If it is because the old gentleman loves legal subjects? I don't think it is necessary. I am afraid it is more because he is only good at the scene scheduling and narrative techniques of legal and political dramas, and only dares to make some fine-tuning in familiar routines. In a word, craftsmanship.
It is the same sentence that has been repeated many times: The difference between a craftsman and a master lies in the fact that the master takes risks at all costs, strives to surpass, and constantly regenerates, but the craftsman only knows that because of his familiarity, he follows the rules and repeats himself.
The same goes for "Flaws", another film with more craftsmanship and lack of aura.
Of course, Anthony Hopkins’ acting skills are nothing to say, but the soul of film art has always been directing and screenwriting. A film that needs actors to support the scene will not be too far away from a bad film. Not only that, but one of the abilities of a good director. It is to give good actors enough performance space. If you don't have enough ability to control but you want to use good actors to make tricks, you will only be self-defeating.
This film relies on Anthony Hopkins' consistent high IQ and super pervert murderer's interpretation, but the result has caused serious problems-Ryan Gosling in the opponent's drama can't compete with it in acting and lines. I’m not familiar with Ryan Gosling. It’s really dumbfounding to hear that he was once called Mel Gibson’s successor. In this film, under the oppression of Hopkins, it is really mediocre. When he expresses his sense of justice, he appears like a stunner, when he expresses wit, he appears frivolous and ostentatious, and at the rest of the time he appears incompetent or pitiful. Falling in the line, it makes me suspect that it is his true color performance. But in terms of the narrative structure, this prosecutor is the central figure. In the actual shooting, the shots were rotated around 720 degrees around the young, and the close-ups were tireless, and there was not a single shot that caught people. As a result, the imbalance of the entire film is inevitable. Especially in the middle of the film, the bad old man’s plans have been fully revealed. The show’s scenes are all over. When the big baggage is not yet shaken, the camera can only turn around the prosecutor. At this time, there is no tension in the plot. The rhythm was so slow. (By the way, on the contrary, David Strathairn, who plays DA, is very decent, worthy of the old drama.)
Actually, you can't be too demanding of actors. Take a TV drama level suspense and want to put together a movie to sell the director is the root, right For Gregory Hoblit, its weak plot is a consistent problem. It has existed since "First Fear" (the superb acting skills of Richard Gere and Edward Norton made up for a lot). Since it is a legal action, then The value concept behind the law, wisdom and spirituality should be the final foothold of the film. Just blindly hunting for novelty, only at the technical level, only questioning and deconstruction can not support a good movie.
The problems of "First Fear" and "Flaws" are precisely here. One is a super-perverted high-IQ young murderer, and the other is a super-perverted high-IQ elderly murderer. They both took advantage of the law to manipulate the judicial system, and then ? Gone. There is no explanation other than the surprise of the filming of the baggage. You say that the story is wonderful, and the details are not tightly connected. The result is not reliable on both sides. Although the soundtrack is excellent in photography, this can only represent the quality of the Hollywood film production line. The improvement of the quality of the film itself is of no avail. In this way, the aftertaste of the film is even worse than some episodes of boston legal.
After complaining, in any case, we will never have too many legal films, even if it is not so good, after all, we can't ask that all the parts are "Twelve Angry Men". . If you want to see it, you should be happy. .
Uncle Gregory Hoblit, fighting! You have to choose the script as well. If you can't write your own screenplay, don't try your best. Go and shoot John Grisham's novels. .
=====================
Seeing that many people in the forums and comments end up arguing, here is a video detail about Double Jeopardy:
"Near the end, the case Beachum reviews regarding double jeopardy is People v. Bivens, 282 Cal. Rptr. 438, 231 Cal. App. 3d (Cal. Ct. App., 1991). Under Bivens, California can prosecute Crawford for murder, even though it arises out of the same transaction as a defendant's prior case. "
First, there are elements that have to be proven in attempted murder (specifically, you must prove that the person intended to kill the victim). A first degree murder case can be proven without proving intent. In California, you don't have to prove premeditated if you prove implied malice. Second, there are numerous cases when a person has died after a prolonged coma and the person has been charged again. This is not that unusual. For instance, the mayor of Chicago, Cermak was shot in the 1933. Assailant was convicted of attempted murder. Cermak died a month later, and the guy was re-tried for murder. Two different crimes arising from a single incident. The problem in this one is the estoppel element, which would prevent them from charging him if the elements are the same. But, I don't think they are.
Cal. law is the only law applicable and it is dipositive of the issue. If the legal question involves a unique set of facts then law from another jurisidiction (1 of the other 49 states or Federal case law) may be citied as persusaive (supporting one side's argument) but is NOT dispositive on the issue. European law would never be citied for any reason, other than England's Common law which could be argued was a source for US common law.
This is by no means a unique set of facts and occurs fairly routinely. Defendant attempts to murder (not accidentally) the victim. The victim is injured, but does not immediately die. Later as a direct result of the injuries inflicted by the defendant ( as opposed to an intervening causation ie-negligence of a doctor, suicide, etc.) the victim dies. The defendant can now be tried for murder, unless he was found not guilty of attempted murder based on the same facts, absent the victim's death .
IMO, it would be malpractice per se if the Defendant's defense counsel, be it privately retained, court appointed, legal aid or public defender did not alert the defendant to this "exception" to the DJ rule. I assume the case citied in the triva section puts forth the specific compelling reasons that Cal. allows a defendant to potentialy be tried twice. Often times plea bargains are worked out with this in mind. Trial judges do their best, even if the attorney(s) do not, to prevent cases from returning to them on appeal. So the issue should be placed on the record at either the arraignment,pre-trial, plea/trial and/or sentencing by the presiding judge.
View more about Fracture reviews
