What’s it about?

Martin Vail is the sort of lawyer who makes us pedestrian solicitors sick – he’s handsome, talented, fearless, and media friendly (and has a great head of hair). If that’s not enough, he’s tougher than most cops and likes nothing better than chasing after the bad guys. Most of the lawyers we know will only chase ambulances!

This is the movie based on the William Diehl book, which was a pretty exciting read. The movie’s no slouch in the thrills department either. Partly this is due to the sensational nature of the crime – a Chicago archbishop is slashed and bashed. The twist, though, is a beauty – we think we’ve caught the killer red handed, but as the movie progresses, all is not necessarily as it seems. Here at Law in the Lounge we’re not prepared to even hint at the twist, but believe us, it’s well worth the wait.

This is a case made for the formidable Martin Vail – it will be conducted in the full glare of publicity, just the way he likes it, and it’s going to be a tough call to get his client off. The court room scenes are excellent – not too realistic, of course, but who cares when the entertainment is being delivered at a blinding speed.

The pluses

It’s the plot that gets you, and that’s always a good start for a movie. A star can cover up a lot of deficiencies, but if the plot is thin, there will always be a letdown. This movie brings constant surprises, and just when you think you’ve got it pinned down, it jumps out with another shock.

It is especially good the way the movie places us in the centre of opposing forces – the church choir and a gruesome murder; the highest echelons of respectable society and the worst corruption. We veer between good and evil, and as in the best thriller movies, it quickly becomes clear that the two can easily become confused. This is another film where morality, not the streets, are the main battleground, and in general that makes for the more interesting action.

The minuses

The movie can’t quite help itself going over the edge of believability when it comes to the political conspiracy that begins to emerge as Vail digs beneath the surface of respectability in the circles of the dead archbishop’s friends. It’s hard to believe that these sorts of goings-on could have continued for so long without discovery.

If you don’t like movie violence, we suggest you avoid the actual murder scene at the beginning – fast forward and the worst is over for the rest of the movie.

We would like to have seen less of Gere and more of Norton – that’s what you get when a star is pitted against a newcomer!

The legal point

We don’t want to give away the plot, but what more does the prosecution have to prove when defendant is caught with blood all over him? And, on the other hand, how can the defendant be shown to have suffered some sort of mental incapacity that meant he didn’t know what he was doing? And how can you tell if he’s faking it?

Sometimes it is fairly clear that a defendant is mentally incapable of dealing with a court case – this is what lawyers call "fitness to plead". This means the defendant should not face the judgement of the court, because he doesn’t understand the judicial process and it would be unfair to make him face a trial. This usually results in the defendant being placed in a mental institution at the "Governor’s Pleasure" – that is, he can’t get out until the Governor says so!

Aaron, the defendant in "Primal Fear", spends endless hours with a psychiatrist who delves into his state of mind. So faking it is not going to be straightforward. To be relieved of the responsibility for a crime, you have to show a real disturbance of normal mental functioning, although it doesn’t matter what the cause is (so it can be a temporary form of insanity brought on by a trauma – it’s what you experienced at the time the crime took place that’s important).

What if the defendant is very confused, or not sure what happened or why he committed the crime? In that case it might be argued that he had a "diminished responsibility" – that means that the defendant’s responsibility for the crime is substantially impaired. In some places this is a partial defence to murder.

Who put it together?

This movie is the directorial debut of Gregory Hoblit, one of the brains behind some of the best television dramas of all time. How would you like to have "Hill Street Blues", "L.A. Law", and "NYPD Blue" on your CV? The movie has the feel of a feature length episode of "L.A. Law", with more attention to production values and a talented cast.

The script is written by Steve Shagan and Ann Bidderman, and they too could have been recruited from the stable of those television shows – the writing is taut but does not have the suspense of a "Silence of the Lambs", in other words, a lot like television.

Who’s who?

This is a star turn for Richard Gere. Unfortunately you tend to think of Gere more for who he is than the parts he has played. He’s become almost a caricature – the Buddhist who lives in a mansion and exhorts an Oscars crowd to send positive vibes to the Chinese over their treatment of Tibetans (a moment that was calculated to send billions of viewers running for something to settle their stomachs). It seems he would prefer to discuss "states of bliss" than the state of Hollywood – fair enough, but we’re not really interested in lessons in enlightenment from movie stars, are we? "Primal Fear" is about the illusion of truth – need we say more about the star?

Gere began his show business career as an understudy in "Grease" (understandable, given all that hair). He made some good early films, particularly "Days of Heaven", "Looking for Mr Goodbar" and the underrated "American Gigolo" (and didn’t he look the part!). "An Officer And A Gentleman" was a huge hit – who can forget that closing scene with Debra Winger? Things dropped off after that, but he hit in a big, big way with "Pretty Woman", a feature that grossed almost half a billion dollars. A couple of years later he married supermodel Cindy Crawford – now over – that may turn out to be his last greatest role!

Even though she hasn’t got much of a part here, we have to say something about the wonderful Frances Mcdormand, who deservedly won an Academy Award in 1997 for "Fargo" as the pregnant police officer Gunderson. If you saw that movie, you would be surprised to now she has been in twenty or so movies. She is closely associated with the Coen brothers, the writing/directing/producing team – she’s appeared in their films and married one of them, Joel Coen. Before that she received an Academy Award nomination for "Mississippi Burning" (a very good film). Since winning her Oscar she has acted in the Australian movie "Paradise Road" and "Talk of Angels".

The performances

Edward Norton is quite brilliant as the defendant Aaron Stampler – in fact, he steals the film. This must have been a difficult part to cast, and though we can’t tell you the reason, it will become apparent before too long (we don’t want to give away too much). Norton received an Academy Award nomination for this role. We guarantee you will not forget this performance, especially after you discover where it’s going!

Richard Gere is the sort of actor you love or hate – we’ve got representatives of both camps here at Law in the Lounge. But often his deficits are due to his poor choice of film – here he is handed one of his better roles, and it shows. Gere fits the bill as the slick, ambitious and very cynical lawyer Martin Vail. It’s because he’s so sickeningly confident that we take real pleasure in his fall – Gere just looks like someone you’d like to see trip himself up.

Frances McDormand has a fairly thankless task in this film – she’s the psychologist who must undertake the analysis of a disturbed young man, and then react when things do not go as expected. This is the sort of part in which a really good actor can excel, and McDormand is just that – she will bring many great performances to the screen before she’s done. But essentially she doesn’t have enough to do here, which is a real waste.

Our verdict

At the start of this movie, when the defendant is found covered with the blood of the archbishop, this movie seems like it has nowhere to go. After all, Aaron is clearly guilty, isn’t he? It is a credit to the director that he keeps us hanging for much of the length of this movie.

This is not your average "whodunit". Yes, there are clues to follow, and yes, there is a mystery to be solved. But in the end (in fact, well before then) the hairs will begin to stand up on the back of your head. The tension is well handled, and the director manages to avoid most of the traps of these types of movies – there’s blood aplenty, but there’s intelligence as well. If you haven’t read the book, we suggest you don’t delve too far into the plot in reviews etc, because it could spoil a well crafted movie that will provide a chilling night’s entertainment.

By the way, read the book after you’ve seen the film – not the other way around, otherwise you might be disappointed by what the producers left out.

Want us to tell you when we review another movie?

Read this: The legal information contained above is intended to be general information about the law. It is not a substitute for legal and other professional advice. Lawscape Communications P/L does not accept responsibility for loss to any person, who either acts or does not act because of this information.