Peur primale

Percutant. Étonnamment brutal dans certains détails pour un thriller grand public. Un film qui assure à tous les niveaux et dans lequel on découvre Edward Norton à ses débuts, lequel parvient, du haut de son rôle secondaire, à faire de l’ombre à la star établie qu’était à l’époque Richard Gere. Et cet état de fait correspond parfaitement au ton du film. Chapeau ! (20/01/2022)

Thanks to Norton's fascinating performances, it is a solid spectacle that disappoints in all other aspects. Gere's discussions on honor are futile, just like the courtroom scenes, and Laura Linney matures into a charismatic and likable woman several years later. Fortunately, the finale picks up momentum and reaches the ending I expected and wanted. Without moralistic lectures, it is a decent snack, but ultimately forgettable. (29/07/2007)

Although quite uninteresting thematically, in the end it is a solidly directed one-off from typical 1990s production. That is, during a time when Richard Gere was still a sensation and elegant, not playing tormented policemen or morally conflicted middle-aged men. Moreover, it is perhaps the first time that Edward Norton also appears on the big screen, playing his part phenomenally – though the entire screenplay, which relied primarily on his performance and role, was ultimately somewhat predictable. But this does not change the fact that the film is definitely worth seeing for those who enjoy lawyers and courtrooms, as there are several excellent scenes along those lines. (17/10/2010)

Very strong 4*. Thrillers set mostly in courtrooms may smack of boredom, but I have the best experience with them and I always enjoy watching them. Moreover, Primal Fear is one of the better films in this category. The plot is the kind that has been rehashed a hundred times, but it’s excellently executed and brilliantly supported by the truly great performance of Edward Norton. He literally shines here and, in my opinion, adds a different dimension to the concept of a movie psychopath. Of course, Richard Gere also deserves praise, he doesn’t disappoint in the lead role and portrays the character of the arrogant lawyer very well. The dialogue is tolerable and meaningful to a given extent, and although the story is rather tedious and flows along slowly, it’s easy to follow, and after watching it, the positives in the form of the actors and also the direction clearly prevail. (07/09/2011)

If there is something perfect that deserves a five-star rating about this film, it is definitely Edward Norton's performance in the role of a man accused of murdering a celebrity. In his debut, he showed immense potential with his talent and both critics and film viewers were amazed by him. He has certainly rightfully ranked among the most significant names of his acting generation. I have no problem with Richard Gere in the lead male role either, who is, although two or three levels worse than Norton, still good enough, and above all, Gere was perfectly cast in a role that he masterfully controls, and he has experience in portraying these types of self-confident elegant characters. However, what bothers me is the screenplay. It's the typical Hollywood construction that tries to manipulate the viewer as much as possible and prepares a "shocking" twist at the very end. That is exactly what pleases many film fans on the other hand. It's not about the fact that the perpetrator plans 20 moves ahead because every top chess player does that. It's rather about the fact that the brilliant plan counts on the reaction of many involved parties, which cannot be accurately predicted in reality, and if their reactions were to deviate even slightly from the assumptions, the perpetrator would end up in the electric chair very quickly. Not to mention that according to my indirect knowledge, this is not how the American justice system truly works. Overall impression: 65%. (16/06/2010)