Primal Fear review

 Number 615 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1996 legal thriller 'Primal Fear.'

Martin Vail (Richard Gere) is an arrogant Chicago lawyer who is well-known for taking high-profile cases, because of the publicity they generate. That's why he takes the case of Aaron Stampler (Edward Norton) - a simple-minded 19-year-old former altar boy accused of murdering the beloved Archbishop Rushman - head of Chicago's diocese. However, Vail slowly starts to prove that Aaron is innocent. And he has to prove that in court against the prosecution led by former flame Janet Venable (Laura Linney.)

Based on the 1993 book of the same name, Primal Fear was good enough. That is to say that it is as good as legal dramas go. Legal dramas have a tendency to be overlong with too much talking and exposition. By their very nature, not a lot happens outside of a courtroom, so they're not always the most interesting to watch. And if it wasn't for Ed Norton, I don't think I would have found this film very entertaining. This was his feature-film debut and he received widespread praise for it. I may argue that he was better than Gere and Linney.

I don't think either actor was particularly bad in isolation, but I don't think they were great together. I especially didn't like the plotpoint of them having a past relationship. Vail still has feelings for Venable and tries rekindling the relationship, but is constantly rejected. It all seemed very contrived and forced to me. Gere and Linney didn't have the best on-screen chemistry. And it wasn't believable that the two of them used to be romantically involved. True, it was an obvious source of conflict, but I don't think it worked. Their shared past was left too unexplained and enigmatic. 

To Vail, their relationship was something serious, but Venable thought it was a one-night stand that happened to last for six months. Perhaps if their relationship had been left more professional, I would have enjoyed it more. Instead of romantic feelings, one of them could have done something to have professionally screwed over the other. And that would have been a better explanation for Venable's resentment for her former colleague.

And I didn't particularly like Linney's character. This is no fault of the actress, but I think that Janet Venable was overly-cold, harsh and condescending. She's not supposed to be the devil, but the devil's advocate. There were moments where she could have been portrayed sympathetically, but any of these emotional beats fell flat on their face. 

Like I said, if it wasn't for Ed Norton, I think this entire film could have fallen flat on its face. *spoiler alert* It is initially revealed that he is schizophrenic - he has an alternate personality called Roy who surfaces whenever Aaron is felt threatened. Instead of Aaron who always denied killing Archbishop Rushman, it was actually Roy. Roy and Aaron are polar opposites to each other. Aaron is shy, simple-minded and speaks with a stutter. Whereas, Roy is arrogant, violent and a sociopath. They are completely different, but Ed Norton played the double-role with aplomb. He was convincing as both characters.

Ed Norton was very much the saving grace of this film. It fell short of its massive potential. It wasn't bad, but it also wasn't good.