# "Fracture" Standard DVD review



## Richard W. Haines (Jul 9, 2007)

I rented (not purchased) the standard DVD of "Fracture" last night and thought I'd review it.
I guess I finally recovered from my anger of investing in the HD DVD format now that it seems
unlikely to survive in the long run. I've been buying up as many quality titles in HD as I can
while simulatneously watching standard DVDs of my DLP.


Now the "Fracture" feature I'm referring to is the 2007 version with Anthony Hopkins. It appears
to be a popular title with a number of previous movies using it and one currently in production
slated for 2009 release according to the internet movie database.


I guess I'll start by saying this picture is watchable. By that I mean that it is mildly entertaining but
not absorbing. It plays like an extended 'Law and Order' episode except it cost a lot more to produce.
It's completely lacking in style which for me is an integral part of a motion picture.


For inexplicable reasons, the film was filmed in the anamorphic ratio of 2.35 x 1
rather than standard 1.85 (or approximately 16:9 for widescreen TVs). I really enjoy the 'scope' ratio...providing it's used for maximum impact. It's ideally suited for epics
with lots of crowds spread across the frame or features with extensive location photography
to make you feel like 'you are there'. There were even some directors who utilized it effectively
for small scale dramas like Nicholas Ray in "Rebel without a Cause" and Elia Kazan in "East of
Eden". In the case of this movie, they apparently just randomly selected this ratio for no
reason since it's not used effectively or dramatically. Filming with a Panavision lens does not
necessarily constitute a 'widescreen' feature in my judgment. The movie is basically a courtroom 
drama with lots of close ups of actors centered in the frame with dead space on either side of 
their face which is somewhat distracting. For an intimate story it's better to have less
image on either side of the subject so you can concentrate on their reactions.


In terms of the narrative, it comes across like a made for tv drama. Anthony Hopkins plays
a jealous husband who murders his wife for having an affair with a cop. The arresting officer
turns out to be the same man and Hopkins sets him up for the fall and beats the wrap in
a series of courtroom shenanegans. But he makes one mistake and gets arrested again
in the end. The inept and inexperienced prosecutor in the case is played by Ryan Gosling,
a 27 year old Canadian actor who looks perpetually confused for the whole film and way out
of his league when performing opposite Hopkins. Unfortunately, he's supposed to be the 
character you empathisize with but he's too self centered and opportunistic to fill that function.
So you watch the story objectively rather than subjectively.


Hopkins appears to have been subject to the "Oscar curse". What do I mean by that? When
a talented and versatile actor gets an Academy Award for a specific role, he tends to
play variations on that role over and over again which becomes tiresome. It happened to
Al Pacino who used to give very nuanced and subtle performances in movies like "The Godfather"
and "Serpico" but when he won the award for his hammy, over the top role in "Scent of a Woman"
he began to overact and shout every other line in subsequent movies. Now Hopkins seems to
be doing variations on Hannibal Lector in many of his later movies, this one included. He snarls
and whispers each line and I was waiting for him to tell Gosling that he not only shot his wife
but cannibalized her. It's not that he's ineffective doing this type of character, it's just
that I've seen it too many times and it's becoming predictable. He also seems to slip in and out
of some kind of Scottish accent for unknown reasons. The rest of the actors are merely adequate since they weren't given enough characterization to register effectively. Typically bad writing which is why it's hard to support the current Writer's strike if this is their level of craftsmanship.


Aside from the pointless use of the 2.35 ratio, the cinematography is dark and lacks detail.
The image has an overall bluish cast which is also becoming a cliche. The sound is adequate for
this type of story but not spectacular stereo by any means.


In summary, it's a two star time waster if you have nothing else to watch. Not terrible but not
particularly good either. Certainly not a keeper for your DVD library even if you find it discounted
in the near future at a Supermarket bin unless it's price is less than a rental (under $5).


----------



## thxgoon (Feb 23, 2007)

Good review. I agree that this movie was pretty mediocre.


----------



## Richard W. Haines (Jul 9, 2007)

Thank you. On the other hand, I guess mediocre is better than bad. I also saw "Next" and found
it frustrating as well as poor. Once again, bad writing. I was able to accept the premise that
Cage can see two minutes into the future. But then out of no where, it turns out he can see
two hours into the future with his girlfriend. No explanation and it's not set up properly. Then
we have the extremelly cliched devise of the entire climax turning out to be a dream. What
follows is the end credits and you don't get a 'real' ending. And these writers want more money
and more power? In my judgment bad screenwriting is ruining many current features.


----------



## Blaser (Aug 28, 2006)

Richard W. Haines said:


> For inexplicable reasons, the film was filmed in the anamorphic ratio of 2.35 x 1
> rather than standard 1.85 (or approximately 16:9 for widescreen TVs). I really enjoy the 'scope' ratio...providing it's used for maximum impact.


That's your playground, and where you excel Richard! We have learned a lot from you :T


> It's ideally suited for epics with lots of crowds spread across the frame or features with extensive location photography to make you feel like 'you are there'.


After reading your posts, I am constantly evaluating shots, photography, direction when I watch movies (though my very poor knowledge in that field). I am always asking myself why this instead of that. I now enjoy watching movies from different perspective, not only enjoying qualitative and quantitative subwoofing or big picture alone, but trying to understand some technicalities always adds to the experience :boxer: :bigsmile:


----------



## Richard W. Haines (Jul 9, 2007)

blaser,

Thanks and I'm glad you're noticing these different aspects to movies. Now when a director
and cinematographer utilized the format they were shooting in for maximum impact, you'll
have a greater appreciation of the experience. The opposite applies when the filmmakers don't
do anything interesting with the process they were using like filming with Panavision lenses
but keeping everything centered in the frame with empty space on the edges. The
wider the frame, the greater the obligation for the director to put something worth
looking at within it.

I know you prefer widescreen films but let me recommend an old 1.33
'film noir' thriller for your consideration. It's called "Woman in the Window"
and is one of the better entries in the cycle. Aside from the suspenseful 
storyline and performances by Edward G. Robinson and Ramond Massey, it's a good example of B&W cinematography for this genre. Each shot is a meticulously framed
and atmospherically lit like a still portrait. The film was well preserved and is immaculate on the standard MGM DVD and I recommend it. At first I hated the ending but after re-thinking it, it suited the theme of middle age anxiety and the "Seven Year Itch". In fact this movie is almost a darker version of the Monroe comedy. It's very stylish, something that few contemporary movies aspire to.
You get so involved with the characters you feel like shouting to Robinson to
keep his stupid mouth shut and stop accidentally giving away clues that he's
the murderer. The movie keeps you on edge with a real sense of paranoia
which is what a good film noir is supposed to do.


----------

