MPAA Rating: R/Genre: Legal Mystery Crime Thriller/Stars: Richard Gere, Edward Norton, Laura Linney, John Mahoney, Alfre Woodard, Frances McDormand, Terry O’Quinn, Andre Braugher, Steven Bauer, Joe Spano, Tony Plana, Azalea Davila, Stanley Anderson, Maura Tierney, Jon Seda, Reg Rogers/Runtime: 130 minutes

If there is one group of people who we as individuals might cross paths with at some point or another during the course of our daily lives yet are also people who (try as hard as it might) I don’t think I can fully comprehend, it would have to be the group known as lawyers/attorneys. Not because mine keeps erroneously (I think) sending me please pay me now notifications with the same frequency as, oddly enough, ads from the people at the Publisher’s Clearing House when I know I paid him last year. Nor is it because I have never quite been able to comprehend how you could bill a client for the act of merely thinking about them and their case whilst engaged in the services of the bathroom at a restaurant. Rather, it’s because for all the good that they can provide our world with, I will never quite understand who in their right mind would want to spend their life awake for at least 12-15 hours a day and spend a great majority of that time engaged in the act of arguing with people about other people or things those other people are *alleged* to have done (until proven one way or the other of course). To me dear reader that just sounds less like a career path and more like either a reason to really invest in a lifetime Starbucks card or an organic (to say nothing of pay-worthy) extension of how, when we as individuals are younger, there always were those among our respective age groups who really seemed to love making a debate out of just about EVERYTHING with ANYONE who would be willing (or was merely in their unfortunate proximity) to listen. Perhaps you know someone like that. If so, and they didn’t become a lawyer, please express to them my deepest condolences because they really missed their calling in life. All jokes aside dear reader, there is no denying that for as seemingly clueless as I am to the world of lawyers, attorneys, and over-indulgent billing hours there is also no denying that this is very much a world that has given the realm of cinema some extremely good fare over the years. Yet nestled in amongst A Few Good Men, 12 Angy Men (both the original and the 1997 made-for-TV remake), 1982’s The Verdict, 1959’s Anatomy of a Murder, and 1993’s The Firm to name but a few examples there are a few slices of cinema that sadly do not get nearly as much attention as their peers in this group. The reason I mention this dear reader is because the slice of cinema I happen to be reviewing for you today, 1996’s Primal Fear, is definitely a perfect example of such a film. This is because, although it might seem to be just another run of the mill courtroom legal thriller, the truth is that with the aid of solid work on both sides of the camera Primal Fear is an underrated yet taut entry in its respective genre that is sure to leave you hooked and guessing right up until the very end.

The plot is as follows: An adaptation of a 1993 novel of the same name by William Diehl and taking us to no less a locale than the Windy City (or Chicago for those of you not in the know), Primal Fear gets its puzzler of a narrative underway by introducing us to our main character by the name of Martin Vail. A man who, among other things possibly worth knowing about him, is a distinct member of that iconic group of people who walk this Earth known as attorneys (or piranha/leaches dependent on your perspective on that particular career path in life). Yet, despite being someone whose work should revolve around the law in as honest of a manner as possible, we quickly see that’s not entirely the case with Mr. Vail. Rather, he is an individual who chose to go into law not because he believes in truth, justice, and everything that comes with it (a fact he makes quite cynically clear in the first 10 minutes of the movie), but because the clients pay extremely well and because he loves being the center of attention. In short dear reader: Mr. Martin Vail is an egotistical and arrogant individual who has only one person in this world he cares about and that is none other than himself. A way of life that, despite being extremely successful at his chosen profession, has also resulted in the man having few friends and more enemies than most people are unfortunate enough to acquire in five lifetimes let alone one. Yet, for all the high-profile cases that our “hero” has chosen to take on, it isn’t long into our story before one comes up that could be a, if not the, defining case to his career (and when you’re the kind of person who has defended a noted mob boss I guess that’s saying something). It seems that a fairly beloved and admired member of the Catholic Church in Chicago, one Archbishop Rushman, has been the victim of a particularly brutal homicide, followed by post-mortem mutilation of his corpse, and the police have arrested a 19-year-old altar boy from Kentucky named Aaron Stampler in connection with the killing due to the latter having fled the scene of the crime with blood all over him. Astutely realizing that the publicity from this particular trial would put the attorney who defends this meek young man in the news for quite a lengthy period of time, we see our attention-seeking attorney make it clear that he must be this young man’s legal representation even if he has to provide his services to him free of charge (or pro bono as the legal community would have me refer to it). However, with a pretty hefty pile of evidence squarely against his client to say nothing of a former lover handling things for the prosecution, does our legal eagle have what it takes to win this case or is this one time where he’ll find himself in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons? That I shall leave for you to uncover for yourself dear reader…..

Now right off, it should be noted that the work done behind the camera on this particular cinematic case is fairly solid all things considered. This starts with the work done at the helm by Gregory Hoblit (1998’s Fallen, 2007’s Fracture, 2000’s Frequency) and it is a sheer delight. Indeed what Hoblit manages to do remarkably well here is manage to conjure up for us right from the word go (or so it seems) an ominous atmosphere with more than a hint of sinister menace over the entirety of the film and then proceed to maintain and keep it in place beautifully up until the moment that the screen cuts to black and the credits begin to roll. As a result, not only are the expected moments such as the attack on the Archbishop, which incidentally is actually handled and shot with a degree of welcome restraint to it with only the extremely visceral and bloody aftermath being presented to us, bring a degree of suspense and unease to them, but this also manages to extend to moments that are a lot more quiet in nature including a scene between Vail and state attorney Shaughnessy at a restaurant that starts out seemingly amicable only to quickly turn chillingly low-key hostile and threatening respectively. We also see that this slice of cinema manages to possess a wonderful screenplay by Steve Shagan and Ann Biderman respectively. Indeed not only does this slice of cinema’s dynamic screenwriting duo do a terrific job of being incredibly faithful to the literary source material that this film is an adaptation of and making the cast of characters three-dimensional individuals rather than existing as mere archetypes that we have all seen a million times before, but they also manage to really hone in on the main themes in the book which deal with both how duplicitous people can truly be as well as the duality that exists in all of us respectively. As a result, yes this slice of cinema has more than its fair share of thrills and suspense, but it also gives you something to ponder over long after the movie has ended. This slice of cinema also manages to possess top-tier work from the brilliant Michael Chapman (1978’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers, 1976’s Taxi Driver, 1980’s Raging Bull, and 1996’s Space Jam among others) in the cinematography department. Indeed not only does Chapman do a masterful job of brilliantly showcasing for an audience the gritty urban landscapes of Chicago right down to the hallways of a courthouse or the roaring fires of a homeless encampment under a bridge, but it also skillfully focuses on the characters and their interactions with each other in such a way that it helps to reinforce the already-present tension and suspense immensely well. Suffice it to say that when you also incorporate into the mix wonderful work from the editing department as headed by David Rosenbloom and a terrific musical accompaniment by gifted composer James Newton Howard, it’s clear that the plot might be a bit run of the mill at times, but the majority of the work done behind the camera is certainly anything but.

Of course, the other component that can help any film either work on the level it’s supposed to or fold in on itself like a house of cards during a California earthquake usually comes in the form of the performances given by the cast of players in front of the camera respectively. Thankfully for this particular slice of cinema the work done by its cast of talent definitely is able to match up to the quality of the work done by the team behind the camera beautifully well. Without a doubt in my mind this starts with Richard Gere in the lead role and honestly this is easily one of his five best performances (and yes that’s taking into account his performances in Pretty Woman, Chicago, and the 1980 sleaze classic American Gigolo). Indeed as Martin Vail, Gere does a terrific job at giving us a character that is someone who, between his smarmily arrogant demeanor and cynical outlook on his profession to say nothing of spotlight-craving obsession, is definitely a person who is difficult to root for especially when they’re the main character. With that in mind however, Gere does such a wonderful job at not only instilling in this guy a roguish charm, but also a hidden humanity that he drunkenly shows off during one of the more poignant moments in the film that you can’t help rooting for him as he tries his best to outplay the prosecution and win the day for his client. We also are treated to a terrific turn here from Laura Linney in the role of prosecuting attorney Janet Venable. Indeed Linney has long been an underrated talent and here she does a terrific job at giving us someone who is driven and determined to do whatever it takes to succeed on this case. Not just because of a prior history with Vail, but also to prove to her bosses (and maybe even herself a little bit) that she has what it takes to succeed in the same world that they tend to occupy. Far and away though, the definitive performance in this slice of cinema comes from none other than Edward Norton who, even more remarkably, was making his big screen debut here. Indeed this is a very tricky role to talk about for reasons that may or may not be spoilery in nature, but what I can say for sure is that Norton does a phenomenal job at portraying this young man in a way that is worthy of an audience’s sympathy yet refreshingly believable and even downright chilling at the same time. Suffice it to say that when you also factor in solid efforts from such screen dignitaries as Alfre Woodard as the no-nonsense judge overseeing the case, the always delightful John Mahoney (Martin Crane on the TV show Frasier among many other memorable roles) who is a brilliant mix of outwardly affable yet internally sinister as state attorney John Shaughnessy, Frances McDormand who does wonders with her 20-30 minutes of screentime as neuropsychologist Molly Arrington, the late yet underrated Andre Braugher (Capt. Holt from Brooklyn 99), Maura Tierney, Terry O’Quinn (John Locke from Lost), Joe Spano (Fornell from NCIS), Steven Bauer, and Tony Plana among others it’s clear that this slice of cinema might have a few potholes in its path, but this is one cast that definitely does what it can to make up for those and is by and large quite successful in its efforts to do so.

All in all and at the end of the day is Primal Fear a perfect jolt of cinematic suspense? Sadly no, but then again if you go into every movie expecting that then I think it’s safe to say that you are going to be leaving quite a few movies feeling more than just a tad bit on the disappointed side. With that being said however, is this the worst slice of cinema since Richard Gere took part in the infamous Movie 43, Laura Linney decided to be in the 2nd Michael Bay-produced Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie (I know; I couldn’t believe it either), or Edward Norton said “hey that Will Smith movie Collateral Beauty sure looks like it might be a great movie to act as a follow-up to my award-nominated work in 2014’s Birdman!” (It absolutely wasn’t. Not by a long shot)?  Thankfully for all three of the aforementioned talents I can definitely say that this film is leaps and bounds better than those three colossal disappointments. To be sure, the majority of the story being told here is at points one that I am sure you will be able to predict what exactly is going to happen next. With that said though, the rest of the work done behind the camera is skillfully done at making this a truly taut and riveting sit right from the beginning and the work done in front of the camera (with particular regard to the performances given by both Richard Gere in one of the finest performances of his career and especially Edward Norton in his big screen debut) by a talented and dependable cast of players is nothing short of electrifying no matter how big or small their role in the story being told may be. Suffice it to say that if you want a hard-hitting courtroom drama then definitely check out either the 1957 or 1997 12 Angry Men as both in the opinion of this writer are great examples of that. On the other hand, if you want a genuinely thrilling and quite thought-provoking legal mystery thriller that is sure to keep you and your little gray cells guessing right up until the very end then definitely give this one a shot. Just be sure when you do that not only do you watch closely, but above all that you definitely think twice if anyone by the name of Roy wants to sit down and watch it with you and whomever you decide to see it with. Not going to tell you why, but trust me when I say that you might definitely thank me later. Make of that what thou will dear reader. On a scale of 1-5 I give Primal Fear “96” a solid 4 out of 5.