MovieChat Forums > Fracture (2007) Discussion > Flaws I saw

Flaws I saw

posted 15 years ago by folsoml
20 replies | jump to latest

Let me be the first (a joke) to point out that there were numerous plot holes in this movie. The planets would have to have aligned for Crawford's plan to work. If any one thing goes wrong, the whole thing fails.

1. What if the initial cops on scene did not set up a perimeter around the house, and instead burst in and took him into custody?

2. What if Nunally was not the negiotiator who came to the house?

3. What if Nunally had not gone up to the house to negotiate face to face (real life negotiators don't do this), and instead did it over the phone?

4. What if Nunally knew this was the residence of his mistress, and did not involve himself in the negotiations process.

5. What if the two SWAT guys who went up with Nunally did not wait outside?

6. What if Nunally would not agree to put his gun down? Or would only agree to HOLSTER his own gun, instead of putting it down? Or what if he gave it to one of the SWAT guys outside instead of putting it down.

7. What if Nunally was able to keep himself calm when seeing his mistress shot, and did not allow for the guns to be switched back.

Crawford seems like a genius only because none of these things happened.

In the conversation Crawford had with Beachum when he spoke of finding the flaws in the eggs, he mentioned finding the flaw in Beachun (that he was a winner) and made it seem as though he would exploit that flaw to beat him. In reality, any attorney--winner or not--would have lost that case with the way Crawford was (miraculously) able to pull it off.

[–] gottaluvafriend 8 years ago

A good movie maintains what's called the "suspension of disbelief", which is the art of causing the viewer to believe that what he's viewing is real. When a person watching a movie refuses to believe that what he's watching is real there's no hope for him to appreciate the movie, no matter how good the movie actually is. Of course, many movies do not maintain the suspension of disbelief, but these are lesser works and one must be expected not to like them.

I think you make some good points. Allow me to address them. Some of your points can be dealt with via the same approach...

Points 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 can be dealt with if we consider that Crawford has done his homework and that he's planned to kill his wife for some time since he knew which type of gun to buy and bought it a month prior. We're also made privy to the fact that Crawford is no dummy and so it's safe for us to assume that he's discovered how the police conduct negotiations and who the negotiator will be. We can safely believe that Crawford, someone we realize is a narcissistic psychopath, has the ability to manipulate others, so we can believe that Nunally would agree to mimic Crawford in putting the gun down. (Remember, I'm not refusing to let the suspension of disbelief work on me.)

I think point 4 is a good one, not necessarily supported in disbelief. I don't find somewhere in the movie why Crawford could feel confident that Nunally would not recognize the house or the address.