So here's the problem. When this came out I wasn't a big Richard Gere fan and nobody knew who Edward Norton was so I skipped it. Five years later Norton teams up with Deniro in the score - throw in Brando for good measure, and I'm in. Who can guess my problem?
Norton phones in a split character which is revealed at the beginning, Deniro is doing one last job ... again, and the Score winds up being a predictable twisty "meh".
Now I go back and watch Primal Fear for the first time. Gere is really good (though still contemplatively smirking while no one's looking), and my guess is that Norton was great here (since this basically launched his career), but since I saw these two movies out of order, instead of simply appreciating the Score less than I already do, I get underwhelmed by the middle reveal and the twist ending of Primal Fear. This exact thing will probably never happen again, so not too big a deal, but frustrating none the less.
I have mixed feelings about this film too, but for different reasons. First, the title is so Hollywood. I can't think of another film where you can automatically see non-creative suits sitting around thinking, What should we call this 90's serial killer drama?
I watched it again for the first time in years, because a theater near me was showing Philip Seymour Hoffmann's film, and at one time, I thought Edward Norton was Hoffmann's closest competition. I didn't know (until reading here) that he stopped acting because directors think he's difficult to work with.
I guess you should always judge a film by the criteria you used when you first saw it, in the context of the era it was made. But even back in the serial killer-obsessed 90's, Primal Fear seemed better. Back then, I couldn't articulate exactly in what ways it was better, aside from Norton's performance. (It's of a piece with The Fugitive or No Way Out or any big-budget movie that starts with some high-society ball.)
Rewatching it, I see a tendency to root for Aaron not despite what he does but because of what he does. Considering we're supposed to regard him as a psychopath, he comes off as not very unlike Benedict Cumberbatch in "Sherlock," who kills people because he's a modern-day Clint. Stampler didn't have to go through all the trouble he takes to destroy a monster; he did a favor to society...or at least in 2014, that's how it seems.
Given that Primal Fear is an adaptation of a book written in 1993, which is also called Primal Fear, you can't really blame Hollywood for its title. Also, Stampler and Vail appear in two other books by William Diehl, so maybe reading the collection will help shed some light on these characters.
Agree that the name seems very generic. I didn't realize it was adapted by a book of the same name, but that's another thing that left me disinterested originally.
I have been disappointed in Norton's career arc. I'm interested to see how he does in the new Birdman movie. I'm also looking forward to that because it has a very Kaufmanesque look to it, at least from the trailer.