Review: Primal Fear (1996)


What started as a very interesting mystery film, turned out to be a complete disappointment for me. Primal Fear is full of flaws redeemed only by the astonishing acting of Edward Norton.

The main character is Martin Vail (Richard Gere), an attorney who believes that every defendant, no matter if he’s guilty or not, has the right to the best defense. When a 17-year-old boy is accused of murdering the city’s archbishop, Martin finds himself with a big case. Not only that, but he starts to believe that Aaron Stampler (Edward Norton) might be innocent after all. The fact that he has to face his ex in court makes the situation even more intense for Martin who is determined to uncover the case. As we move on we discover that things are a bit more complicated than we thought. So far, so good. An interesting film with an intriguing murder mystery case. From that point on though it only gets worse. I’m afraid I’ll have to give away the plot to explain why I didn’t like it so…


Aaron seems like a young troubled guy who is incapable of hurting anyone. He claims that he is innocent and that another person was there when the murder happened although he doesn’t know who. It is then revealed that Aaron suffers from multiple personality disorder and that another identity of him named Roy has killed the archbishop. Molly Arrington (Frances Mc Dormand), a psychologist that Martin hires, confirms this. Roy comes out whenever Aaron is scared or upset and when he’s off Aaron can’t remember a thing. When Martin discovers that, he manages to convince the court that Aaron is sick and wins the case, only to find out that Aaron Stampler was in fact sane and he was only pretending to be suffering from multiple personality disorder. It sounds like a great twisting plot right? Well, it could have been, but it is so full of plot holes that it becomes only annoying in the end:

  1. Anyone that knows about how courts work can see that the court scenes are unrealistic at the least
  2. Martin tries to convince the judge that Aaron is sick even though he hasn’t plead insanity from the beginning. Even he himself acknowledges that something like this is impossible. This could never happen in any respectable court. He tries anyway though and somehow succeeds.
  3. Aaron doesn’t remember Roy, he doesn’t even know of his existence. However Roy knows and remembers everything about Aaron. I’m not a psychologist, but doesn’t this sound a bit wrong?
  4. Ok, Roy manages to convince Martin that he is insane, but is it so easy to convince a psychologist? Shouldn’t Molly have realized that something was off?
  5. Aaron initially claims that there was a third person in the murder spot. He couldn’t have talked about Roy of course. So he’s either lying or there really was a third person and he could be very important. How is it that nobody thought of that?


The film was a complete mess. Apart from Norton, everyone else’s performance is more or less forgettable. I don’t know if it is a faithful adaptation of the book, but in any case the screenplay is appalling. I repeat, Edward Norton’s performance was the only good thing about this film and it definitely deserved the Oscar nomination, maybe even a win. This is also the only reason I wouldn’t recommend against watching the film.


Review: Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)


I have a tendency to check user reviews on IMDb before watching a film. I was surprised to see how divided people were for Birdman. Most of the reviews gave the film either 9-10 stars or 1 star. This made me want to watch the film even more and by the time I finished watching it, my faith in people had decreased by a little bit.

Birdman is brilliant and this is not just an opinion. I’m not saying that because I liked it too much (although I did), I didn’t even give it 10 stars. When I say it is brilliant, I mean that every aspect of the film is masterfully dealt with. Sublime acting, excellent cinematography, interesting and unconventional directing and a wonderfully original score. OK there wasn’t a fast-paced plot with lots of plot twists, but not every movie has to be like this. I was very surprised when I realized that one of the reviewers who gave the film a one-star rating, complained about the plot and suggested to the readers to go watch a Kubrick film instead. Well, Kubrick himself made movies with minimal plot which were nevertheless proved to be masterpieces (2001: A space Odyssey, Eyes Wide Shut). He once said: “A film is (or should be) more like music than fiction”. Films are supposed to make us think and feel, like music does. You can make a good song by adding story-like lyrics and you can make a good song by adding no lyrics at all. The same applies to movies. There are plot-driven masterpieces and there are not-plot-driven masterpieces. Birdman is one of the latter.

I don’t want to spoil the film. I just want to say that I would highly recommend it for anyone, except people who only want to see pointless action and superhero films. Birdman will make you think, reflect on similar situations you might have experienced and discover the other side of actors and films.

By no means is it a film for everyone. I can absolutely understand people not liking it. There is not a single film that appeals to everyone. What I cannot understand though is people calling it a bad movie. I really feel that it deserved all the oscars it won.