually similar about them?

Anyway, the movie’s sitting at a 7.1 on IMDb. Could probably be higher if you ask me, but still points to it being a pretty solid flick.

Are they even that different? A. Hopkins plays them basically the same way. Both have that "I know something you don't" vibe, and both manipulate everyone around them using some insane level of intelligence. Or am I wrong?
Watching the movie and seeing Hopkins in action, I couldn't help but think, "Wait, haven't you already done this exact thing to Jodie Foster?" That déjà vu alone is enough for me to write this one off as nothing new.

Larry Cooper40 said:Are they even that different? A. Hopkins plays them both the exact same way. They both carry that "I know something you don't" vibe, and they both manipulate everyone around them using that massive IQ. Or do they?
Watching this movie and seeing Hopkins in it, I couldn't help but wonder, "Why aren't you doing this same routine to this kid like you did to Jodie Foster?" Honestly, that sense of déjà vu alone is enough to make me write this off as "nothing new."

No, there’s a huge difference here: Silence of the Lambs is a masterpiece. You can see all that heavy psychology and those mental games playing out in every single frame—it’s convincing, brilliantly executed, and the characters are incredibly deep. This, on the other hand, lacks real psychological depth. The character studies here are just🙂

🙄
are you talking about the movie differences or just the killers?
btw I bet you've read "Jack" too.
from my experience—reading fills in those gaps movies leave wide open. makes the whole movie vibe way better.
regarding Fracture—I'm guessing you haven't read it (not that I have either)—so we're both dealing with those empty spaces we mentioned. especially with themes like this, it's hard for any movie to hit everything perfectly.

as for the characters... Hannibal Lecter is a killer who treats a victim's suffering like a gourmet meal. he basically fed off Clarice's trauma—just listening to her struggle and hearing the screams of Jack. physical or mental pain, it doesn't matter, he loves it. honestly, I can't see Crawford being anything like that...
Crawford is just a perfectionist—someone so obsessed with being right that he'll risk his own life just to prove he's flawless...

Raymond Palmer8 said:🙄
Are you talking about the difference in the movies or the villains themselves?
By the way, I’m betting you’ve read "Jack" too.
From my own experience, reading the book fills in all those gaps a movie leaves wide open. It makes the whole experience of watching the film much better.
Take *Fracture*—I'm guessing you haven't read it (and neither have I), so those gaps we both mentioned remain. I mentioned them here, and you did in your last post. Especially with a subject like this, it's hard for any movie to ever truly fill those voids.

As for the characters... Hannibal Lecter is a killer who feeds on the victim's mental anguish. He practically relished just listening to Clarice describe her suffering, or how she still suffers when she hears the screams of Jack. Whether it's physical or psychological pain, he finds satisfaction in it. I can't imagine anyone seeing Ted Crawford that way at all...
Crawford is just a perfectionist. He’s so obsessed with being right that he’ll risk his own life just to prove he's flawless...

No, I wasn't comparing the characters. I was just building on what you said and then compared the films instead. 🙂
I wouldn't even link the characters together.😉

Look, I haven't read "Jack" either, so it's tough to explain my take on this movie since we walked away with totally different impressions based on how we watched it. But for me, this film lacks conviction, passion, and real motivation... everything you wrote is spot on, but for me, it just isn't fleshed out enough to be a great movie.

I'm looking forward to catching that sometime soon..

The movie itself feels pretty mediocre and follows a predictable path—honestly, I found Hopkins' performance lacking a certain intellectual edge during that final sequence where he gets caught in such a clumsy, simplistic manner. The entire plot relies on him making these calculated moves where everything has to align perfectly, yet somehow, at the very end, it all just falls apart quite foolishly (and, predictably enough, the villain meets his downfall).
It was actually quite fascinating when he shot his wife—he clearly knew that her lover would be the one to arrest him, and that he’d manage to swap out the pistols in the process.

Just finished watching this movie.
It feels pretty stupid when a character spends the whole runtime acting like they're better than everyone else, only to get hauled off in handcuffs at the end.
Typical, dumb American happy ending.

P.S. The movie is alright, I guess, though it’s got that same vibe as *Lambs* and a few of his other flicks.
He's clearly just chasing roles where he plays some genius mastermind, probably trying to outrun his age and stay relevant.
Having a younger woman on screen definitely backs that up.

Look, it’s got its flaws, sure... but that whole cat-and-mouse game between Hopkins and Gosling? That’s basically the entire reason to watch this movie anyway!

Everything's a bit hazy, but I remember this movie... pretty sure it gave off major The Lincoln Lawyer vibes—you know, that one where M. McConaughey plays the lawyer.

I really liked the movie—probably just because Ryan was in it, I guess. 😍