fyi, ryan gosling's style is probably better described as 'canadian casual.'

not that it's really all that important, but you know us canucks and our powerful inferiority complex.

The article states: "The picture is clever, somber, quiet: There's just no reason it has to be as deadly boring as it is.".......but neglects to provide examples. I don't count the difference of accent/emotion between actors as an example, nor do the mentions of visuals. I still want to see this movie. Perhaps it is just too clever for the LCD-types out there?

Yeah, LCD and inability to watch something quiet is the exact reason why a critic who praised the new Apitchatpong Weeresethakul movie didn't like this.

Do you people read the reviews before you make pronouncements, or is your urge to blather like taking epicac and it just has to vomit out?

Hopkins is playing Hannibal Lecter to Gosling's Clarice Starling (right down to the mild Southern accent).

Hell, I saw that in the trailers!

he shot me in the head. Deadly boring. The ending was fine but they could have rapped the shit up in one hour. And how did his pretty boss become involved with him? Did she know him already? I don't know maybe they explained these things but I was busy sleeping.

As far as Hopkings he really needs to play a role differently sometime. Yes he can act but I've seen him do this before in any movie he has been in even when he plays the good guy.

Boring.

I saw this movie and didn't find it boring at all. It's not an action movie, for christ's sake. It tells an actual story and, while it has its flaws, it's engaging and provides enough hints and clues so that anyone watching who actually thinks can solve the mystery -- it has the fun of a well-written whodunit. I love the look of the movie -- it reminds me of Hopper.

Gosling did not run rings around Hopkins. Each played his role well, with just the right touches, nuances, and affectations (Goslings fork work at Thanksgiving dinner, for example) so you pick up as much of the back story as you need.

The major flaw in the movie is in the unraveling: I'm not an attorney or an expert on the law, yet I saw the "how" coming early on. The flaw lay in why it was so hard for either character to also see it coming. Or maybe Gosling's character did figure it out and the scene where he was unable to save the day was a countermove -- hmm, another possibility ...

I liked the ending. And I probably would've liked the other ending it could've had. The only thing I didn't like were the cars: I don't like Porsches and I didn't see how an ADA with $60K in student loans could afford even a used BMW.

How in tarnation can Stephanie Zacharek, who is usually so good at exposing the "Brando Rip Offs" of lesser, albeit worshipful actors, have fallen under the spell of Ryan Gosling's tic-laden, phoned-in performance in Fracture?

Whoa! Saying he "runs rings around Anthony Hopkins" in this less than satisfying movie is the height of overstatement. Someone's in love! And her name is Stephanie!

Hopkins turned in his Hannibal redux for a good paycheck, no doubt, and who can fault him for that? I can, for one. But Gosling looked for all the world like a drama student at a first reading. There simply was no tension between them, and although Hopkins was seething so much the temperature in the theatre zoomed, Gosling threw water all over himself.

If he wiped his face one more time I might have screamed. This movie will disappear and I say, Good Riddance!