While a fan of the thriller genre, I must admit that this isn't a movie I would have paid to see. Something about the Hitchockian premise struck me as a bit 'done', and the thought of Antony Hopkins doing another Hannibal-esque turn (the ever-intellectual villain) didn't appeal.

As it happens, I was fortunate enough to gain free entry via a friend to the cinema, and in a week surprisingly bereft of must-see movies (the organised slump before Spiderman 3's release next week?) Fracture was the only thing that stood half a chance of gaining an audience.

As a by-the-numbers thriller, Fracture won't disappoint. Despite the glaring lack of suprises, one can't fault the acting. Ryan Gosling puts in a decent turn as Willy Beachum, the reluctant attorny prosecuting a case that already seems a foregone conclusion. Ted Crawford (a thankfully Chianti-free Hopkins) has apparently shot his adulteress wife - indeed, has even signed a confession admitting as much - the only thing missing is the evidence.

The direction of the ensuing cat-and-mouse game is stylish, while the dialogue feels realistic, if not a little on the Grisham side. Rosamund Pike seems ancillary to the plot as Beachum's mentor and girlfriend Nikki Gardner, never fully realising more than a pleasant distraction, while Fiona Shaw as Judge Robinson almost verges on the unintentionally comic.

Ultimately, what lets Fracture down is the seen-it-all-before atmosphere that pervades the screen. Sure, it's watchable enough, and may even keep less keen minds guessing, but the drearily consistent pace and palpable lack of tension won't keep viewers on the edge of their seats - but it won't see them heading for the exit either.

If you look close enough, you'll find every movie has a weak spot.

JB

Whilst this was one of my husband's choice, and I was expecting the usual violent shoot-out, it turned out to have some merit. Admittedly it had no earth-shattering message,and what's wrong with John Grisham-style dialogue in a film about lawyers? Fiona Shaw brought an engaging lightness to the role of judge amidst otherwise dour and dull performances. Anthony Hopkins was more or less in check and the locations were eye-pleasing, especially Hopkin's stylish flat-cum-workshop with its elaborate giant executive toys. Lighting was used to good effect and I had my suspicions about how the murder weapon could have left the apartment but was agreeably surprised to find I was almost right. My husband hadn't a clue. The central character as played by the thin-lipped highly polished
(in the grooming sense) Gosling was a bit wooden - I'm assured he was OK in 'Half Nelson'- and even more so his boss, who did the same sleepwalk through in the main role in 'Good Night and Good Luck' . (Is there somone who shouts, 'Hey, we need a self-effacing gravitas type - wheel in Stratairn!? The twist at the end was nicely executed.

Sometimes I think expectations play a big role in how we perceive a film. I've been jolted from disappointment sometimes when I've missed the start of one film and seen another instead. This counts as one I wouldn't have chosen in a week of exceptionally promising releases, but as a run-of-the-mill mystery that wouldn't frighten the horses it had unpretentious merits

Sheila

Not a must see then but ok for a night in?

Sarah

I think that's about right, Sarah, and it's bound to come out on DVD. I see a lot of cinema films, partly to squeeze the value from my season ticket, but this is one film that wouldn't lose much on TV.

Sheila

Nice balance Waxy. Pretty much my own response. I did like the battle of wits between Hopkins and Gosling, this was a real plus for a while but this dimension was a bit underwritten I thought. What we got was ok but it could have profitably provided a more interesting emphasis than the routine plottiness of what they safely plumped for. Your reference to Grisham is very apt - he always flatters to deceive on the page and filming reveals his flaws.

But like you, I thought, enjoyable undemanding fare. Unless you have a truly powerful plot resolution like say 6th Sense or Unusual Suspects characterisation is the best way to invest some real engagement into the experience. They just played too safe here wasting Hopkins and Gosling who would have been able to do more with better writing.

Nice review - thanks.

Z

(PS Gosling is exceptionally good in Half Nelson).

As I understood it, the case hinged on getting hold of the gun that had fired the shot and it had apparently disappeared, although the house was surrounded - not a bad premise for a plot, although rather drawn-out. I wondered why they'd bothered to introduce the 'romance' interest, as it was such a fizzler - making a point that these upper-class dames were career-driven, perhaps, but where was the girl-next-door for balance? The fact that the the young lawyer wanted the classy job would have been sufficient motivation, I thought.That part was was all a bit murky.I thought the court-room scenes were entertaining. The film's locationa were glossy, a fault of many American films, to the extent that the locations take on more life than the characters. Gosling seemed to have some classy suits, and it's hard to imagine he wouldn't be more dishevelled after being awake all night.





Sheila

Sheila

I can see how people who like these kinds of films would enjoy Fracture, and I think my review gets that across. However, the cat-and-mouse thing has been done before, and so much better, even by Hopkins himself. Think of Lecter and Clarise in Silence of the Lambs, for instance.

The double jeopardy thing was also so done, and I thought glaringly obvious. I wanted more from Fracture. Personally, I didn't get it. There are a thousand other more worthy thrillers out there, Inside Man, Rear Window, Memento etc. Sadly, I don't think Fracture can sit alongside them.

JB

JB, yes, I agree you were even-handed, and of course this sort of thing has been done better, which is why I called it :

a run-of-the-mill mystery

I don't think I'd preface a book review by saying I hadn't had to pay for it,and find it strange when that criteria is applied to film -it's almost as if the writer is apologising for having made a less-than-perfect choice ( or having gone to the cinema at all). When you consider it costs millions to make even a bad film, the £5.00 ticket price is not so great.

Sheila

Maybe you wouldn't. I used it to illustrate the fact that the promos for the movie didn't attract me as a paying audience. Anyway, this is an informal view purely for WW. I'm not trying to get it published.

JB