“There are many closely related phenomena, There are two kinds of properties (oh, there are none!). Life is the duality of such compounds. Like thing and shadow, matter and light. Edgar Allan Poe. I read William Deal’s 1993 book of the same name. The film is designed in the cold style of a detective thriller with legal interpretations. Edward Norton, in my opinion, outplayed Richard Gere. “It is a dangerous business to convince a man that he is in everything like an animal without showing him at the same time his greatness. No less dangerous - to convince of greatness, silent about lowland. Even more dangerous is not to open his eyes to the duality of human nature. But it is truly beneficial to show both sides. (Blaise Pascal) Great movie. I highly recommend it.🤓
"Primal Fear" from 1996. Debut role in the movie Edward Norton. In 1997, he received a Golden Globe and a British Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor (and was immediately nominated for an Oscar). The first plan, of course, was Richard Gere. But, according to the overwhelming majority (and my modest one too), Norton (27-year-old debutant, I emphasize, and this is for the actor - well, very late, although he plays a 19-year-old boy) completely outplayed the 47-year-old already venerable Gere (the latter, however, made his debut too late - at 28). Overplayed, so to speak, in the plot-scenario, and in life ... Unparalleled acting. No worse (or better?) than three years later at the iconic Fight Club. Great played and Frances McDormand, the only winner of the Oscar (from the cast of this film) for the cult and my favorite film “Fargo” Coen brothers. The film itself is from the category of court and lawyer, but looks in one breath, despite the two-hour timekeeping. And let the notorious my favorite dissociative identity disorder (that is, split personality) directed by Gregory Hoblit is shown incorrectly from the point of view of the medical (oh, the wrong consultants were selected, if at all selected ...), for the posh play Norton forgive everything. I'll understand. The film must be viewed from many points of view (primarily from the point of view of the value of human life in the judicial system of the United States). Well, and, of course, the favorite of women Gere is great in its “gyrosity”, sorry for the term I invented. You won't regret it. If you love this kind of movie... Yes! And excellent music by James Newton Howard. It's all about the subject, as they say. In the finale of the picture is the Lacrimosa From Requiem by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart performed by the Vienna Boys Choir. Great music for a decent ending.
The plot of the film is simple: the archbishop is brutally murdered, the police quickly detain a young man named Aaron who escapes from the crime scene, covered from head to toe in blood. He was defended by lawyer Martin Vale. It is obvious to all the heroes that the guy killed the archbishop, but is it true?
This film is one of the American detectives in which the characters have to fight in court with the opposite side, in the case of this film - the prosecution. According to the laws of the genre and in this picture, we see criticism of justice: the court is not interested in the truth - a word that sounds several times throughout the film, as if flashing it through; the prosecution and defense constantly regret that they "lose the case", although the life of a person is at stake; the judge is no better: it is not worth it to thoroughly analyze the case, time, you see, little.
There are other ideas in the film, but even their description, in my opinion, can spoiler the content.
The picture visually holds the bar, but you will not find in it something interesting in this area, almost the entire timekeeping you will observe the courtroom, camera or other boring interiors.
The musical accompaniment is worthy.
The film will delight in unexpected twists and turns, as well as captivate people who love the “dynamics of judicial tug of war.”
8 out of 10
Ninety-six was also rich in excellent premieres and if you browse the tops of the best films of that year, then in addition to the Rock and Independence Day, you can find the first Impossible Mission, the beginning of the Scream franchise and you will also find this tape there. There are several stories about how the actors dreamed of getting a role in the film and even Matt Damon and Ben Affleck wanted it there. Fate gave the chance to break into Olympus another, no less talented actor. Edward Norton was twenty-six at the time of filming and is considered a late debut. But few people are lucky enough to play a role like this. Therefore, acquaintance with the tape was a matter of time. Next, I will share my impressions of what I saw and some thoughts on this tape.
A narrative criterion or narrative. The murder of the Chicago archbishop is accused of a young man who, despite the evidence, denies his guilt and convinces his lawyer. The script is worthy of the best court dramas, where there is a lawyer who intercepted the case for reasons of prestige. As far as I can tell from the film, he didn’t even take money from him. The most interesting part of the story is the relationship between a lawyer and his client. As the circumstances are clarified and the details of the bets in the game change, the main mystery - who killed the archbishop is revealed in the third act. Thrillers with a spectacular twist well excite the imagination. And they can remember this fact, even if there are no other merits. At the idea level, I liked the idea of justice, in which theatricality often overshadows justice. No one is saying she's gone. But it is felt somewhere outside the visible world.
Visual criterion or technical support of the tape. The picture is beautiful, although mainly in dark intonations. Cinematographer Michael Chapman previously worked on Michael Jackson's clips and there is a stylistic minimalism in working with plans and filling the frame with details. The scenes where Aaron and Martin interact are set cool and there is tension in every gesture, look and action. When Mr. Hyde emerges, this is where the quintessence of picture, music and acting begins. Some stop frames are worthy of a desktop design, and rare landscapes are a poster on the wall. Composer James Newton Howard wrote musical themes that fit perfectly into the film's mood. Individual themes are worth getting into your music collection.
Acting work deserves a positive word. Edward Norton still holds the title of strongest debut. In this role, he managed to show all the facets of insanity. The worst crazy people don’t look like that. Richard Gere is also pleased to play a controversial character. Really good lawyers have never been led by altruism. I will also say that the actor has a noble appearance, but here he also pulls out traits of character that are not characteristic of the acting role. Laura Linney is a fast-paced prosecutor intent on bringing the case to a close. She believes strongly in the defendant's guilt. This creates tension in the debate. Frances McDormand here also plays decently, she can in different ways.
Cinema is heavy, not due to blood or terminology, but due to the fact that it is able to convince the faithfulness of its ideas and become a guide to action, not just an illustration. It is better to wait until seventeen years. But that's your decision. Verbal duels in debates and attempts to manipulate public opinion are bribery. Court is a theater. I'd recommend it. All health, peace and good cinema.
The film almost did not reach the genius, but it is a serious claim to genius.
It so happened that I didn’t watch it when I was younger, when I probably would have enjoyed it more. Although this genre is interesting now.
From the character Norton immediately had huge expectations, from experience I know that he is capable of double, even triple, disclosure of the image. But I didn't know it was his debut, so he's even more brilliant than you might think. Which is completely compensated for by his super-bad character. The question arises: does he not play himself in part?
About the characters of Gere, Linney and McDormand did not develop any coherent idea because of their rather strange behavior.
The final can not be considered open – it is clear that nothing will change, including because twice violated professional ethics. The actor wonderfully plays the final scene - the way he frantically scrolling through the options in his head, but suddenly realizes that this is largely the result of his own manipulation. Literally physically feels like a lousy thing on his soul.
This moment is quite subtle, not all viewers are able to catch it.
You know, this movie can be summed up as "The Devil is in the Details," and this movie proves that perfectly. Lawyer Martin Vale takes on a complex case, the criminal-boy-teen Aaron denies his attitude to the murder of the bishop, despite the discovery at the scene of the crime. The lawyer intends to seriously win the case and invites a psychiatrist to his team and finds out the amazing details of the case. The ending is quite interesting, very surprising, I can say, despite the guesses! Playing actors at the highest level, this ambiguous character, played by Norton, and this confident, calculating lawyer, played by Richard Gere, lay in mind. Magnificent 5/5
These glorious 90s are amazing actors, as if from the covers of glossy magazines; incredibly confident characters, bearing pathos with an absolutely serious expression on their faces; the masculinity and power of a script that, like a dealer in the market, comes to you, knowing in advance that you need his product, and you will give him your attention and money. “Primitive fear” attracts attention, it is not just “one of the court dramas”, which in the 90s came out some incredible number, but the standard of such thrillers, the exhibit of the chamber of measures and weights.
Fun for playing bingo: what clichés were shown in this film?
Strong male character, cynical, self-confident, proud to see his face from every iron? Plus.
A woman who confronts him in action, but secretly dreams of being with him and eventually succumbs to the charms of masculinity? In business.
Laughter-inducing, “You know what I’m going to do.” “No, you know what I’m going to do and what I’m going to do,” every five minutes.
An endless drunkenness on the screen, in which the hero still looks like Apollo descended from Olympus? Available.
In general, if you put the joke aside, “Primitive Fear” captures its story: you want to watch this movie; you want to understand what will happen next – this is the main magic of cinema. Richard Gere, as always, wins the hearts of women in the frame and viewers in the halls and at TV screens, and Laura Linney is again a girl in the courtroom, only here, unlike Emily Rose’s Six Demons, she blames, not defends. To find out the result of the confrontation between two people in love - watch this film, you will not even remember about two hours, so in one breath the tape looks like. Gregory Hoblit made a lot of films in the genre of forensic science, and even with a relatively good budget and actors – worked with Hopkins, Quaid, Washington, Gosling – but this film was the crown of his career. I recommend it to every person who likes the words “Rise, the court is coming” on the screen and at the same time loves confusing detective stories with an unpredictable outcome. If anything, it will surprise you.
The movie is a flipper who keeps in suspense. However, everything is quite banal, and I would not say that by the second part of the film I did not imagine what the ending would be. A little naive, theatrical film of the 90s, breathing the aesthetics and atmosphere of the time. And yet, there is something to praise and scold him for.
1)Very good acting young Edward Norton, in fact, the debut role. You believe in reincarnation, you also believe in a personality disorder somewhere in the middle of the movie. Of course, it would be good to believe until the very end and, as the writers and the director suggested, there should be a shock in the end, but perhaps I am already too familiar to experience this shock. In short, a little naive.
2) Obvious disadvantage - each hero has a role, but no arch. It is assumed that there was an affair between lawyer Martin Weil and assistant attorney general Janet, which ended somehow not well, but both characters are quite static in their roles ' Lovelace' - 'Trapped girlfriend'. Their relationship looks theatrical, she smokes all the time, cold, etc. I wanted the lawyer's story, his psychological motivations - but no, we didn't show it.
3) The loss of some details, as if there was something else in the script, and this was not shown. Maybe it wasn't. But quite an interesting idea, which later grew into a separate trend (remember the same ' Split' and other films about mental disorders), in this film did not achieve the desired effect.
4) There was an immersion in the 90s, and if you don't bother, it's a good, atmospheric movie for the evening. Probably, for a less sophisticated audience, who has never seen such a movie - quite suitable.
6 out of 10
These are the parts of the film that I liked the most about.
• Until the middle of the film, you don’t understand why we’re being shown so much or why there’s so much. The end of the film surprised and even pleased.
At first, the narrative seems very “tight”, otherwise expressed – inappropriately drawn out. Also, the plot for some reason is divided into two stories, which prevents you from concentrating - you are shown one or the other. It also creates unnecessary timekeeping in the film, which I think could be shorter if the director focused on one thing. There is some illogicality in the behavior of some characters. In general, in my opinion, the plot could be presented more interestingly.
Acting - discovered Edward Norton. The rest are good too.
The main characters played well, but not to say that they catch. Except for the character of Edward Norton, but even here it is more about the skill of Edward, not an interesting character.
• Picture (Video row, transitions + color) - in places you can praise the director's decisions on the choice of angles. The color, in my opinion, could have been picked up more competently - in some places it seems unnatural. Overall, nothing unusual.
• Audio accompaniment - in general, nothing unusual. Only in some places the soundtrack was selected competently and, in my opinion, contributed to the creation of the atmosphere.
• If you are patient, then the plot can please, from the middle to the end of the film. Also, if you appreciate good acting, you can get acquainted with the work of Norton through this film, although there are better options. In other cases, again, there are better movies.
7 out of 10
Despite the detective story and a very bloody plot, the moral aspect is not touched at all, the emphasis is placed exclusively on psychology in the demonstration of an unusual “client”. The question of guilt-innocence is beyond the narrative at the very beginning of the film, when the lawyer immediately stated that he frankly does not care about the identity of the client, and this trend is strictly maintained until the end of the story. As a result, it is not even clear what kind of internal attitude to the client developed in the main character: he ran, puffed, portrayed a lawyer, even took risks, but it is not clear for what, to whom and what he wanted to prove, did he want to earn money on this case, become famous? The answer to all questions is no. Schizophrenia-still life hung over the whole plot of a dense dark cloud through which not a single ray of any other thought could penetrate. As a result, from viewing there is a feeling of crushing helplessness and one-sidedness of the plot idea: one single thought was smeared with an even layer throughout the narrative, sometimes only adding or reducing the brightness of colors. Undercover games with the “powerful of this world” did not shoot at all, with lyrics also a complete failure, wherever you poke – schizophrenia dominates everyone... For intellectual cinema is frankly weak, for game - for a hard three.
The search for meaning in general leads to a dead end: if the defendant is not so simple as it seems at times, then why did he live so long up to his nostrils in shit? .
Due to the obvious dryness of the central storyline, the story was tried to flavor the “human” in the form of a long, uncertain relationship between two former law enforcement officers. I must say, the relationship turned out to be murky and not suitable for the whole history in any way – a shadow on the lash. They didn’t even guess to “throw wood in the fire” to somehow really revive this dry legal swamp. The so-called lyrical line is not that sagging, and not even drawn properly. (To be honest, this part is pretty good.) Most often, such relationships play out for a greater psychological drive in the confrontation of the Titans, but even this did not work. All heroes are a total cardboard!
The judge is a black woman. Typical stamp of the Hollywood film industry. Plus, thickly smeared with manure on the Catholic Church, taking for the seed “spiritually” pornographic idea – crystal clear Hollywood.
The title is about nothing.
Conclusion. A good old movie, watching which fluctuates between half-sleep and irritation from naivety and deliberate theatricality of everything that is happening. Unfortunately, the acting here is drowned in rigidly prescribed abstruse dialogues, where the participants of the story are forcibly made dolls on ropes, and not live people. Although the film is not old, it is boring by modern standards. The idea is interesting, but it plays here alone on an empty field.
PS
It seems that this is Norton’s first significant role, and he has already revealed his acting talent.
6 out of 10
A very busy film about one liar-criminal who managed to conduct another experienced liar-lawyer!
Hello, dear friends! On the last weekend of October, I decided to look for a movie. In the top of the most popular films on Kinopoisk, came the film of 1996 ' Primitive Fear' with Richard Gere and Edward Norton in the lead roles. I have heard about the film from friends very enthusiastic reviews and have long known the song soundtrack from the film Cancao do mar from Dulce Pontes. I decided to look, and make up my opinion, briefly knew the plot from the description.
First of all, having looked to the end (and the film is quite long, more than 2 hours), I did not understand what guided the director, coming up with the title of the film, it should have something to do with the plot, but here the title of the film does not say anything. The emotions after watching the film I had contradictory, makes me think, think. It looks quite easy, the plot develops consistently. Fans of forensic detectives, in the style of John Grisham, should like.
The sharpness of the film, of course, gives the play of actors, Edward Norton, who is so praised here, I saw this film for the first time, and never met him in other films. But his role was clearly successful, on this I agree with the majority!
Richard Gere, in the role of a successful, shabby and too cynical lawyer, impressed me, he fit right into his expensive suits. For Richard Gere's acting, I'd pick a word for it - virtuoso! By the way, reminded me here of himself from the musical 'Chicago'.
In a nutshell about the plot: there was a monstrous murder of the archbishop. From the details of the crime, it is obvious that the motive for the crime is very personal, either revenge or simply the work of a maniac (in fact, it turned out to be both). There's an obvious suspect, a young guy who was actually caught red-handed, but he denies wrongdoing. A successful lawyer undertakes to defend him, not because of the money that the guy does not have, but to once again confirm his big name, the lawyer absolutely does not care whether his client is guilty in reality, the main thing is to win the case at any cost. How will they end ' Cooperation' as a lawyer and client, it is better to watch.
But the ending of the film was very unexpected, I thought until the last minutes that the guy is just a sick boy, which for his dirty purposes used this ' Servant of God' that the guy is a victim. But like a lawyer, I was wrong, and I'm happy about it, so I can still be surprised. As stated in the foreword to the film ' sooner or later, a duplicitous person forgets who he really is ' After all, it is not in vain that they say that a liar sooner or later can be caught in the trifles, when a person lies in general his legend, he certainly remembers, but the small details of what he lied are previously forgotten. However, the hero of Norton, Aaron was not caught even in the trifles, he deliberately opened his cards to amuse his vanity and demonstrate to Martin how he managed to hold it.
Overall, I liked the film very much. It was such a resounding success because it raises the themes of our society, which are sometimes hidden behind the pious masks of church ministers. I have no pity for the murdered archbishop, he himself created his executioner. However, such a cruel crime can only be committed by a pathological sadist who will not stop at only one victim.
The film has a special tense atmosphere, which grows as you approach the final. Such stories are good because they are not detached from reality, a crime has been committed that could happen in life, and it happens, we just do not always know about such cases. Duplicity, falsehood, to one degree or another, is inherent in each of us, someone more, someone less. In this story, everyone lies and puts on masks: Martin is a hypocritical, selfish and cynical lawyer who is ready to defend any criminal for money or fame, to win another high-profile case, the pain of conscience or morality does not bother him too much.
To sum up, I join most of the rave reviews, this film is worth watching. If you haven’t seen it yet, you are making a total mistake. You decide! Thank you very much.
Another bright representative of the 90s of the last century is the legal thriller Gregory Hoblit “Primitive Fear” with Richard Gere and Edward Norton in the lead roles. For the latter, the role in this film became the debut in his career and immediately nominated for an Oscar!
The film tells the story of the brutal sadistic murder of an archbishop in Chicago. The main suspect was a young 19-year-old boy Aaron (Norton), who was near the scene of the murder covered in blood. Defending him, and free of charge, is taken by the well-known lawyer Martin Weil (Gere), for whom an important criterion of his work is the publicity and detailed and widespread coverage of the case he is conducting. There's too much confusion about this. On the one hand, the evidence of Aaron’s guilt is beyond doubt, but on the other hand, everything is not as simple as it seems at first glance. In addition, the archbishop himself was not at all an angelic man, and one of the motives for his murder could be the development of one of the districts of Chicago.
Being a legal thriller (a subgenre of the thriller), "Primitive Fear" absorbs the best of its qualities and continues, no, even harmoniously complements a number of similar films. Sidney Pollack’s The Firm, The Pelican Affair with Julia Roberts and Denzel Washington, Joel Schumacher’s Time to Kill, A Few Good Guys with Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson, to some extent The Daughter General, The Verdict for Money and other movies where events are mostly set in the courtroom are stunning intellectual detectives that are really nice to watch. They are gorgeous with their plot, even if it is often devoid of various activities in the form of shootings or what else. They are attractive in that they do not turn out to be a thoughtless spectacle, acting as a useful food for the brain, activating mental activity and captivating with their intricacies deep into the plot.
As one of the founders of the genre of “legal thriller”, John Grisham is a kind of worthy successor to Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie (of course, their works are significantly different from Grisham’s novels), because his bestsellers have been filmed in large numbers. William Deal, whose book is based on "Primitive Fear" is little known in terms of legal thrillers, but his contribution to the development of this subgenre is invaluable, because Primal Fear became one of the popular in 1996!
And naturally, the tandem of experienced Gere and young Norton became, perhaps, one of the main acting duets of that year. Richard Gere as a whole retained the image of a playboy, but at the same time appeared in a serious role for himself, and Norton surprised by the versatility of his own acting skills, in the course breaking into the Hollywood elite.
Unfortunately, today the legal thriller was somewhat forgotten. From the recent film "Marshall" about the first black lawyer, which is a biographical drama. Films on such topics are unlikely to collect a fabulous box office, as blockbusters do, but these are films that remain in memory for a long time and the same “Daughter General” or “Time to Kill”, or “A Few Good Guys” I have watched several times, because such a movie always remains interesting, and over the years as a wine aged and even more delicious. A movie with meaning.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
That's a damn great picture. The story of a trial where a successful lawyer tries to unravel a complex and brutal murder. Did you hear that somewhere? Oh, no. In fact, "Primitive Fear" is filled with all the most selective staff that we love to see in thrillers-dramas about trials and crimes. But it's not just a cool movie scripted. It was Hoblit who revealed the talent of Edward Norton for a big movie on the set. It would be a savage omission for the whole art of cinema not to notice in due time this grandiose actor. Then he will play the Hulk and start to scandalize, but then, in 1996, it was one of the most interesting acting debuts of the 90s.
Even Richard Gere, acting as a lawyer, does not pull the whole picture on himself as Norton, although there will be less time.
It's a must-see. In particular, connoisseurs of smart conversational suspense.
The trial in world cinema is quite extensive. In America, films about lawyers and court battles are popular. Novice director Gregory Hoblit chose a good time for the release of his film. The mid-nineties was fertile ground for action thrillers and detectives, then they came out a lot. Of course, the level of quality of such products largely depends on the director and the actors involved, but even this is not always the key to success. But in this case, success exceeded all expectations.
The director skillfully combined forensic drama and a tense, psychological thriller - detective. Strong intrigue retains interest until the very end, which shocks with its denouement. A successful lawyer defends a teenager accused of murdering a famous archbishop. Along the way, the hero conducts his own investigation, which leads to unexpected results. Everything here is not what it seems at first glance. Doubts about what is happening will not leave you to the credits. And the constant twists of the plot will not let even the sophisticated viewer get bored. What you do know doesn’t happen very often.
The picture is a rich ground for reflection. It explores human nature in many ways. What is a person willing to do to achieve their goal? Does the end justify the means? In addition, important issues of morality, conscience and morality are touched upon. At the same time, a qualitatively developed scenario confuses the viewer, forces him to analyze what he saw, and subsequently give his assessment to the main persons and their actions. Guilty or not? This is the main line, but not the only one. In general, the picture allows you to test your intuition as best as possible.
To convey the atmosphere of the task is extremely difficult, but fortunately in this case, the authors were able to do it in the best traditions of the genre. Of course, this is not a movie where you will be in the back of your chair. But you definitely feel the tension. An important role in this is played by the musical accompaniment of the composer James Newton Howard. The soundtrack is not the most impressive, but it certainly contributes.
Richard Gere, in his characteristic manner, played a successful and self-confident lawyer who seeks to win the case at any cost. But he's not the main star of the movie. Edward Norton made his film debut as a young murder suspect. And surprisingly outplayed absolutely everyone. His facial expressions, gestures, speech and constant change of emotional state cause admiration. One can only dream of such a debut. Not lost on the general background and wonderful Laura Linney. In terms of drama, everything is done at the highest level.
Primitive fear is an atmospheric, exciting, tense, and sometimes terrible psychological thriller - a detective and drama in one bottle. Strong intrigue, shocking finale and stunning acting make the picture an excellent gift for fans of the genre.
8 out of 10
Why Norton didn’t get an Oscar for this role back in 1996, I couldn’t understand. It was played brilliantly!!! I didn’t watch the award-winning film that year, but I can’t even imagine what a person would have to do to impress me more than Norton did in his debut role! Honestly, I watched the film no more than an hour ago, and still all on emotions, so to write competently and clearly, it may not work. But I will write everything as long as I remember what I would like to say.
Norton’s performance in this film amazed me. I started watching the movie knowing that I was nominated for the role of Aaron, and I expected a lot to be honest. But I still expected less than I got! I'm just sitting there right now and I don't understand how a man who did his first movie like this doesn't have an Oscar. But, of course, there is a Golden Globe. In general, what to judge by the awards, the main thing is that the actor himself enjoys the process and satisfaction from the work done. It’s time to end the lyrical retreat and talk about the film.
The movie isn’t just about looking at Edward. By the way, the scenes with the reincarnation from Aaron to Roy I skipped to watch a few more times, so the entire viewing took me more than three hours. I have no regrets about the time spent.
Richard Gere’s acting suited me quite well, although I honestly don’t know how much better/worse he usually plays, as the only movie I know of him is Hachiko. I liked his facial expressions while talking to Aaron/Roy.
Of course, I want to highlight Frances McDormand. I don’t even know what to say about the game, I don’t know how to describe how I feel about it. But I know I liked it. Somehow, all of her moves fit perfectly into my stereotypical image as a psychiatrist. After watching her filmography five minutes ago, I realized I was partially watching the film with her on TV, with her and with Brad Pitt. "Burn after reading." I don't remember her playing there, but maybe she's not as good there. Honestly, I don't remember. But for the sake of playing Francis and Norton, and to sort things out, I would revisit Primitive Fear.
In recent years, I have been watching movies closely watching camera work. Here I liked some of the moments, but for some reason I didn’t like the angle from which Roy was shown in the last scene. For some reason, I was annoyed by these black bars that floated in the foreground. I'm sure there was some idea. Okay, I'm not gonna pick on you.
There was quite an interesting musical accompaniment to the pursuit of Stampler, but otherwise I did not particularly like the music or remember it. Well, as they say, here is the taste and color.
The story didn’t seem stupid or inconsistent. Interesting and exciting.
Oh, actually, I seem to have said too much.
Overall, I really liked the film. I would love to give him a
bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad
Bad movie. In fact, Richard Gere and the company were filming a sequel to Pretty Woman. Only here in the post-production stage evil editors cut the film, cut the sound and got this. Otherwise, how else to explain this cardboard acting, which does not stand up to criticism? Characters act illogically, contradicting their morals and foundations. They have no rod. They change their worldview every second for no apparent reason. One word is cardboard. And it’s also the constant wink of the main actor in style: well, you know what I mean... No, Richard, we don't. A vivid example of a hostage of one image. His battleground is female melodramas. Serious dramatic roles are best left to professionals.
Separately, I want to mention the actors of the second plan. I don't usually notice them. It should be. They are needed in order to create the illusion of plausibility, not to cause the viewer any suspicion that these are scenery. But not in this movie. This time, they chose the worst of the worst and gave them the installation to spoil the film as much as possible. They did it beautifully. Do not put your eyes on them. They say, "Fake!"
Final twist. Yeah, there's an unexpected plot twist here, and it's cool, on the one hand. But on the other hand, this plot twist completely breaks the logic of the film. But this is a spoiler...
"The only light ray in this dark realm" - Edward Northom
Just for him.
2 out of 10
Such a state of affairs for a long time amused the successful and self-confident lawyer Martin Vale, seriously intrigued and gave an extra reason to get involved in a new adventure that the play played out within the courtroom. But suddenly, when the case of the murder of the Chicago archbishop falls into his hands, Mr. Vale himself becomes fun in a subtle game of survival, started by an unstable boy Aaron Stampler, the main suspect.
Undaunted by loud phrases and unashamed by quirky methods, gnawing and eating into any detail or understatement that smells of victory, the accuser and the lawyer clash in the courtroom as if on a battlefield. The Stampler case instantly becomes resonant. And although the facts of guilt on the face, and the case itself can hardly be called confusing, up to the final chords, tension and intrigue remain, from which each subsequent frame is literally electrified. Cleverly juggling versions, Martin Vale finds exactly the one that guarantees him the light of spotlights and applause, but the game will not twist according to the script and the characters will necessarily change roles. Alas, Themis is blind and silent, but those performances that are staged in front of her closed eyes, accompanied by unrestrained cries of spectator surprise and delight, are worth it. No one told me to look for the truth in the courtroom. Finding a balance and leaving everyone to win is everyone’s job. Predictability of the game does not guarantee the predictability of the outcome, which is why the viewer, who is preparing for the action protracted-sluggish in the spirit of court stories, aged in the best traditions, will have to keep his tongue. For some time, the film “Primitive Fear” turns out to be almost one of the best representatives of its genre. And this is after N the number of years, when an impressive number of films flashed on the conveyor of criminal-detective-judicial dramas. Whether it is tedious-long to splash in compliments, when it is enough to mention only that the seemingly familiar scenes and the obvious predictability of the development of the plot with a few elegant strokes will allow the story to spin its fictitious and leave the audience with open mouths. Why the film itself suddenly grows in the eyes even if the strings of the soul are silent at the sight of the fox smile of Richard Gere or the unequivocally strong game of Edward Norton? Having felt a long pleasant aftertaste and a slight flutter of the cinematic cells of the soul, it may become definitely clear: the picture may well be one of those who want to review from time to time, enjoying the halftones and details, savoring the footage of court battles with their single heroes. Therefore, the verdict is obvious: interesting and high-quality cinema, subject to immediate viewing in the company or without.
8 out of 10
“Why play money when you can play with people’s lives?” ?
I’ll start with just one phrase that you will understand: classic genre.
Now in order. There is a terrible murder of Archbishop Rushman. At the crime scene, a young guy, Aaron Stampler, is found. It would seem that everything was and who made it quite clear, only there is one “but”. The case is entered by an experienced and experienced (perhaps I can say so) lawyer Martin Vale, who completely refuses to believe in such a scenario. At stake is not only the life of the boy, but also the reputation of the lawyer himself, which he clearly cherishes. Against him in court is Janet Winable, his former mistress, who, losing the case, immediately loses her job.
Most of the film takes place in the courtroom, during several sessions. But that's not surprising. From the very first frame it becomes clear – everything will not be as simple as it seems. The whole film is a kind of chess game. But over time, it becomes not for life, but for death.
It was a great pleasure to watch the love story of Martin and Janet. It was the selection of actors that made this part really high-quality. Each of them does not want to give in to the other. To be honest, I would even single it out as the second main storyline. Although I wanted a different outcome of their relationship, but the finale of even me, cold-blooded and low-emotional, touched a living.
In terms of the cast, the film is full of scattering Hollywood stars. The main role of the brilliant lawyer Martin Weil was taken by Richard Gere. To my great shame, this is the first film he has ever seen. In this role, hardly anyone else would fit in as refined as Gere. To me, the role of a charismatic and somewhat cynical lawyer was a success. His opponent was Janet, played by Laura Linney, personally I know the role of a carefree wife with The Truman Show. Her image is equally flawless. In sight, she is strict and courageous, but at heart a fragile and defenseless woman who needs a strong male shoulder. But against their background clearly stands out Edward Norton, who was that innocent boy. In some episodes I just admired his versatility and skill. It will sound strange, but he played not one, but just three roles, radically different from each other.
The director of the work was Gregory Hoblit, who soon distinguished himself with the pictures Radiowave (2000) and Fracture (2007). The entourage of the film was at the highest level, largely due to the work he did. Special thanks for the great soundtrack from Dulce Pontes. Incredible hit into the atmosphere of the movie. Now for the script. A few tipping points, after which you realize how confusing the story can be. Well-written dialogues, without extra frames, although there were some “by the ears” episodes. They were the only minor flaw of the film, which was noticeable to the naked eye. The finale of the picture puts an end to the entire epic, all the cards are revealed and everything falls into place.
After watching, the film leaves a lot of food for thought on different topics. You realize how cynical and immoral people can be.
Can I advise you? Of course, yes.
Duplicity is the main idea of this amazing film. An intelligent woman prosecutor who hides her feelings for the main character of the film played by Richard Gere behind the mask of indifference. The protagonist himself, who plays the role of a cunning seducer, while remaining so good in the courtroom and so bad in real life. A two-faced archbishop of the Catholic Church and his fellow state attorney-general who hide all their dirty affairs behind the mask of justice and religion. And of course, the diamond of this film is Edward Norton. You will learn more about his duplicity in the film itself, I just want to say that this incredible game will not leave you indifferent.
The film is definitely included in the list of films with the most unpredictable outcome. The actors played their roles brilliantly. Better than brilliant. I assure you, goosebumps from the events on the screen will visit you repeatedly! Primitive fear is definitely a classic of its genre. All the templates are consistent, but the plot is not comparable to any other forensic detective.
Since I am a fan of this genre of films, my opinion may not be quite adequate, or, more precisely, purely subjective. I’m so excited about the movie and I recommend you watch it immediately! And preferably in a quiet and calm atmosphere, to even better feel the charm of American detectives of the 90s.
8 out of 10
On the wave of general jubilation, if not madness, about the long-awaited Oscar DiCaprio, an indignant cry arises: give Norton an Oscar!
A beautiful film, which is called by old school, with a certain flair of the 90s, reminiscent of the atmosphere of Twin Peaks. The idea is relevant and consonant with the plot of the recent Oscar-winning “In the spotlight”. Norton, at his then 27, plays a 19-year-old boy, and he plays with success, but more on that later.
Yeah, those Northons, they always lose consciousness, time, and then it turns out they didn't lose it for nothing. This phrase “I lost time” can not but recall the words of Billy Milligan, and in general the character of Norton seems to be written off from him.
In general, the plot is classically furnished: there is a crime, there is a lawyer and a prosecutor, there is an affair between them, there are motives for both the crime and the insanity of the accused.
Some of the uniqueness of this tape is given by the end, by its power epic and dramatic, making the viewer convulsively think what the main character will do next. Can you call the ending of this movie open? Or is there no way back? It's up to you to decide.
This film is also unique to Edward Norton, who never misses a game. He sometimes misses projects, but he even plays them to the fullest program. In this film, the miracles of the reincarnation of Norton are chained to the screen, and the rest is momentarily sideways.
It’s interesting that Leonardo DiCaprio could have left the role of Norton’s character, but we know that Leo will have fun and freak out in The Mysterious Story of Billy Milligan.
Another mistake I made. I watched the film again, based on the laudatory reviews of marketers from Soha.
“The film constantly surprises the viewer. With each subsequent five minutes, more and more secrets are revealed in the picture.” I was surprised only once, in the final credits, when I realized what Gidenburg had managed to inflate the reviewers out of complete mediocrity.
The plot of the dynamics and whirlwind of the dialogue makes even Time to Kill stand aside. I understand, “Time to kill” is clearly not worth watching, thanks for the advice.
Until the very last shot, you will remain in doubt as to who is really guilty here. No doubt. If you are five years old.
“Whether investigators and lawyers suddenly became stupid on the screen, or the criminals suddenly became smarter.” The second is not at all, and the first in cinema happens all the time, and the American is no exception. You need to tighten the complexity of the plot to the intelligence of young children. And the audience there.
“Sooner or later a two-faced man forgets who he really is.” Especially if he is a typical Hollywood film hero, forced to take out the lack of professionalism and intelligence of screenwriters.
"The scandal of the investigation." Oh, yes, for the schizophrenic-sanctimonious states, there is no doubt that sex of grown-up boys and girls on camera, and even with the confusion of the Church in this matter - it is so ticklish-prohibited! It's a long way off! Just the Last Circle of Dante Hell.
Best role in the career of as yet unknown Edward Norton. An unexpected and impressive transformation before our eyes.” Are you serious? Any actor, without straining, will play no worse. Your humble servant included.
"One of the best films in its genre." In the heat of the population?
Resume: Save your time.
I give you one point for almost nothing. For the budget invested in the scenery and location.
Sometimes fate can play a cruel joke with you when choosing movies from the section “If you liked this movie, don’t miss it”. The film, as expected, is very similar to the movie “Suspicious persons”, and knowing this, the ending was expected for me, and for the thriller it is disastrous, but I will try not to take into account this point.
The film keeps in suspense, although it can not be said that it is rife with action. Lead actors Edward Norton and Richard Gere perfectly fit into their roles. They revealed their characters and showed the viewer their characters. It is impossible not to mention Laura Linney, but she still went by the wayside. I don’t remember the other actors at all.
This is not to say that the film was a revelation of the judicial system or that the ending is striking in its twists, but to capture the spirit of the viewer and keep him in suspense for a while the film is capable. Again, if you compare with “Suspicious persons”, then this picture lacked action. However, it cannot be said that the viewer will be bored.
The best word for a movie is not bad. Of the outstanding can be noted the game of Norton, but to note somehow the plot (the main thing in the thriller) I can not. Recommended for fans of thrillers, most likely they will not be disappointed.
The first really big role, one of my favorite actors, is Edward Norton. And so far, the only one for which he received an award, not a nomination! The film that imho, you need to see everyone, at least because of the stunning acting duo, and the most fascinating plot.
The plot is replete with subtle hints about the outcome of the picture, which you will see far from the first time. By this, the “maps” are revealed in very detail, the plot construction goes systematically without knocking down the turns into a pile, and without smearing them on the film floor. I do not want to reveal the subtleties, because such a delicious, you need to anticipate. The film is one of the "underestimated" by society and rental, so I think very few comrades watched it - a good viewing! Scenario 2 of 2.
The frame is clear, there is no fog and haze characteristic of thrillers of that period of cinema, do not expect special effects - pay more attention to faces, plans, conventions. Video, effects, operator - 1.5 out of 2x
Timing, directing - a little clumsy, but it comes to me, as I wrote from beginning to end, everything goes smoothly without pressure, the general atmosphere is pressing. Everything is logical, everything is pleasant, there is no understatement - the director tried to fame - perhaps his best work. 1.5 out of 2x
The music is a bit common, monotonous, there is a bit of a highlight, but compared to other works by James Newton Howard, in this film he is clearly stingy. 1 of 2x.
Already graying Gere, still a young Norton (at the age of 27), is a great acting duo, which is pleasantly shaded by Laura Linney - very cute looking simpleton, against the background of Gere. Play actors exactly to a note, on a five - or rather 2 of 2.
In summary, you will see a great movie that you want to see more!
8 out of 10
“No one can wear a mask on his face for a long time, be one for himself and another for others – the truth will eventually be revealed.” (Nathaniel Hawthorne)
Already from the very first frames of the tape, the intrigued viewer feels that he will have a very interesting 2 hours of screen time. From the first seconds we get acquainted with the main character of the picture in the face of a successful, cynical and rather unscrupulous lawyer Martin Weil. And immediately we hear an interesting dialogue, from which we learn that for our hero there is no exact definition of such a fundamental, in my opinion, concept as truth. Why? Because, according to him, the truth is not alone. And each person has his own version of this, or rather, the illusion of truth. Pretty cynical, don't you think?
I didn't kill him! You have to believe me!
- I shouldn't believe in anything. I don't care, I'm just your lawyer and that's all.
In the cruel and vicious world of slut lawyers, rotten through and through by their own indifference, the guilt/innocence of the client matters absolutely nothing. They don't care about it. Fees and the existence of the concept of “presumption of innocence” play a decisive role for them. Until proven guilty, they have a chance to prove otherwise. Martin doesn't need more. This is the most shocking thing.
The creators of the film competently explain to the viewer that the trial for everything, a cruel game. It does not matter that the subconscious mind (which is more honest than we are) does not give sleep at night. Is that a big price to pay for success? Indeed, what is human life when excited, agitated judicial defenders and prosecutors play their games, getting tremendous pleasure from the show and from their roles in it?! Figures are placed on the board. Pawns will fly first.
Why play for money when you can play with people's lives?
The phrase flies from the language of the main character quite easily and is, in my opinion, key. This is the main idea of the film. Gregory Hoblid shows the viewer, rather slowly and intriguingly, that people are victims of the justice system. "Two victims and no suspects." One story, different interpretations. And whose truth or “illusion of truth” we hear depends entirely on who is stronger at the moment, whose move is more successful. And as long as the millstone systems work in this way, man is more defenseless than a kitten. And this sense makes the film really scary, makes goosebumps run down the back. After all, nothing other than human life is at stake, but by and large, very few people care.
The film seemed rather controversial. At least in terms of the fact that a saturated and arrogant lawyer believes in the good. And with all the abominations he has committed and will continue to do, Martin Vale believes in people. But who knows that all people lie, the only question is how talented they are. The fact of the existence of such a blind faith, the director tries to prove to himself, and at the same time to the viewer, that humanity is not a completely lost race, it still deserves salvation. But, to be honest, not too convincing.
Even more perplexing is the fact of the simultaneous reality and unreality of what is happening on the screen. On the one hand, the scenario is striking in its realism. The reason for the trial is quite the place to be in reality, but the farce that is played out in the courtroom leaves the viewer no doubt that we are still in front of the film. For all its inconsistency and lack of external dynamics, Hoblid’s film does not lose the audience’s attention for a second, but rather, on the contrary, slowly but surely pumps up suspense.
However, the play of the young and fantastically talented Edward Norton as Aaron Stampler is a real highlight of this film. The master game makes the viewer doubt whether a different person stars as Aaron and Roy?! How can a stuttering, humble and so quiet boy transform into a brutally aggressive, fist-waving man?! Good question. In a couple of years, matured and even stronger, Edward Norton will play a somewhat similar and no less interesting role in his career. But that’s another story altogether.
Primitive fear is a tightly tailored psychological thriller that will appeal not only to fans of this genre (although I count myself among them), but also to a fairly wide and versatile audience. An exemplary court thriller of the late 90s, when films were shot according to all the canons of the genre, not being a secondary sample. A dashingly twisted intrigue, a judicial confrontation of bright personalities, a beautiful acting and no less entertaining, and for someone an unexpected ending - few elements of a truly high-quality film.
P.S. All people lie.
The story revolves around the murder of the Archbishop. The suspect is a young man named Aaron (Edward Norton), who was close to the archbishop. This case is taken by lawyer Martin Weil (Richard Gere). He needs to save the young man from the death penalty at any cost to prove once again that he is a brilliant lawyer, and whether the murderer is a young man or not, he does not care.
The film is truly intrigued by its events. Events are revealed smoothly so that the viewer does not get confused, but follows and experiences, without even thinking about boredom.
The acting of the actors shocked! Well, what could we expect with such a cast: Richard Gere, Edward Norton, Laura Linney and so on.
Richard Gere on the level played a lawyer who is ready to make any sacrifice to win the case. Although this actor is one of the best for me, Edward Norton in this film “outplayed” him in all respects.
Edward Norton played 10 of 10 in his debut film, which gave him a good boost in cinema. Edward was able to play a two-faced (both literally and figuratively) man. As for the game, I will say: “I believed him.”
Laura Linney did well in her role as an impregnable lawyer named Janet Venable. Short and clear: she played great.
The end of the film is the most important thing in the film. It's so unpredictable that when I found out what was going to happen in the end, it was like an ice floe hit me. Good work of the whole team, which includes the director, screenwriters, editor, composer, actors. All these people were able to create a good atmosphere of the film and surprise the audience.
Recommended for viewing!
9 out of 10
A high-quality thriller, during which it is interesting to watch the characters play, their actions and deeds. Personally, I really liked the film, it made me watch it without stopping and follow the developments, worrying about Aaron with all my heart and soul.
The film is beautiful in its simplicity. But is it that simple? Nope. Absolutely not. A plot that, by the end of the film and some chunks of it, brings the picture to a close, makes you think to yourself, "Aha." But now he's going to do that and get that result. 50% of your thoughts are right. Unfortunately, you won’t see the ending you want to see. You will see a completely discouraging, completely knocking you down the ending of the film. You might ask what that could be in her. And here's Edward Norton's game.
Yeah. He is the leading person in this film, and let Richard Gere is the main character of the picture. I don't think so. I'm actually evaluating it for Norton. He’s got the whole movie on him. His image, his facial expressions and movements make you think, think and decide what to do. Yes, Gere plays well and professionally, but does not pull, no matter how regrettable.
The film is striking only in the denouement. In the rest, he does not please either the camera work or the director. So why 10? The same Edward Norton. He is.
The image he creates makes you believe. Yeah. You really believe him. 10 out of 10 and without question, the film found its place on my masterpiece shelf.
The whole movie is led by Richard Gere’s charismatic hero. He is confident, confident, he is an expert in his field, clearly in his place. The beautiful remarks about the nature of justice and truth that run through the film point to the film’s core conflict: ' Who has the truth?' And the whole movie, we wonder, where is it true? The plot of the film competently throws us from one version to another, making us doubt, worry, think over the situation again and again from different sides. And together with us, the same experience the characters of the film, where the problems of the detective story are multiplied by their personal problems and interests.
As a result, thanks to the excellent performance of the actors (note Richard Gere and Edward Norton), the thoughtful development of the plot, which constantly makes you wonder, as well as that deep question ' What is true?' which does not leave after the film, ' Primitive Fear' deserves from my side a very good assessment and all kinds of recommendations for viewing.
“Edward Nortan has been and has been a joy to me all my life, so I don’t understand why his career, in my opinion, doesn’t match the level he set at the beginning of his acting life.” Most likely, my comparisons are abstract, but still in my head they have been settled for a long time, I thought about the fact that Norton in the late 90s starred in three cult films, and more specifically “Fight Club”, in which, although his awards were bypassed, but this film, even more so than “Primitive Fear” and “American History X” was remembered by the whole world forever. He first won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in Primitive Fear. And after American History X, he was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor. I think it was some kind of career peak, of course, it is rude and unjustified to say that his further career subsided, but personally in my perception I isolate him in this way. And nowadays, Matthew McConaughey is experiencing his peak career, which, by the way, is one-year old, so the thought creeps in, because Norton did not become worse, why he stopped being invited to really large-scale films, and about McConaughey, I think he was convincing before, but now his top, this is the fate of actors in the cinema.
Primitive Fear is one of the most powerful films in its genre. The film fully meets all the criteria set to meet the best, excellent selection of actors, tension throughout the film and classics for films of this genre powerful ending. Only what makes it the best is that the ending of the film is higher than expected, it resembles the case with the film “Game” by Fincher, those who watched that masterpiece will understand what I am talking about.
More specifically, the story of the film is like this. An insecure young man at the age of nineteen is seen and caught almost at the scene of the crime, for the murder of the archbishop, who, as Aaron himself puts it, is his second father. Aaron claims, despite all the evidence, that he did not commit this crime. As a lawyer appears Martin Weil, who is considered one of the most successful lawyers. The case lends a piquant moment when visawi, meaning prosecutor, is Laura Linney, Martin's ex-girlfriend. The case is expected to be ardent and without any unexpected turns, but as you can imagine, they are waiting for you eagerly.
Let's face it, it's a great movie. An interesting plot that tells about the trial of a young guy who was brilliantly played by Norton, who is accused of committing the brutal murder of the Bishop. The defendant will have to defend the lawyer, played by Richard Gere.
Probably the most important thing after the interesting plot and the great ending, which surprised me, in this film, of course, Norton. He played brilliantly. His character suffered from a split personality, and therefore, Edward had a difficult but very interesting task - essentially playing two characters, but without changing costumes or makeup. And I must say that he coped with this task very well. I read that DiCaprio had been planned for the role before him. I don’t know if Leo was as professional as Norton.
Norton’s brilliant performance is also indicated by the fact that at various awards and festivals this film was presented in nominations for Edward’s acting. He failed to win an Oscar, but he took the Golden Globe.
In general, all the actors in the film play well. I can’t say that Gere did anything special, but it’s nice to watch him play.
The plot is wonderful, and these two hours fly by unnoticed, and in the end I want this movie to continue.
I think this picture is a must see. Not to say that there is something brilliant, but spend time watching a quality interesting movie is worth it.
Interested in the work of Richard Gere (a truly great actor), watched the film 'Primitive Fear'.
'What is it like to protect murderers and criminals?'
The film presents several storylines, equal to human torment, destinies. The relationship between Martin Weil (Richard Gere) and Marty (Laura Linney). Church-state connection. Corruption, poverty, priests - everything is intertwined and interconnected!
Edward Norton (Aaron) brilliantly played the role of a suspect, to the very end you doubt, where is the truth in this really nefarious case?
10 out of 10! Bravo!