Fracture

Continuity mistake: The stains on Mrs. Crawford's top change position between the time when she falls on the floor, seemingly dead, and the time when Nunally and the paramedic rescue her. There's a conspicuous stripe of blood drip when she falls, while she shows just dot-shaped stains in the later scene. (00:10:45 - 00:16:10)

Sammo ★

Continuity mistake: When Ted Crawford enters the bedroom where his wife cheated on him, he stares at the bed, which is differently lit between shots - in the first angle, it's sunlit; in the side view, it is fully in the shade. (00:06:40)

Sammo ★

Continuity mistake: When Ted Crawford asks for Lt. Rob Nunally on the phone, the conversation is played in continuity, but there's a car in the zoomed-up view that disappears in the view behind Hopkins' shoulder. (00:05:35)

Sammo ★

Continuity mistake: When "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" are on the terrace and he asks her to dinner, the lighting of the scene changes dramatically between shots, to the point that you can also see the outline of Embeth Davidtz's fingers behind Billy Burke's neck through the robe in the frontal view, mismatched with the back view, robe collar in full shade and no hand anywhere near. (00:04:35)

Sammo ★

Continuity mistake: At the beginning of the movie, Sir Anthony Hopkins' character gets to his sports car and drives off to commit murder. The shadows on the tarmac outside the hangar change in the span of a few seconds. (00:03:50)

Sammo ★

More for Fracture

Mistakes

Plot hole: *SPOILER* Toward the end of the movie, Ryan Gosling goes to Hopkins' house where Hopkins is tricked into not only confessing again, but giving Gosling the murder weapon, after they are back in court and Gosling is the acting prosecutor. This would be a conflict of interest due to the fact that Gosling is a witness.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: First, the gun that Beachum took from Crowford's house was not the murder weapon. It was Crowford's unfired gun. He only took it out of the fear of his life. Second, Beachum entered Crowford's house with police supervision. If he plays it by the book, Crowford's confession is valid. In that case, supervising officers will stand witness, along with a recording confirming their testimony. Third, Beachum doesn't need the confession anymore. He was amply clear on that matter.

FleetCommand

You are on point for the corrections, but they involve just mostly context/details, don't they? The text of the entry should be polished a little, but the core issue is valid, I think; Beachum would never be the acting prosecutor in a case when he is the key witness as well. If it's a case for the "murder," he has to be on the stand for practically everything; even if we exclude him from the confession to the shooting, as you suggest (and even if it should never be litigated to begin with), he still is integral to the pulling the plug phase (he was literally there as it happened and did everything to prevent it). We can just assume that he will be forced to hand the prosecuting role over to someone else later, and he was just there for 5 minutes to gloat before the movie credits run, but it's kind of funny.

Sammo ★

Beachum doesn't have to testify, neither for the confession part nor for the "pulling of the plug." I've already covered the former. For the latter, the fact that the woman is now dead is enough. If necessary, the attending doctors could testify that the woman "would have outlived all of them."

FleetCommand

Beachum received the confession under "police supervision," as you called it, which still involved him being the only person in the house with the defendant. You mentioned a recording in the earlier comment; are we just to assume he took one, or is there a visual hint I missed? He was also the person who fought for the court order to the point of being physically tackled in front of the victim's deathbed—so doctors and security staff defiant of such an order would be on trial too, I suppose? Since, again, this 'murder' was not even committed by Crawford. So how would Beachum not be a crucial witness, often the only witness to cover that part of the story?

Sammo ★

OK. You want to assume Crawford's confession was for the viewer's benefit entirely, and there was no wiretapping? Fine. The police have the gun now, hence proof of the first actus reus. Hospital staff tackled Beachum, but Crawford can't pin the murder on them when he has two counts of actus reus and twice demonstrated mens rea. Courts always hear such nonsense as "I didn't kill him; I shot him. The bullet and the fall killed him" (Collateral, 2006). Shooting someone is actus reus.

FleetCommand

I am sure you are right on the Latin, especially since it's hard to imagine the trial going the way it went the first time around to begin with, and I am not getting into the rabbit hole of what exactly could legally be relitigated. But still and again, what does this have to do with the original point being made, that some other guy would be the one leading the trial, since Beachum would be realistically called in as a witness, even a hostile one? I mean, I honestly didn't think it would be much of a point of contention; it's just something there for the audience. I followed the lead about the 'witness' part the OP ended on, but seriously, a conflict of interest would be invoked just because of all the personal first-hand, hands-on involvement in the facts.

Sammo ★

I explicitly told you what happens if the court struck the confession from the record. (The gun happens.) And yet, here you are, saying "Beachum would be realistically called in as a witness"! This correction is turning into a confrontation. Also, don't conflate "involvement" with "conflict of interest." The latter means someone has different de facto and de jure motives. Beachum always had one motive: to convict Crawford.

FleetCommand

Far from me to be confrontational, and sorry if I came across that way. I guess I simply don't get it; it happens. Specifically, if I stated again the point about the witness, it wasn't because I was blindly disregarding what you said (check the words immediately after the ones you quoted), but it's pointless to delve further into something that goes beyond the original mistake. You just directly addressed the meaning of conflict of interest, which was what the OP talked about. I simply felt the initial correction posted was not doing that; now it does, and I am not disputing your knowledge on the topic, especially not having any of my own. Cheers.

Sammo ★

More mistakes in Fracture

Quotes

Lt. Robert Nunally: Your wife? Is she OK?
Ted Crawford: I don't think she is. I shot her.

More quotes from Fracture

Trivia

Trivia: The prop department had some fun during the making of the movie; you can see a lot of names of miscellaneous crew slipped in a few spots. There are boxes with case files scattered around the district attorney's offices; the ones behind Willy in his own office (People vs. Bonaventura - Tony Bonaventura being the property master, People vs. Morgenthau - Kramer Morgenthau being the director of photography) get quite a bit of screen time, but there are several others all over the office space, all carrying the name of a crew member. For instance, in a brief sequence when a dejected Willy walks up to Mona's desk to ask for her help before the third act, you can see unique ones. There's also a listing board with judges during the arraignment, and one with doctors when Willy is stopped by the hospital security; both of them are filled with names of production crew members. (01:16:50 - 01:33:20)

Sammo ★

More trivia for Fracture

Questions

Question: How does the motel scene pan out? Crawford enters without taking any precautions (except the hat that manages to fool the one security camera) and only by plot armor cloak is by neither victim, who are frolicking in the pool a few feet from him and could and should see the old stocky dude hobbling around their bungalow fully in the open. Then he enters through a keycard that is never explained. Poolside we then see at one point the lieutenant looking towards the bungalow, frowning; what's with the frown? There is nothing suspicious about what is shown there, and Hopkins is not doing - at that part of the scene, the way it is edited - anything that would draw attention. Also, the phone call at the beginning doesn't make sense for anything but providing background for the audience, considering he already knew where Nunally was.

Sammo ★

More questions & answers from Fracture

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.