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.
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.