Rating: 
Summary: Newman was robbed!
Review: I saw this movie when it was released in the theaters ( yes, I am that old! ), and it remains among the best courtroom dramas and character studies ever made.
Jack Warden, James Mason and Charlotte Rampling are all flawlessly great, but Paul Newman was BRILLIANT playing the ambulance-chasing turned righteously indignant Frank Galvin ( the scene where he is photographing his client in the hospital! his meeting with the archdiocese! his return to his apartment after the judge refuses his request for a delay! Newman's best and most emotionally exposed acting ever ). I still refuse to see "Ghandi" because of the resentment I feel over the choice of Ben Kingsley for Oscar's best actor when THIS WAS THE ROLE FOR WHICH NEWMAN SHOULD HAVE WON!!
Nobody I have ever known , seeing this movie for the first time, fails to be riveted to the screen during the final ten minutes.
Rating:
Summary: A Flawless, Amazing Piece of Work
Review: I watched this again for the umpteenth time, last night. Whenever I'm writing- at some point I go to several books and films that have inspired me throughout the years. Thankfully- they never fail to re-inspire or recharge the batteries.
This film is one of them. It is an amazing piece of work. From Mamet's writing to Lumet's dark, simple and absolutely direct staging- to the gifts of having Mason, Warden, Rampling and O'Shea is gold. And finally- the fact that they have Paul Newman willing to do and give the performance he gives here.... The best he has ever been and that's saying a lot because he's given a lot.
What I love the most about this film is how it's a re-affirmation of the human spirit; of how, regardless of the damage that life can inflict, the corruptness or competitiveness that can muddy and distort love, respect, dignity and truth- ultimately a spirit that knows that truth can and must prevail. The one line " there is no other case... there is just this case " says it all for me.
I also love the ending. I remember the impact it had when I saw it in the theatre for the first time. Almost everyone left the theatre that night, whispering about it. The opinions, divided. It was a marvelous 'is the cup half empty or half full'? Forgiveness or silence?
For those who have not seen this yet- as others have said in their reviews, it is a must see. Trust me when I say- it's one for your own personal library. It's a keeper and one that you should pull out from time to time, too. And for all the right reasons.
Rating:
Summary: Another remarkable performance from Paul Newman.
Review: I will never understand how Paul Newman didn't get an oscar for this film, or for "Hud", or for "The Hustler", or for "Cool Hand Luke", or for...well, you get the idea.... In "The Verdict" Paul is an alcoholic lawyer--an ambulance chaser--who is handed a civil case by a friend (played by the great supporting actor, Jack Warden) that will easily get him out of debt, as long as he doesn't go to court. While taking pictures of the comatose victim, Paul suddenly sees himself for what he truly is, and decides to forsake the out of court settlement, and take it to trial. What he doesn't know is how outclassed he is by the rich defense attorney (played wonderfully by James Mason) and his legal entourage. This is a gripping drama that has a couple of plot holes to side-step, but once you do, you're in for a real treat, along with one of Paul Newman's best performances ever. Between 1 and 10, "The Verdict" gets a 9.
Rating:
Summary: A perfect film
Review: I've made it a point in my life to rent one movie a night for the rest of my life. U can with Blockbuster's 99 cent/ 5 night deal. 'The Verdict' has made my top 10 so far. I wish it wasn't rated R because I'm a Christian but I'm making an acception here. This should b in EVERYONE's movie collection.
Rating:
Summary: A Powerful Film Which Is Close To Perfection.
Review: Mixing the talents of three all time greats in a movie should produce solid results; failures do occur, but here we see the peak of success. Sidney Lumet directs Paul Newman and James Mason in a powerhouse film which, though generally downbeat, never loses your attention and indeed grips in its storyline and through these performances. Newman plays a laywer who's seen the good times, (way back), but is now in a shambling and hopeless state. His friend, played by the ever reliable Jack Warden, though near the end of his tether at Newman's pathetic drunken state, gives him a possible lifeline in a malpractice case. To Warden's relief he takes it, but more important takes it seriously, and despite an ever spiralling course of events which seem certain to bring about his final, total demise, Newman finally triumphs. The finale is absorbing and superb! Alas, and not terribly surprisingly based on the farce which is so often the Oscar Ceremony, the film, Newman, and Mason all failed to win the oscars they so richly deserved. A crime that Newman should lose for this, then be given one of those pathetic Honorary Awards (remember when they gave one to the previously un-Oscared Kirk Douglas for his performance having a stroke? No doubt they thought it would be their last chance before he died, pleasingly Mr. Douglas has proved them wrong), and then a genuine one for Newman the next year in "The Color Of Money" because the first was seen through for what it was: a too late apology. As for Mr. Mason, this sadly would be his third and final failure at garnering an Oscar, (as he did pass away two years later), beaten by Louis Gosset Jr. for a non-stop-yelling performance which totally lacked the sublety which made Mason's so much MORE menacing. Enough griping, watch this film and you'll see why these two actors are probably the finest their respective countries have ever produced. Deep, harrowing at times, but nonetheless a real treat!
Rating:
Summary: If the Charge is Great Acting, Newman is Guilty
Review: Not only is 'The Verdict' a great film, it's also one of Paul Newman's best performances, maybe even his best. Newman plays Frank Galvin, an ambulance-chasing lawyer who once showed promise. Many years ago, Galvin tried to do the right thing and nearly got disbarred. He's had only four cases in three years and he's lost them all. Then one day a case falls in his lap. It's not really a case at all, but a settlement to avoid one. A girl suffered brain damage due to a mishap with an anesthetic. The Catholic-run hospital and two of Boston's most respected doctors want to settle out of court. But Galvin once again is faced with a choice, just as he was early in his career: Do what you're told and say nothing or try to do the right thing?David Mamet's script is absolutely marvelous. Most courtroom films contain way too much dialogue and useless talk, but not this one. Each word is carefully chosen, yet the script never comes across as stiff or rigid. Of course in the hands of masterful actors like Newman, James Mason, Jack Warden, and Charlotte Rampling (who has never received enough credit for this performance), the script sparkles with excitement. One scene in particular (I won't tell which one) could have really damaged Newman's career, but director Sidney Lumet expertly handles this and every other scene. An outstanding film that should have won the Best Actor Oscar for Newman. Unfortunately the only real extras on the DVD consist of brief interviews with the cast members, an audio commentary, and a few trailers. But don't let the lack of extras keep you from owning one of the best courtroom dramas ever filmed. 129 minutes
Rating:
Summary: SUMBLIME COURTROOM EDGE OF SEATER
Review: PAI
NTED IN RICH DARK TONES, WITH A STELLAR CAST AND A RIVETING STORY (SCREENPLAY BY THE WONDERFUL DAVID MAMET) THIS FILM PLEASES ME ON EVERY LEVEL. PART COURT-ROOM DRAMA, PART THRILLER, PART RIDDING OF THE DEMONS STUFF, THIS IS A MOVIE I HAVE RETURNED TO AGAIN AND AGAIN. AS WONDERFUL AS THE SUPERLATIVE JAMES MASON IS IN HIS CHILLING ROLE AS THE CORRUPT LAWYER FOR THE DEFENCE I BELIEVE THAT PAUL NEWMAN MATCHES HIM EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. I LOVE HIS GRUFF, HUSKY, DOWN-BEAT PERFORMACE, HE MAKES HIS DOWN-OWN-HIS LUCK, ALCOHOLIC, PIN-BALL MACHINE HOGGING LAWYER OH SO BELIEVABLE. THE MORE MINOR ROLES CANNOT BE FAULTED EITHER, I ESPECIALLY LOVED MILO O'SHEA AS THE SO OBVIOUSLY BIASED JUDGE. JACK WARDEN TOO DOES A SUPERB JOB AS PAUL NEWMAN'S OLDER AND WISER MENTOR. THE FILM UNFOLDS BEAUTIFULLY, PULLING ME RIGHT IN TO THE ACTION AND I CARE VERY MUCH FOR THE PIVOTAL CHARACTERS IN THEIR FIGHT AGAINST EVIL. NEVER AM I BORED. THE ONLY THING I WOULD HAVE LIKED CHANGED WOULD HAVE BEEN THE ENDING; I WOULD LIKED TO HAVE HEARD JAMES MASON'S CLOSING SUMMATION TO THE JURY AS WELL, BECAUSE I FEEL THIS WOULD HAVE LENT FURTHER WEIGHT TO THE OVERALL EFFECT. BUT SMALL GRUMBLINGS ABOUT MY ALL TIME FAVOURITE COURT-ROOM DRAMA; IT INDEED MAKES A FEW GOOD MEN LOOK LIKE THE HOLLYWOOD VEHICLE IT IS. FUNNY HOW THESE OLDER FILMS JUST CANNOT BE BESTED. I PAID ONLY THREE DOLLARS FOR A COPY OF THIS MOVIE, TALK ABOUT CHEAP. SUMPTIOUS AND RICH THROUGHOUT, IT NEVER FAILS TO COMPEL ME.
Rating: 
Summary: one of the best trial movies
Review: Paul Newman gives a very fine performance of a down and out trial lawyer (Frank Galvin) who does the right thing.Frank galvin could have settled out of court and parlayed $70,000 for his serivce but decides to take on the Hospital,Noted doctors,the Catholic Church of Boston (shades of current scandals) and the Great Boston Lawyer Concannon (played by George Mason) Galvin has to battle these instituions and biased trial judge and traitorous girlfriend and disappearing witness.
Although this movie plays to cliches of past legal movies and trial lawyers are not the favorite of many there is a ring of truth to the larger issues portrayed.Many of us have to make career changes,betrayed by people we care about and put up with impediments in doing the right thing.
Ultimately justice wins out but the movie 's ending is ambiguous with the effect of the verdict on any of the characters lives.The last scene might be a bit of a downer to some in which silence wins over not forgiving but then again the movie tried to be realistic and not nessesarily uplifting. I saw the movie originally in 1982 and the movie has more of an appeal now because of the realism it portrays about life.I gave the movie 4 stars because of some of the cliches have been used in many previous movies but the acting of Newman and Mason are outstanding.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent, a must for your collection
Review: Produced in 1982, this drama directed by Sidney Lumet staring the great Paul Newman. The Verdict is about alcoholic Boston lawyer Frank Galvin whose best years are behind him. Galvin is given a chance to redeem him legal career by proving medical negligence in the case of a comatose woman. Galvin is in for the fight of his career taking on the political power of the church. The film is an excellent drama worthy studing for both its moral and humanistic view. The Verdict ranks as a signature performance by one of America's greatest actors and Oscar winners.
Rating:
Summary: Newman and Mason clash in Oscar nominated roles
Review: Sidney Lumet was fortunate that Paul Newman was giving one of the best performances of his distinguished career in front of the camera on "The Verdict," because this 1982 courtroom drama has a fatal flaw that might othrwise have sunk the film. I do not know if the fault lies with David Mamet's screenplay or Barry Reed's original novel, but one of them is definitely the guilty party in this film that otherwise features a steallar script and grand performances from a veteran cast. Newman, in an Oscar nominated role, is Frank Galvin, a cynical and alcoholic ambulance chaser who is tossed a bone by old friend Mickey Morrissey (Jack Warden) in the form of a personal injury suit. A young woman went into a hospital, owned by the Roman Catholic Church, was given the wrong anesthetic, became comatose, and is never coming back. The idea is that Frank will do the paperwork, accept the settlement offer, and go back to sinking into oblivion. But circumstances convince him to get his day in court and go for broke. One of the key dyanmics of this film is that even as Galvin has sunk so low as a lawyer, his opponent, Ed Concannon (James Mason, also deservedly nominated for an Oscar) represents one of the most corrupt large corporate law films in film history. Concanno will literally do everything possible to defend his client, as we see over the course of the film. Clearly the goal for Concanno is not justice but victory, while for Galvin the two become one in the same. Mason's performance is as strong as Newman's, mainly because Mamet has written some great scenes for each actor's character. But then, think of what is involved to make Newman the underdog in a major Hollywood movie. The flaw in the movie comes when we learn that while Concanno has an army of associates as well as a large law firm and the weight of the local archdioesce behind him, Galvin might actually have the truth on his side. The case comes down to the claim of a proverbial last minute surprise witness as to what "really" happened and exactly what was the mistake that made the young woman brain dead. This becomes more than a case of contradictory testimony but one of contradictory records as well. At this point the every ready Concanno pulls out the appropriate legal precedent to have the piece of evidence thrown out. The judge agrees, Galvin throws a fit, and the verdict comes down to what sort of an empassioned speech our heroes gives in his closing. The only problem is that the rule is wrong, and even viewers whose legal background consists of several seasons of "L.A. Law," "Law & Order," "The Practice" or even "Ally McBeal" can probably spot the flaw in the judge's reasoning. Even if they cannot come up with a sound legal basis for overturning the ruling, they will recognize on a fundamental level that this is just not right. I have every reason to believe that the twelves jurors true sitting in judgment of the case recognize the sense of injustice as well and just might have their minds made up before Galvin's closing argument. Granted, most viewers are probably not as offended by this plot device as I am, especially given the mesmirizing performances of Newman and Mason. But I cannot get away from the idea that the flaw robs Newman of his climactic moment. Given the facts of the case there might not be any way around that particular legal predicament, but that would be a crime of a different nature.
|
