Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Desertman84 Fragments is a crime film directed by Rowan Woods.It stars Kate Beckinsale, Dakota Fanning, Josh Hutcherson, Guy Pearce, Forest Whitaker, Jennifer Hudson, Jackie Earle Haley, Jeanne Tripplehorn and Embeth Davidtz.The screenplay is an adaptation of Roy Freirich's novel Winged Creatures.While in a restaurant, Carla Davenport, the restaurant cashier; Charlie Archenault, a driving-school teacher; Bruce Laraby, an emergency room physician; Annie Hagen, her father, and her best friend, Jimmy Jasperson suddenly hear gun shots. Annie, her father, and Jimmy retreat under a table as a suicidal gunman shoots several people and then himself. The story shows the aftermath as these six traumatized people struggle to regain their trust in the ordinary world.The film is quite literally fragmented. Too much story and too little about each character.But nevertheless,it was a well acted ensemble piece that I think you should see for its entertainment value alone.It was a well-directed tense drama with a terrific cast, it is an old-fashioned, no-nonsense film with no special effects that relies on acting and script.

JoeytheBrit Five strangers each react in different ways to witnessing a random killing spree in a diner: a young girl (Dakota Fanning) gets religion; a cancer-stricken driving instructor (Forest Whitaker) goes on a gambling spree; a waitress (Kate Beckinsale) seeks human intimacy – first with the doctor (Guy Pearce) who unknowingly opened the diner door to allow the killer entry, and then from anyone who's interested; the aforementioned doctor starts administering small doses of migraine-inducing medication to his wife so that he can then cure her; a young boy (Josh Hutcherson) becomes withdrawn and refuses to speak.The study of the fallout from the kind of random act of violence that totally negates every perception and viewpoint you had of the world and your place within it can hardly fail to be absorbing, but the very nature of its subject means it can't avoid becoming something of a depress-fest. There's no deep inhalation of sweet air followed by a 'seize the day' embrace of life here. Without exception, each character embarks on a potentially self-destructive path that becomes almost overwhelming after a while.On the plus side, the film declines to delve too deeply into exactly why the people react the way they do (apart from the young girl who comes over all religious and her mostly mute companion), leaving it to the audience to decipher the clues provided by the characters' behaviour. It's not exactly a difficult job to understand their emotions, but in an age in which many filmmakers feel obliged to cater to the lowest common denominator it's refreshing not to have every aspect of a story spoon-fed to you.

MierdaDeToro As a certain reader from the UK shamelessly plugged a Gus Van Sant movie regarding gun violence, all the while disparaging the entire USA, stating that "we Americans need to get out more"; I, on the other hand, found this movie a mixed bag of sorts. I found this movie at a Blockbuster, boasting promises of, "Like Crash, but better" on the cover. It took a couple of viewings (with the commentary, mind you) to figure out that this movie is not about gun violence, but about PTSD, and the effects it has on people in the midst of tragedy. Viewers who do not possess the patience of witnessing a 90-minute emotional roller-coaster may want to steer clear of this film. Viewers actually wanting a film advocating gun violence should check out American Gun (which also stars Forrest Whitaker). While this movie had good intentions, the character development was a bit nonexistent, as if we were supposed to already know everybody's scruples in the film before the film even started. As the director even states in the commentary, ensemble films are tricky; some work and some don't. This one almost worked. With more thorough development, it could have been the Better Crash that it promised us it would be.

paisley quinn I enjoyed the psychological drama of the film, but it did leave me with some questions, which I'll get to at the end of this comment. I thought Forest Whitaker was excellent as the cancer patient/gambling addict who has nothing to lose. Dakota Fanning was good, but her character really annoyed me. I still don't quite get the whole God thing. Kate Beckinsale actually looked sort of horrible in this film, which was 100% in character, so I suppose she was effective portraying a lonely, often haggard-looking, neglectful single mom of a colicky baby. (She should never go bottle blonde again!!) What I didn't quite understand (aside from Dakota Fanning and the God thing) was why the doctor kept on poisoning his wife and then rescuing her. Was it to play God? To be her hero? I don't get it. Also, he kept looking up the same things (drug side effects) on the internet. Why? Was his wife a guinea pig? A lab rat? Why did he want to cause her pain?? Another scene I still don't get is a very brief sex scene, mainly in shadows -- who was that? What was that? AND, the biggest question of all (and it is most likely intentionally left a mystery) is WHY did the man shoot up the diner in the first place???