MovieChat Forums > Primal Fear (1996) Discussion > Ending / twist doesn't make sense in ret...

Ending / twist doesn't make sense in retrospect

posted 8 years ago by holtom5
8 replies | jump to latest

I enjoyed this film; the stellar cast are all pretty much at the top of their game.

But the twist really doesn't work when I think back about earlier events in the movie. It's true of many films with twists of course, but I think this one is actually pretty egregious.

1. How exactly does Aaron's courtroom appearance change anything? So he acted like a completely different personality, so what? By that point in the film the prosecution has already tried to imply that he just pretended to be two people to fool the neuropsychologist. And it's too late to change plea anyway.
But then doing the same trick in front of people (who presumably are less qualified to say whether it's an act)...changes something, apparently.

2. Why did Linney try to provoke him at the end anyway? The prosecution's case was basically won at that point.
By the film's logic, perhaps she was trying to provoke a violent outburst to show he was a brutal killer, but not *so* violent an outburst to make him seem like another person? Staying within this movie logic, it doesn't make sense for her to risk that.

3. So we discover that Norton is actually a cold, calculating killer, so why did he slowly kill the archbishop in his own house, trample blood all over the place, take the ring and then run away panicked? Throughout the film he would have had to be in control of his emotions many times and planned his moves very carefully, including how he managed to kill the girl (and note that was *before* he killed the archbishop).
Perhaps he really does have a split personality, but the other one is actually a hungry raccoon and only kicked in during the archbishop killing?

4. Also Norton's plan doesn't make a lot of sense. Why didn't he throw out the split personality earlier so they could plead insanity, since he was clearly such an expert of how the legal system works within that universe?
Furthermore, he couldn't have known that Gere would find the tape, that the neuropsychologist would be allowed to answer Gere's 3 questions, that Linney would try to provoke him at the end, or a whole slew of other events outside of his control.
Things could easily have gone another way, where he suddenly is faced with having to explain he has split personality and "transform" into Roy while being dragged away to death row.

[–] Icecutter (363) 4 years ago

All these answers are easily and logically answered. I can't be bothered to answer them here however I'll say other threads here have answered them.

[–] EricCartmanBrah (436) 4 years ago

You want people to goose chase allthe threads here for answers? I've read through some; Zero answers.

[–] Icecutter (363) 4 years ago

Read more then

[–] BourbonKing (5777) 4 years ago

Your questions and doubt about the plot are similar to my top post thread. Too bad you're no longer registered and can read any replies but I just want to state that the movie is using all the plot points you pointed out to carry to story along while mildly contradicting itself along the way.

Norton's character was predicated to be a split personality whether due to personal trauma or just brain genetics, we're led to believe that "Roy" was real and his reaction by killing the Bishop was by Roy not Aaron, then at the very end we see Aaron was lying about the whole thing BUT if that's true then he could have easily dispatched the Bishop and fled the scene in a cool and calculated manner. However, the film shows us that Aaron is running away in a broken state of mind allowing himself to be actually captured.

[–] Goliard (1421) 3 years ago

I've seen this same complaint a couple times, and I'm finally bored enough to reply: NO, we do Not see him "running away in a broken state of mind." All we see is grainy television footage of when he is (finally) captured. There's NO indication of his "state of mind," or him "allowing himself to be actually captured." Or, for that matter, how he committed the murders, or how long they took. Or how much thought he put into them.

All we know about the murder is what we get from the after-the-fact descriptions and forensic evidence. When the movie ends, we Still don't know motive, method, or particulars.

They're irrelevant to the story the filmmakers are telling, you see.

That is all.

[–] BourbonKing (5777) 3 years ago

Wrong. There IS a sequence of footage showing Norton stumbling away from the crime scene at the films beginning. That scene in itself contradicts the idea that Norty was faking it and he could have easily escaped capture.

[–] Goliard (1421) 3 years ago

You can continue to embarrass yourself, or you can acknowledge that you're misremembering the movie. Shrug.

We NEVER see "Norton stumbling away from the crime scene." It's not until about 14 minutes into the movie that we see the police chasing him through the woods, then over some train tracks. Then they finally find him hiding in a declivity, down an embankment.

You're confused. And thus, your take on his "state of mind" is, as I've explained, wrong.

[–] Chester (223) 2 years ago

Another thing that didn’t sit right - the reveal that Norton is a cackling maniac killer who gleefully fooled everyone is somewhat offset by his motive for killing the Arch Bishop being legit. He was a victim of sexual abuse - it detracts from his villainy, and the sense that Gere has just released a twisted serial killer back onto the streets. It would be stronger if he’d butchered an innocent man.

Granted, he also kills his ex-gf but she was part of the whole fucked up porn game and maybe he associates her with the trauma.