User Reviews

PRIMAL FEAR is a good old-fashioned thriller with a modern twist. The plot concerns an altar boy accused of killing a clergyman who molested him and a sleazy lawyer who sees a chance to make tabloid news by taking the case. What he doesn't know is that his client can be just as cunning as he is.

RICHARD GERE seemed to specialize in playing these kind of low-down heels (typecasting does have its perils), and LAURA LINNEY as the prosecuting lawyer has her hands full trying to play a game of one-upmanship against him during an intense courtroom trial.

The story ends on a chilling note, thanks largely to the clever, intense and totally convincing performance ED NORTON gives in his film debut. As the guy who seems to have a devious split personality driving him to do bad things, he's the kind of actor who makes the audience sit up and take notice of his abrupt mood changes. It's no wonder he pulls the wool over so many eyes.

Having said that, it's the climax of the film that is most stunning and brings the story to a totally unexpected conclusion. It's the kind of chilling twist that only the most clever scriptwriters can devise and make seem probable--but it succeeds here.

Summing up: The kind of film you'll want to revisit once you know the whole score. Gere, Linney and Norton deserve high praise.

Outstanding thriller on par with "The Usual Suspects", "Primal Fear" is an impressive film about one lawyer's (Richard Gere) yearning for the spotlight. He gets his wish after an archbishop is brutally murdered in Chicago. It appears that choir boy Edward Norton (in his first film, Oscar-nominated) is the killer, but there is more to this case than meets the eye. In the end, Gere is going to learn that what he thinks he wants (fame and fortune) is not all that great because of what he has had to go through to get there. "Primal Fear" was one of the more interesting films of 1996, but was ignored by almost everyone. Richard Gere does some of his best work ever. Laura Linney, John Mahoney, Alfre Woodard, and Frances McDormand are all good in supporting roles. However, it is Edward Norton who proved to be the discovery of the 1990s. He keeps the audience on their toes and he adds depth and emotion to a film that would have looked much different if he had not been in it. 4.5 out of 5 stars.

Primal Fear, directed by Gregory Hoblit, written by Steve Shagan and Ann Biderman is based on the book by William Diehl. Primal Fear is one of the few examples of a psychological thriller with young, new talent shinning in a film with a great script and excellent direction. Edward Norton could not have picked a better film in which to debut.

When Arch Bishop Rushmen is murdered in his office, a young parishioner, Aaron Stampler, is found running from the scene covered in blood. The police follow him to a train yard where he is eventually arrested. When Stampler, expertly played by Edward Norton, is captured by the police he is obviously terrified, unexpectedly meek, and can't make eye contact. Stampler's prominent stutter and introverted personality make his guilt difficult to digest.

Richard Gere's character, the smarmy defense attorney Richard Vail, sees the capture on the local news and decides to represent Stampler pro-bono for the publicity. He leaves his cover page interview to get to Stampler's cell before any other defense attorney does. The first half of the movie plays like a thrilling murder trial drama. District Attorney, Janet Venable, played by Laura Linney, tirelessly and doggedly pursues Stampler. Evidence is covertly and excitingly collected. Light is shined on different aspects of the case by both the DA and the defense attorney.

Vail tracks down another alter boy who tells him the sins of the Arch Diocese and that he taped them. Vail gets the video and it rocks the case from a simple church slaying to a complicated case of blame the victim. This is only one of the first masterfully written plot turns that keeps you on the edge of your seat and unable to truly grasp the situation fully.

Vail orders a psychological evolution for Stampler. The interview brings to surface a Stampler's mental illness. When Stampler's mental illness (I won't ruin it for you) is revealed to his psychologist, it is horrifying and rocks the viewer with an unexpected jolt. His guilt or innocence is no longer easy to figure out and isn't a case of black or white. The rest of the courtroom drama rests on your perception of the guilt or innocence of Aaron Stampler.

Courtroom drama isn't the only drama. Interrelated to the case there is a subplot about rich business men, murder, church corruption and mobsters. Yeah, it could go downhill fast and sounds cheeseball but it works. The subplot gives Vail motivation for passionately defending his client.

Richard Gere flawlessly plays the grandiloquent Vail. Vail must believe, disbelieve, question, and wonder about Stampler's guilt. Even so, Gere's acting never misses the mark. He gives new meaning to smarmy and surprise. Even so, his acting is far outshined by Edward Norton's disturbing performance.

Edward Norton's character ranges from pitiful to downright scary. The challenge of Norton's character is portraying a man who might be guilty but making it so hard to conceive that your mind can't get around it. Portraying a person with the mental illness (I'm still not going to tell you) Stampler has is extremely difficult to do with out turning the part into a poltergeistic mess but Norton leaves you with your mouth hanging open, unable to speak. It is no wonder that Norton was nominated for an Academy Award for this role.

Gregory Hoblit's direction is worthy of applause. The fragile nature of all the relationships is a thread he had to walk like a tightrope. Each actor's performance would have devastated the film if it were over or underacted. Still, Hoblit was able to get passion and coldness at the exact level the character, the relationships and the film required. It was as if he wanted his direction to cook the perfect omelet. Too long in the pan and it's rubber, too short and it's soupy, just right and it's breakfast.

This film is an exceptional work of cinematic art. Every character is multi-dimensional, perfectly written and wonderfully acted. I could watch this movie over and over again and it doesn't lose a thing.

I understand that we all have different tastes when it comes to movies and that we all see greatness in a variety of ways. I will be the first to admit that I was totally lost when watching the Matrix and possess absolutely no desire to sit through the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. I am not trying to take anything away from those movies because I also understand that a large percent of the movie viewing population see the Matrix and LOTR trilogies as masterpieces.

That being said, it is beyond me why Primal Fear never made it to more people's "best" or "greatest" lists. It has received positive ratings on this website, but overall the movie enjoyed very quiet success. This movie is spectacular from start to finish. The ending is a doozy and Edward Norton's performance is Oscar worthy. Not only did his performance blind side me (who the hell is this guy?), but it was also a sign of great things to come from Edward Norton. He is one of our greatest actors.

The plot, an altar boy is accused of murdering a priest who as it turns out was molesting him, seems even more relevant 10 years later than it did in 1996. That is the basic plot, but there are so many subplots and side stories about political corruption and cover ups that make for one incredibly satisfying story.

The performances are top notch all the way down the cast. Richard Gere, Laura Linney, John Mahoney, Steven Bauer and even Terry O' Quinn turn in stellar performances. The movie takes place in Chicago and I believe it perfectly captures what I consider to be the Chicago mood or attitude (I live in a western suburb of Chicago).

Of course the movie is about more than an altar boy who may or may not have committed murder and political corruption. The movie's central character, Martin Vail (Gere), is a defense attorney who because of his high profile cases enjoys a minor celebrity status. His name is always in the newspapers and his face is always on the TV news. He can't get enough of this attention either. Martin is a great defense attorney, but he's definitely too arrogant for his own good. When a reporter asks, "When do you realize you have them? When do you realize you've won?" Vail responds without giving it much thought, "The minute I accept the case."

I saw this movie for the first time when it was released in the theaters. A lot of movies promise a "truly shocking ending" and that "THIS movie will keep you guessing until the very end." The trailers for Primal Fear said none of that. Sitting in the theater there was no expectation on my part for a twist ending. Perhaps that is why during its initial viewing it was more shocking to me than even the twist in The Sixth Sense. With The Sixth Sense you KNEW there was something to figure so for two hours that is exactly what you did. You tried to figure it out. Primal Fear's ending totally sucker punched me. The twist isn't revealed until the final minute or two of the movie, so up until the minute it is revealed the viewer honestly trusts everything they have just seen. There are no hints that what you are being told may not be true. It's a masterpiece. Hitchcock would have loved it and it's Edward Norton's performance that really makes it work.

The life of an altar boy is not an easy one. Worse, when the altar boy has been sexually abused, the anger embedded is deep and dark. Years later when the boy has grown to adulthood and can retaliate against the abuser, the black fury of the past results in a gruesome, violent murder. Thus the premise of Primal Fear is realized in the film of the same name. Richard Gere plays Martin Vail an attorney with superb legal abilities and an inflated ego. However, the motivating power of the movie emanates primarily from the demon plagued Aaron Stampler, superbly played by new comer Edward Norton. The heinous murder of an archbishop sets the stage for a media swamped sensational trial in which the prosecutor seeks the death penalty and the defense tries to explain how two distinct personalities exist within the tortured soul of the young man accused of the crime. Still, a very subtle and unsuspecting nuance snakes itself into the story line, like a threatening viper and if not detected will strike your soul as does the film's conclusion. Great movie and superior acting makes for a worthwhile reason to watch it. ***

When Richard Rushman, the Archbishop of Chicago, is brutally murdered, Martin Vail, one of the city's leading criminal lawyers takes on the task of defending the only suspect, an altar boy named Aaron Stampler. There are, however, some strange features about the case. Rushman was a highly popular individual, and Stampler appears to have had no motive for the crime. Indeed, Rushman showed the young man great kindness, saving him from a life of destitution on the streets. Stampler is put on trial, but as the case progresses disturbing facts start to come to light. There are hints that the late Archbishop may have been involved in sexual, financial and political corruption, and Vail starts to doubt both his client's sanity and his innocence. (The film has gained in topicality since 1996 as more scandals involving paedophile priests have come to light).

Recent years have seen a large number of courtroom thrillers, but this is one of the better ones. Richard Gere gives a good performance as Vail. His voice is sometimes too soft, making his words indistinct (a common failing with this particular actor), but he is well able to convey the two sides of Vail's character's, his smooth plausibility and his arrogance. Vail is a brilliant but conceited lawyer, convinced that he is the only man who can save Stampler from the death penalty. (The film was made before Illinois introduced a moratorium on the use of capital punishment). There is another good contribution from Laura Linney (an excellent but often underrated actress) who plays Janet Venable, Counsel for the prosecution. In a plot development typical of this sort of thriller, she turns out to be Vail's ex-girlfriend, now determined to prove herself a better lawyer than her former lover. (Don't the American Bar Association have rules to prevent this sort of conflict of interests from arising?)

I was already familiar with, and admired, Edward Norton's work in films such as "Fight Club" and "Kingdom of Heaven". Here he plays the part of Stampler (his first movie role) and gives what is probably the best acting performance in the film. Stampler has two distinct sides to his personality. On the one hand he is normally a quiet, inoffensive young man, shy, stammering and inarticulate. On the other, when under stress he can be assertive to the point of aggressiveness and rudeness, speaking loudly without any hint of a stammer. It is never clear which of these personalities is his "real" one, and the possibility is raised that he might be suffering from multiple personality disorder, which in turn raises questions about his accountability for his actions. The scenes in which Stampler suddenly switches between one personality and another are brilliantly executed; Norton brings out the contrasts between the mild "Aaron" and the aggressive "Roy" so starkly that one might think that two different actors were playing the two different personalities.

Some of the plot developments seem rather implausible; in Britain it would be perfectly possible for a defendant to change his plea from a simple "not guilty" to "not guilty by reason of insanity" if new evidence about his mental state came to light after the trial had begun, and I can see no reason why things should be any different in another common-law jurisdiction such as the United States. On the whole, however, this is a very watchable and exciting thriller. Even the sudden twist at the end (I won't say what that is) does not spoil the film, as such twists sometimes do. 7/10

I first saw PRIMAL FEAR years ago and I remember not liking it, but not why. Now, I'm not supposed to ever watch this movie again (an actor friend was thisclose to getting the role that made Ed Norton a star, which is why AMERICAN HISTORY X and FIGHT CLUB are also banned from discussion). But PRIMAL FEAR was on TV the other night, and I wanted to see it without bias.

I still don't really like it. Norton, of course, is magnificent, but the movie is plagued with flaws. The murder was unnecessarily graphic (did we really need to see blood spurting from severed fingers?), and the second act was slow, muddled, and, when all was said and done, rife with red herrings (nothing bored me more than the talk about fluctuating real estate prices, which ultimately didn't factor in the plot's resolution). And then there's that final revelation, which raised several unanswered questions.

Ok, if Aaron was faking it the whole time, then how long had he been affecting that stutter? The whole time he was an altar boy? If that's true, then he was planning the murder before he even met the archbishop - which means he would at that time have no reason to murder him. However, if he created that speech pattern after the murder, surely there would be plenty of people who'd know he was lying.

Other problems. Was there no effort at all to locate the missing girlfriend? What happened to Alex after he divulged the existence of the incriminating videotape? And wasn't that abnormally large bandage on his ear a too-obvious way for Gere to spot him? And couldn't that perfunctory chase sequence have been eliminated? We know they would have caught him so he could supply crucial information; if he had gotten away, what would have been the reason for the scene?

Still more. Speaking of that videotape, why would the bishop record every sexual encounter on a single tape, only to tape over the previous meeting to record the latest one? Wasn't it awfully convenient that he was killed before he could erase the important evidence? Did he tape others too, or just the three relevant to the plot? Also, wouldn't the judge have been required to order a complete psychiatric evaluation for Aaron before having him committed? Even though Aaron claimed to not have remembered his assault on the Linney character, couldn't he have easily heard about it from a guard or someone? (Of course he didn't - we'd have no surprise ending if he did.) And what's the probability that this kid could have duped all those intelligent, educated professionals so successfully?

If you can answer these questions for me, I'd love to hear from you. And, while I'm nitpicking, there's something else in the movie that annoyed me - Laura Linney's smoking. It was terribly obvious that Linney is a nonsmoker. Every time she lit up she would awkwardly hold the stick near her face while never taking a drag (the scene in the bar after she receives the videotape is the prime example). Sure, she'd occasionally put it between her lips, but the camera would always cut away before she inhaled, and the one time I saw her breathe out, there clearly was no smoke being exhaled.

Why have her character smoke? As a smoker, I cannot tell you how distracting this is. Whenever I notice this in movies, I am momentarily taken out of the story and instead am watching a documentary of an actress unconvincingly holding a lit cigarette. (Another example that comes to mind is Ashley Judd in DOUBLE JEOPARDY.)

Add all this to the stuff there we've all seen before in courtroom dramas - surprise testimony, murmurs from the peanut gallery that cause the judge to pound his/her gavel, a personal relationship between the prosecution and defense attorneys, a less-than-honorable John Mahoney (anyone else remember SUSPECT?) - and I now know why I don't like PRIMAL FEAR. It's the type of movie that needs about fifteen minutes trimmed from it (that chase scene can be the first to go) while requiring a couple of additional scenes to clarify plot points. But while I mentioned DOUBLE JEOPARDY here, I am in no way comparing the two; PRIMAL FEAR is twice as good as DOUBLE JEOPARDY - a 4/10 instead of 2/10.

*****SPOILER ALERT***** I was surprised looking at the IMDb top 250 movies that "Primal Fear" isn't among them while the more elaborately made and overrated thriller "The Usual Subjects" is listed as #17 among the all time best in motion picture history. Both movies have narratives that build up to a shocking and surprising ending but the movie "Primal Fear's" ending fits right in with the story that it's presenting and doesn't take anything away from it. While at the same time when you see the movie again for any clues for the surprise ending as hard as you try you can't find them because the ending was, in the true sense of the word, a total surprise.

"Primal Fear" is really one of those movies that has a good story that builds up the suspense level with acting and directing and delivers a shocking ending. The film climax not only stuns the audience but makes total sense and doesn't take away anything from the story that you saw up to that point when it hits you. Where as "The Usual Suspects" surprise ending seems totally contrived and completely negates the story that you were seeing up to the part that you were hit by it that the movie plot that you were watching becomes utterly senseless.

Marty Vail, Richard Gere, is one of Chicago's top defense attorneys who likes to take on high-profile cases for a hefty fee or Pro-Bono as long as it gets him publicity and embellishes his already envious reputation. Marty also believes that everybody no matter how repulsive their crime, which there accused of deserves to be defended to the utmost of his ability. One morning in a bar watching the TV Vail sees a live news report of the police chasing down a young man who is reported to have murdered a very powerful and popular man from the Catholic Church Archbishop Richard Rushman, Stanley Anderson.

Smelling publicity in defending that person, if he's not killed by the police or ends up killing himself, Vail uses his connections to get on the case defending him. At the jail-house talking to the young man Aaron Stampler, Edward Norton, he finds out that he's a 19 year-old altar boy at the church that the Archbishop was in charge of. Stampler tells him that he blacked out, lost time as he puts it, when he came into the Archbishops office when he heard that there was someone else there. Stampler blacked out but when he woke up from his unconscious state he found himself covered with blood and the Archbishop was dead! Seeing that he just panicked and ran.

The state wants the death penalty for Stampler and assigned to prosecute the case Janet Venable, Laura Linney, who once had an affair with Marty Vail and is very surprised that Vail is handling the case for Stampler's defense. Before he's to go on trial when Stampler is examined by a defense paid psychiatrist Dr. Molly Arrington, Frances McDormand. It's then discovered that he has a split personality and is not in control of himself when his other self takes over his mind and he becomes "Roy", a completely different and violent person! Marty Vail later also finds this out the hard and brutal way about Stampler's condition by being banged around by "Roy".

It's determined by Dr. Arrington that Sampler is a very sick person and should get help in a mental hospital not in a prison but since the trial is already on Vail can't change the plea from not guilty to innocent by reason of insanity. Vail later finds out that Stampler was sexually abused by the Archbishop by tracking down a video tape with the Archbishop having Stampler and other altar boys and girls engage in sexual activities while he watched. The tape would not only be very embarrassing to the church but to a lot of high powerful people in the city and state government if it were released.

Vail sends a copy of the tape to the prosecutor, Miss. Venable, so it would force her to use it at the trial. At the trial State Prosecutor Venable has the tape played,to the total shock of those in the courtroom, to show that Stampler had cause and reason to murder the Archbishop. Just as Vail expected, by releasing the tape to Venable, the case starts to backfire against her. It's then when Vail puts Aaron Stampler on the stand to be cross-examined by Miss. Venable who aggressive and belligerently questions him on the archbishops murder he goes completely berserk. "Roy" takes over Aaron's mind and attacks Miss. Venable and almost ends up breaking her neck. Everybody decides, the Judge as well as the prosecution, that Stampler is insane and not responsible for his actions and drops the murder case against him. I's agreed that he needs to be in a mental hospital and not in a state prison ;but the story is not over for the movies shocking and surprising ending is just about to happen.

One of the best crime/court dramas ever made with outstanding performances by, of course, Edward Norton, Richard Gere, Laura Linney and everyone else involved with the acting in the movie. Don't miss seeing it you won't be disappointed, you'll be rewarded with one of the best crime/court dramas and surprise ending movies of all time.

The way this movie ended was very disappointing. Before the end, I had thought that the movie had some flaws but they wouldn't matter because the end would be spectacular. I actually thought I had figured it out. Yes Aaron/Roy has a dissociative identity disorder. Two people live in the same body but when one comes out the other blacks out. Aaron couldn't remember anything when Roy was around. BUT, he could remember seeing someone in the bishop's house. Aaron would have no reason to lie and even if Roy had come out and killed the bishop, Aaron had seen a person before (otherwise he could not remember it). So there actually was a third person and that would turn out to be the real killer. That would be a twist ending right? But you know what? Aaron was just playing with us and for some reason Vail didn't realize the memory contradiction until the end. And when he learns the truth he just walks out. Wow, that's our hero! Furthermore, Roy seemed to remember talking to Aaron while Aaron didn't even know who Roy was. How is that possible? And is it really so easy to fool a psychiatrist? All it takes is to be a good actor? And what about the case with 60 million? It seemed an important thing, but after all it had no effect at all. This movie had numerous flaws. The only good thing was Edward Norton, the only reason I don't regret seeing the movie. He was spectacular. Apart from that, just a bad movie.