Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 25, 2014, 12:08:05 PM
536250 Posts in 40575 Topics by 5098 Members
Latest Member: AqueousStar
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Good Movies  |  FRACTURE (2007) « previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: FRACTURE (2007)  (Read 2053 times)
CheezeFlixz
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 3723


Pathetic Earthlings


WWW
« on: August 17, 2007, 01:43:37 AM »

This is a really good movie about a guy who shoots his cheating wife and goes to trail. It case seems lock tight, cased closed but as fast as a case is made it fall apart.

Quote from: IMDB
Wealthy, brilliant, and meticulous Ted Crawford, a structural engineer in Los Angeles, shoots his wife and entraps her lover. He signs a confession; at the arraignment, he asserts his rights to represent himself and asks the court to move immediately to trial. The prosecutor is Willy Beachum, a hotshot who's soon to join a fancy civil-law firm, told by everyone it's an open and shut case. Crawford sees Beachum's weakness, the hairline fracture of his character: Willy's a winner. The engineer sets in motion a clockwork crime with all the objects moving in ways he predicts.


Now there are a bunch of legal mistakes and one HUGE one ... I normally over look this stuff but this one is so glaring, it can't be over looked without going WTF???

HUGE SPOILER ALERT .....

INVISO TEXT ...

At the end of the movie they charge him with murder, this is not possible because it falls under the double jeopardy and a spouse has the legal right to pull the plug on if the other spouse is brain dead (Tracy Shivo anyone) You can not bring fresh murder charges against them on the same case they were acquitted of it violates the 5th amendment right. They showed in the movie the DA studying a case about exceptions to double jeopardy, that's great ... but none exist. The entire movie was really good but the ending was screwed and really brought the over all quality of the film down.

Another hole in the story is the time line, this all takes place within 2 week, it starts with the Jr DA giving notice and goes to trail in like a couple of days and is over in a week ... please it takes 2 weeks or longer to select a jury for a murder trail.



END INVISO TEXT ...

Oh anyone want to know where the cool kinetic toys came from ...
Mark Bischof

Overall aside from the problems I mentioned it was a good movie and it gets ...
 Thumbup Thumbup Thumbup out of 4
Logged

ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 324
Posts: 3832


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2008, 08:56:15 AM »

Caught this one last night and really liked it a lot.  I thought the acting was solid and gave us some strong characterizations.

SPOILER BELOW

**************************************************************






















I disagree with you nitpick - they CAN charge him with a different crime; he was originally charged with Attempted Murder.  The new charge was murder.  No Double Jeopardy there.  Now, can they convict him of murder? Do they have the evidence + legal precedent for that to stick?  That's a separate issue, and the way the film ended, I think the director left it purposefully ambiguous.

By the way, I LOVED how he 'hid' the gun.  All through the movie, I was asking "okay, so where is the gun?"
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
CheezeFlixz
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 3723


Pathetic Earthlings


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2008, 10:42:31 AM »


SPOILER BELOW

**************************************************************

SPOILER REPLY





Since watching this movie and being married to a lawyer and knowing 100's of them it has sparked debate and it would depend on the state and a few other things. But IF this was an actual case it would be interesting as there has was down right argumentative debates I saw between lawyers on rather or not charges could be brought and if 5th amendment rules applied do to the HUGE amounts of gray.
About the only thing that was agreed on was that IF it went to trial it would continued to be appealed up the legal ladder until everyone involved died of old age. We haven't talked about it in a while so I don't know if one of the 'legal geeks' actually sat down an researched it or not, but it was left divided that more of the minute details would have to be known and the fine line specifics of the states laws in order to make a educated guess.
 
Logged

ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 324
Posts: 3832


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2008, 01:47:57 PM »


SPOILER REPLY



MORE SPOILER DISCUSSION:

Fair enough.

I think one point is that within the context of the movie, within its own world, the DA researched the cases that showed exceptions.  That was enough for me for him to TRY it.  I still don't think they'd convict, or at least it would be a near run victory - possibly a hung jury?

The confession is iffy - there's enough to show the DA might have had a vendetta against him (at least make that arguement),  and coerced the confession.  At the time he confessed, the DA was armed and had broken into his house.  And what did they have to actually link him to the gun?  The DA's supposition of the switch scenario would not be enough - he'd need a print or SOMETHING physical to tie Crawford to the cop's gun, I would think.  Also, didn't that cop switch the shell cases to match Crawford's gun, so the new ballistics would NOT match the 'real' gun?  I gathered since the DA was ready to announce the gun had been found, that the shell cases MAY have already been switched...to be ready for the analysis that would be called for in a hurry.

In any case, it was a fun movie.  For some, the new trial at the end was a big distraction, but I saw it as being more ambiguous - the mental battle between these two will go one...the film did not resolve a 'winner' between them.
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
CheezeFlixz
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 3723


Pathetic Earthlings


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2008, 05:37:47 PM »

MORE SPOILER DISCUSSION:

I'd have to watch the movie again and I will I haven't seen since I first posted back in Aug and as you might know, I've seen a few movies since then.

So I'll watch it again this week and refresh my mind, but if I recall from talks after the movie, a friend of mind looked up on WestLaw ($3000 a year case law online service, what a excellent use of that expense) if there was an exception as noted in the movie to the 5th amendment of double jeopardy and I don't think they found anything, so I'm going to have to call him and get the talks here going again. However, the majority opinion is that the double jeopardy rules applies because it falls into the lesser or greater than charges of the same offense. Then you get into the entire game of collateral estoppel doctrine which runs headlong into the constitutional due process, but that's another argument unto itself.
To put it in simple terms if you run a red light and you are charged with running a red light, but you get off. You can not be subsequently prosecuted for failure to yield on the same offence as the case as been tried and verdict rendered. Also the information grained from the cop would be inadmissible as the "murderer" had not had his Miranda right read and there for we land back at the 5th amendment again. ("nemo tenetur seipsum accusare" or "no man is bound to accuse himself.")
I don't think a Commonwealth Attorney in KY (The DA about everywhere else.) would bring subsequent charges as it would be extremely difficult to to prosecute as all the evidence in the first trail would be again inadmissible and the manner of the latter information is iffy at best. A quality defense lawyer would have a field day with this one.

It would be a very interesting case if they did, and normally law bores me to death as I live with it. LOL

Nonetheless it was a very good movie that raised some very interesting questions. (for us nitpickers)
Logged

Dave M
Guest
« Reply #5 on: March 10, 2008, 09:04:42 PM »

Remember that movie with the hot Jud that was based on the premise that if you're falsely convicted of murdering someone and do your time, it's perfectly legal to just go ahead and murder them for real?
Logged
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 324
Posts: 3832


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 10, 2008, 10:13:36 PM »

Interestingly enough, called DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Pages: [1]
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Good Movies  |  FRACTURE (2007) « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is İ 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.