Primal Fear

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

Been a while since I made a "What does everyone think of *this* movie" topic, so I figured I'd do another.

 

This movie was made in '96, but it *still* holds up against some of the movies today, in terms of sheer awesomeness. It was Norton's first film, and his performance earned a Golden Globe award and an Academy Award nomination for best supporting actor. Not to mention I made three icons from the movie [1, 3, and 5 in the second row of my sig]

 

So........what does everyone think of *this* movie?

[Guest franchise632]

This is one of my all time favorite movies. Its been on Cinemax alot lately too which is awesome. This is one movie that I actually liked Richard Gere in. Edward Norton was great and this really propelled his career and showed his talent.

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

On Cinemax? DAMMIT! I only have Showtime!

 

The only way I could tape this from the library-rental tape was to play it at 29 volume level....which is two notces down from full blast. And even THEN it tapes low on my tape. And before anyone asks the "Why don'tcha just buy the tape?" question, I'll answer: 1)I'm broke, and 2)There's too much I'd fast forward through.

Edited April 26, 2003 by Yuna_Firerose

[Guest The Upright Man]

On Cinemax? DAMMIT! I only have Showtime!

 

The only way I could tape this from the library-rental tape was to play it at 29 volume level....which is two notces down from full blast. And even THEN it tapes low on my tape. And before anyone asks the "Why don'tcha just buy the tape?" question, I'll answer: 1)I'm broke, and 2)There's too much I'd fast forward through.

What did you mean when you said "There's too much I'd fast forward through."

 

I should also add that unless you’re a hobo or a jerk, stealing is wrong. It’s especially wrong to steal from libraries. I am disappointed in you.

Edited April 26, 2003 by The Upright Man

[moral suasion 0]

I agree with franchise. Primal Fear is the only movie that I think Richard Gere is good in.

 

I think that Primal Fear is the most elite 90s crime thriller.

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

On Cinemax? DAMMIT! I only have Showtime!

 

The only way I could tape this from the library-rental tape was to play it at 29 volume level....which is two notces down from full blast. And even THEN it tapes low on my tape. And before anyone asks the "Why don'tcha just buy the tape?" question, I'll answer: 1)I'm broke, and 2)There's too much I'd fast forward through.

What did you mean when you said "There's too much I'd fast forward through."

 

I should also add that unless you’re a hobo or a jerk, stealing is wrong. It’s especially wrong to steal from libraries. I am disappointed in you.

I'm not stealing from libraries. I'm simply recording from "Primal Fear" for my newly created 'Edward Norton' tape.

 

And the parts I fast forward through are almost all the out-of-court scenes with the prosecutor, and pretty much all the time they waste on the useless romance sub-angle between the prosecutor and the defense attorney. I mean, do we even *need* that? Of course, maybe that's why I liked

Spoiler (Highlight to Read):

Roy choking her in the final scene

so much. Edited April 26, 2003 by Yuna_Firerose

[Guest red_file]

Primal Fear's one of those movies where I was a sucker for the gimmick. Had the movie ended differently, I more than likely would've viewed the entire movie as pretty much a waste, but because of that little twist (the "We was dancin'" bit always gets me), it's a movie I enjoy quite a bit. Of course, I haven't seen the movie in a number of years (probably since '97/'98) so I might merely be blocking out some stuff that would annoy me now (I have the sneaking suspicious Gere would piss me off to no end).

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

I think the movie was supposed to be about Gere's character, but Norton just fuckin' OWNED every scene.

 

(I have the sneaking suspicious Gere would piss me off to no end)

Then enjoy Roy slamming him into the window pane...again...and again...and again...

[Guest red_file]

I think the movie was supposed to be about Gere's character, but Norton just fuckin' OWNED every scene.

No doubt. And the character arc of Gere's character (the swindler finding he does indeed have a heart only to discover that he himself was been swindled) was interesting and worthwhile. But, yeah, it's a bit like Silence of the Lambs where the story was all about Starling, but all anyone ever remembers is Lector. Had Gere been a better actor...

 

(I have the sneaking suspicious Gere would piss me off to no end)

Then enjoy Roy slamming him into the window pane...again...and again...and again...

 

I enjoyed that the first time, too.

[Guest Lethargic]

I'm SHOCKED, that I disagree with everybody again. haha I found the movie to be vastly over-rated. I liked the movie on first viewing but I didn't think it held up too good on repeat viewings. I never see the big deal about the cock smoking that goes on anytime an actor plays a dual identity role. It's kinda like when anybody plays a retard. Anybody that plays a retarded person always gets tons of smoke blown up their ass. Same thing happens with roles like Norton's. Plus, the ending wasn't all that shocking. (Granted, anytime a movie like that comes out all you hear about is how the ending will shock you so you go into EXPECTING a twist so it's not so shocking to you.) But it wasn't hard to figure out simply due to what red_file said, WITHOUT that shocking ending the movie was pointless and would've been a waste. It was the only possible ending that the movie could've had to take it from being nothing to being something. So as soon as he started acting crazy I figured that's what was coming. Not that the movie gave it away or I figured anything out, it just seemed the only logical conclusion it could've had to have a satisfying ending.

[Guest red_file]

I think that in another time you could've ended the film without the twist -- simply have it be a variation of the "hooker with a heart of gold" story; i.e. the heartless laywer finds his humanity and does the right thing for the right reasons for once -- and it might've been satisfying. Perhaps if the film had been made in the 40s or 50s. But, yeah, in the time we live it, having a film end that innocently would certainly not have been satisfying.

 

It's kinda like when anybody plays a retard. Anybody that plays a retarded person always gets tons of smoke blown up their ass.

 

I've always had trouble understanding that myself. Watching I Am Sam, I kept thinking that there wasn't much to Sean Penn's role. I even have trouble understanding the praise heaped on Hoffman in Rainman, but I'm in the minority on that one.

 

The only instance where I found an actor portraying a retard good was in Charly, and that had more to do with the fact that Robertson was able to keep the same character basically throughout the rise and fall of his intelligence; Charly was always Charly regardless of his intelligence. I never got that with other retarded characters.

 

Same thing happens with roles like Norton's

 

I'd disagree, if only because I found the Roy character so appealing. Norton, imo, deserves the praise he gets for Roy, though there really wasn't much to Aaron.