Is this worth seeing just for Edward Norton's performance?

This movie is good all around with all the actors. I've never been a huge Gere fan, mainly because everyone used to gush over him. I've started watching his movies here and there, and am realizing I didn't give him a chance. He's really a gifted actor. I remember this when it first came out, I was in my early 20's, and I loved it. Edward Norton was great. I, at that time, though was excited to see Maura Tierney (I liked her from News Radio) and Andre Braugher (whom I believe to be one of the best, albeit underrated, actors of my lifetime) in it. Laura Linney left an impression on me. John Mahonney is always an added treat. I loved him in Frasier, but he was sleazy here, but he does it well. John Seda was starting to come up, then, and Steven Bauer was a big name, then, too. Everyone was good here.

Sadly, yes.

When you're green, you're growing, but when you're ripe, you rot.

"Edward Norton was good, but I'm honestly not so bowled over by him as others seem to be. What was great about his performance was his natural presence and assuredness in the role, especially for someone making his first screen appearance. but I thought his gear changes were a bit laboured and clunky -- he was kind of capital-A Acting throughout this movie, and it was all a bit too mechanical. He's capable of wonderful performances (like Fight Club or American X or Rounders) but I personally don't think this is actually one of them. "

That's a very interesting observation. I don't think it was mechanical but it's true that it did feel like Norton was giving an acting class or exhibition throughout the movie however it was still an unbelievable performance & meshed very well with the story. He has this amazing innate talent to play any role naturally (as you pointed out for this film) and genuinely.

I'd rate this movie, Fight Club & American History X as his best ever performances. It's almost scary how good of an actor he is & he's still quite young.

"Laura Linney, I thought was good in this too. She's one of my favourite American screen actresses, and I can't think of when I last saw her miss nailing a role, and she did well here. I just think it's a pity that her character, as she was scripted, was pretty much one-note and without depth. "

I didn't like Laura Linney in the movie. I actually thought she was mechanical, but as you noted, it could've been because of the way her character was written.

"And Richard Gere did a great job, I thought, of holding the movie together. If he hadn't done such a solid job of playing such a conceited, cocky egotist without bunging on obvious acting tricks to score the character notes, then Edward Norton's more obvious ticks wouldn't have had anything to bounce off. As an actor myself, and fascinated by the process of a character holding the space for others (how hard it can sometimes be and how important it is), I think I admired his performance the most in this film, even though he didn't get to let off any pyrotechnics."

Interesting & well written analysis but in my opinion I don't think Richard Gere's performance was so good that it held the movie together. He did however pull off the narcissism, egotism & arrogance of Martin Vail very well.

I admire Norton's performance considerably more because his role had far more depth & was far more challenging to act out. And as it was his first major movie there was no previous experience to draw back on!

His performance is great. This movie takes a while to get going, but once it does, it's really good. It gets better and better the longer it goes on. The ending is the icing on the cake.