User reviews

I saw "The Verdict" when it was released in 1982 and just watched it again. It is amazing what of the film I retained in memory. Most of what I remembered was the sheer brilliance of Paul Newman. In seeing it the second time, I'm 24 years older, I've worked for attorneys, I've had an experience with the justice system. And still, what I take away from "The Verdict" is the sheer brilliance of Paul Newman. After Matthew McConnaughey made "A Time to Kill," he asked his agents if he could meet Paul Newman. I guess someone told him they were similar. Newman said to him, "This is a time to not take yourself seriously and your work very seriously." When Matthew McConnaughey has a 50+ year career, you'll talk (I'll be gone) - but it's evident that Paul Newman takes his work very seriously indeed.

"The Verdict" is an old story - the drunken attorney who takes a case -think "The People Against O'Hara" for one - but this one has a stunning cast which includes Jack Warden, James Mason, Charlotte Rampling and Lindsay Crouse. And it asks one of life's great questions - what do you do when losing is just not an option? Drunken, disillusioned, ambulance-chasing Frank Galvin takes a slam-dunk hospital negligence case thrown to him by an investigator friend (Warden). His expert witness tells him he can win. So Galvin doesn't tell his client about a lowball offer, takes the thing to trial, loses his star witness, hires a pathetic expert, is reported by his client for failing to give them the offer they would have happily taken - simply put, there's no paddle but if he doesn't get down the river, any hope of reconstituting his life is over. Gone. David Mamet's script stacks everything against Frank but when you're fighting for your life, failure is not an option.

Newman is a wonder with his loser posture and hyperventilation and his desperateness. It's in his voice, it's on his face, it's in his smile, it's in his shaking hands. He's up against James Mason and his huge law firm, a smug, well-dressed bunch who will stop at nothing to win. One might think this type of firm is a cliché; it isn't. One of the characters says it best - "You have no loyalty to anyone, you don't care who you hurt. You're all whores." Unfortunately in real life, all attorneys are pretty much the same, but at least in film we occasionally are shown a decent one. When this film was made, the public had not yet been subjected to the Dream Team, the Robert Blake Case, the Menendez Brothers. But even today, knowing better, you can't help but buy into Newman's frantic sincerity.

The rest of the cast is uniformly excellent, with top honors going to Mason's smooth Concannon and Lindsay Crouse, who gives us the most powerful five minutes of the film with her magnificent performance as the admission nurse.

Is it a manipulative film? As hell. Is it feel good? You betcha. But take it from someone who knows an unfortunate truth - that justice is for the rich who pull in favors and have the money to fight, everyone lies their teeth off, and the jury system is sad - if I can be swept away by "The Verdict" and by Paul Newman's performance (another Oscar he was cheated out of) - you're gonna eat it up.

In Boston, the former successful lawyer Frank Galvin (Paul Newman) is presently a divorced and decadent alcoholic ambulance chaser, searching funerals in the obituary to get new clients.

His friend and former professor Mickey Morrissey (Jack Warden) brings one client to Frank, Deborah Ann Kaye (Susan Benenson), who reports that her sister lost her baby in the delivery and had brain damage in the St. Catherine Labouré Hospital due to the medical malpractice.

Frank meets Dr. Gruber (Lewis Stadlen), who tells that the woman received wrong anesthetic and drown in her own vomit due to negligence of Dr. Marx and the anesthetist Dr. Towler (Wesley Addy). Further, he offers to witness in court and Frank sees the chance of going to trial against the Archdiocese of Boston and win the case.

Frank goes to the hospital to take pictures of Deborah's sister and he is affected by the vegetative state of the woman. Out of the blue, Bishop Brophy (Edward Binns) summons Frank and offers an endowment of US$ 210,000.00 to drop the case. However Frank sees the chance to bring justice to the family; save his career and earn respect and he does not accept the small fortune.

Frank calls Mickey to help him in the investigation, but he finds difficulties, since his unethical opponent Ed Concannon (James Mason) anticipates his actions and Dr. Gruber mysteriously travels to the Caribbean to spend a week on vacation and Judge Hoyle (Milo O'Shea) tries to force him to accept the settling. Meanwhile Frank meets the gorgeous Laura Fischer (Charlotte Rampling) in a bar and they have a love affair. But when Mickey seeks cigarette in her purse, he makes a discovery that will hurt Frank.

"The Verdict" is one of the best courtroom dramas of cinema history with one of the best performances of Paul Newman. Directed by Sidney Lumet, "The Verdict" is also the third work of the talented David Mamet that wrote the great screenplay with an unusual (open) end for an American movie.

I saw this film in the 80's in the movie theater; than on VHS and today I have just seen on DVD and I realize that after almost thirty years, this film has not aged. The magnificent cast has top-notch performances and I love Charlotte Rampling in this film, who is also very elegant and beautiful. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "O Veredicto" ("The Verdict")

And Newman nailed the character convincingly.

I first saw this in the early 2k on a dvd which I own.

Revisited it recently with my family.

The scene where Frank (Newman) does sort of yeehaw knowing that he is gonna win the case n later his facial expressions in the hospital during the Polaroids developing is top notch.

It has one of the best ending when Newman is sitting next to the phone... I also agree with the striking/slapping scene.

I have seen this movie, on screen and as a video, many times. Each time, it gets better. This is no doubt the best acting by Paul Newman in his career. Why he didn't get the Oscar for this role, but instead got it for the lackluster "The Color of Money", is beyond me. The movie is actually about redemption, or the attempt to be redeemed.

His interpretation of Frank Galvin, a desperate, conniving, down-to-the-last-case attorney, is fascinating and totally convincing. And he has a fantastic supporting cast -- from Jack Warden as his partner, Charlotte Rampling as his chance for romantic redemption, Milo O'Shea as the corrupt judge, Lindsay Crouse as his surprising ace-up-his-sleeve, and most of all, in a landmark supporting actor role, James Mason as the seemingly distinguished and respected defense attorney.

And I found the direction by Sidney Lumet to be, once again, outstanding. Lumet has such a long list of great movies that you wonder why he has never won an Oscar or been given an AFI Lifetime Achievement award.

This is a riveting movie -- about the law, but mainly about the flawed nature of the human beings who are entrusted with it. Please hear Newman, as Frank Galvin, on his last, crippled, despairing leg, give the summation to the case. It needs to be carved in marble somewhere. David Mamet, who wrote the screenplay, deserves accolades for how he was able to hand Paul Newman such a moving summation. The summation is about life, not just the law. It is a masterpiece, worth seeing the entire movie for.

Most of all, it is Newman's Finest Hour.

The title of this movie is deceiving. THE VERDICT suggests a courtroom drama, something like TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, or INHERIT THE WIND. It does have some riveting court scenes, but what happens outside of court and to Paul Newman is the real attraction here. The title not only refers to the inevitable decision of the important case of the film, but also to how the Newman character is going to live the rest of his life. Should he sell out and take the easy settlement, or take the highly regarded archdiocese of Boston to court for real justice. These are the questions Newman must face in this profound drama that seems more like a picture of the 70's than an 80's film.

Director Sidney Lumet has dealt with the legal system before in his first film, 12 ANGRY MEN. He takes it to a more personal level and Paul Newman, one of the finest actors of the past 40 years, is the person to do it. He is a legend and he bares his soul as attorney Frank Galvin, a lonely, corrupt drunk whose license to practice law is hanging by a thread. Jack Warden plays his trusty assistant who gets him a case that could help Frank change his life. Warden, however, has had enough.

Newman plays an excellent drunk, even cracking an egg into an 8am beer to start his day. This is a dim looking movie, shot during a cold winter in Boston. There are no great shots, or even any emotionally-rousing speeches, but this is Lumet's style. It is plodding and we see into the life of a lawyer on the ropes. James Mason is perfect as the slimy defense lawyer. Newman is constantly underestimated because of past failures. He is a drunk, but he still has some tricks up his sleeve.

NOTE: Look closely at the closing argument given by Newman. In the background, you can glimpse a then-unknown Bruce Willis.

Frank Galvin (Paul Newman) is a rundown drunk lawyer chasing cases in the obituaries and spending his days in a bar. He was accused of jury tampering and resigned from his job. His former associate Mickey Morrissey (Jack Warden) gives him an easy medical malpractice suit. The Doneghys are suing the Archdiocese of Boston for leaving her sister in a coma after childbirth. Frank is looking to settle and then changes his mind despite the easy $70k payday. He meets Laura Fischer (Charlotte Rampling) at his bar. His opposition Ed Concannon (James Mason) has a big team. His expert Dr. Gruber has gone vacationing. Judge Hoyle (Milo O'Shea) is blocking him at every turn for turning down the offer. He himself is not prepared. The case is going badly until he discovers nurse Kaitlin Costello (Lindsay Crouse).

This is a terrific performance from Newman. His drunk acting is masterful. His inherent likability shines through this darker messy character. The David Mamet script is well-researched and meticulous. Sidney Lumet's direction is a little slow and needs greater intensity. Nevertheless, it's a great movie to see great acting from everybody in a well-written script.

I saw that A Civil Action was on this weekend and it reminded me of another great film - this one. With 30 years of acting under his belt, Paul Newman gave an outstanding performance as a drunk, washed-up lawyer that was handed a cakewalk that he proceeded to screw up. He managed to come out smelling like a rose through luck and skill as a lawyer. Newman was superb! He should have gotten an Oscar for this film, and I am not saying that just because I like seeing someone stick it to the high and mighty.

Sidney Lumet was also great as director as should have been rewarded for this and not just given an honorary Oscar.

Bruce Willis has another walk-on role.

The Verdict is what The Color of Money should have been. In The Color of Money, Paul Newman plays an old hustler who used to be young and famous. He trains and teaches a young upstart, but it was hardly an interesting storyline. Wouldn't it have been a more captivating plot if he used to be young and famous, and now, he's washed up, playing the small time again and struggling with an alcohol problem? I think so.

In The Verdict, Paul Newman plays a lawyer who once had a future in a prestigious law firm. Now, he's a washed up alcoholic, chasing ambulances for clients. He's given one last chance to bring a big case to court, but can he get and keep his act together and win? With a running time of over two hours, it feels a little slow. But courtroom dramas can be notoriously slow, especially in the 80s, so it's not the end of the world. It's also a little predictable, but if you like Paul Newman or stories about underdogs, definitely give it a chance.

I've always believed that actors are drawn to courtroom material because of the inherent conflict within them makes for good drama and good parts. They're quite a few of them in The Verdict.

This has always been my favorite Paul Newman film, it's the one he should have won the Oscar for. His Frank Galvin is not the noblest of creatures, he's a once promising attorney now an alcoholic ambulance chaser. But the skills are still there and he shows them battling tremendous odds. Thirty years earlier Frank Capra could easily have made this the subject of one of his populist dramas.

Newman gets great support from an outstanding cast. James Mason, Jack Warden, Charlotte Rampling, Joe Seneca deliver some outstanding performances. The one I particularly liked here was Milo O'Shea as the corrupt and biased judge.

Most of the great courtroom dramas have been about criminal cases. The Verdict was a landmark film that set the stage for the success of other great films about civil cases, including A Civil Action and Erin Brockovich. Those I don't think would have been made but for the critical and popular success of The Verdict.

Paul Newman was never better on screen.

This film is okay. It takes the usual lawyer which only works for money and transitions him into a moral being fighting for justice. This film also focuses on morality subtlety while focusing on justice primarily. Paul Newman gives a good performance.

The Verdict is a fine film with an adapted screenplay by David Mamet. There are some brave editing choices where key moments are left to the imagination rather than shown, which is to say the audience is being treated like adults, so thanks for that one. Paul Newman is very good in this film. Charlotte Rampling, who has very little actual screen time, is fabulously understated with sheer screen presence. Jack Warden is as reliable as ever. The story is about a man seeking to redeem himself through the case he takes on, instead of settling out of court he decides to fight, much to the distress of his needy clients. Is he really being selfish? You decide. The photography was good too. A throughly decent film.

I can only agree wholeheartedly with the first submission about this film, it is one of the most grown up works of American cinema that i have ever seen. Everything about the film is just great - Newmans Frank Galvin is a truly great character, and it just shows how great an actor Newman is when he can portray someone washed up so well, when as a person he has lived a very fulfilling and successful life. As a character study it is superlative, and there are no wasted moments - just like Training Day there is not one wasted moment in the film. The way he is chastised by the sister and her husband for being 'Just like all the others' when in fact he isn't, he actually knows that it is an occasion to really address the issue properly, yet risks all by doing so - shows the kind of contradiction that rarely is shown in films. Cutting, biting wit. A film for grown ups. Fabulous.

Down and out lawyer/ambulance chaser Frank Galvin (Paul Newman) sees an opportunity to earn an easy buck when he presented with a case of a woman who had been put in a coma due to the negligence actions of a few doctors. However, when Galvin witnesses first hand what the hospital have done to the poor woman, his conscience kicks in and he refuses to accept a fairly substantial 'out of court' settlement and decides to take the 'big corporation' to trial despite losing numerous cases in the past and being a bit rusty as a defence attorney...

The Verdict is another 'little man' versus 'big corporation' film and narratives of this nature are very easy to get swept up in - after all who doesn't want to see the little man wiping the smiles off the faces of the much bigger fish? Therefore despite the film suffering from a rather uneven pace (the first half is a little laborious and I felt that Lumet could have got to the 'meat' of the film a little quicker) I did still find it a fairly involving affair...

Once we arrive in the second half of the film (the courtroom section) then the film rarely disappoints and this is where Lumet really shines - he tends to be good at creating tension when his narratives are mostly confined to one location (think 12 Angry Men or Dog Day Afternoon). Whereas The Verdict isn't quite a match for those 2 films it does come pretty close.

As far as performances go then this film really does belong to Paul Newman; he's been terrific in everything I've seen him in, but this is probably one of his strongest performances. He is helped slightly by Lumet who pitches his character as pitiful and slightly unlikeable in the early stages, but then gets us back on his side due to his dogged determination and his rather creative detective work. Supporting cast are all fine with no real weak players, but this one really belongs to Newman who truly nails it.

Had it been slightly better paced and a bit shorter than I may have rated this slightly higher, but the first half did feel a bit padded out and laborious (Galvin's various pinball games, visits to the bar etc) were overdone and didn't really seem to add much - apart from showing that he was an alcoholic which had already been established earlier in the film??

Still pound for pound this is another excellent film from Lumet and is one that lovers of courtroom dramas or little man vs big corporation stories should find relatively enjoyable.

Being an admirer of both Sidney Lumet and Paul Newman and having heard many great things about 'The Verdict', expectations were high. Luckily those high expectations were met.

Not quite top 3 Lumet like '12 Angry Men', 'Network' and 'Dog Day Afternoon', but it is very close ('The Wiz' being his weakest by considerable distance), while Paul Newman's role here in 'The Verdict' is one of his long and great career's crowning achievements. Being constantly shown Galvin's drunkenness and self-disgust occasionally got a little heavy-going for my tastes and one is not hugely surprised by the case's outcome.

On the other hand, 'The Verdict' is a superbly made film, the dark and gritty visual works so well and complements the subject equally so. Lumet directs subtly but in a way that still feels skillful and engaging. The music is suitably atmospheric, and the script is wordy but still taut and compelling, avoiding sentiment and clichés and not dragging the film down into too much exposition while still making the characters interesting.

The story does have a slow start but compels ceaselessly from the twenty five minute or so mark, succeeding as a quiet yet still edge-of-your-seat courtroom drama and even more so as a character study, with Galvin a fascinating character. There are great scenes here, especially the movingly powerful summation and the whole of Lindsay Crouse's appearance. While not the biggest fan of ambiguous endings, the ambiguity and open-interpretation of the ending didn't bother me here at all and Galvin's change was believable to me and wasn't that sudden.

As hoped, Newman dominates the film and his powerful performance (like when he shuts himself in the bathroom, a master class of verbal-less acting) is one of his best and deservedly nominated for an Oscar (losing to Ben Kingsley in a strong and tough competition in that category that year). The supporting cast are more than up to his level, James Mason especially is on splendidly silky smooth yet quietly menacing form, as is a touching Lindsay Crouse, a charming Jack Warden, a blood-boilingly good Milo O'Shea and emotive Charlotte Rampling.

In summary, helped primarily by the performance of Newman 'The Verdict' is one engrossing last chance at a big case. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Screenwriter David Mamet has turned Barry Reed's novel--about a boozy Boston lawyer getting one last chance to prove himself in the courtroom--into theatrical dramaturgy. Perhaps he thought this story had the potential to be another "Death of a Salesman", but unfortunately it's closer to a well-heeled movie-of-the-week (sprinkled with expletives). Paul Newman was at precisely the right age to tackle the role of Frank Galvin, the little guy who takes on the system in a case against a hospital owned by the Archdiocese of Boston, and Mamet stacks the deck against him...even the judge has ties to the Church! Still, the film has an anti-climactic feel; there's very little emotion expended--in court or out--and really no suspense. Director Sidney Lumet sets the pace at a workmanlike even-keel, though it might have been more effective had he instructed his cinematographer, Andrzej Bartkowiak, to keep the camera active instead of inert. Opening near the end of 1982, the filmmakers clearly saw this as prestigious Oscar-material, but, aside from Newman's solid work, it isn't very extraordinary. **1/2 from ****

In my opinion they greatest film ever set in a court is 12 Angry Men . The Verdict not only has Edward Binns and Jack Warden in it , who were jurors 6 & 7 in 12 Angry Men , it is also directed by Sidney Lumet.

Paul Newman plays a Boston lawyer who takes a medical negligence case against a hospital and has to go up against powerful attorney Edward Concannon played by James Mason .

The Verdict was nominated for five academy award but received none . Paul Newman's performance deserved to win . He is at his very best here as the washed up , alcoholic lawyer . James Mason is fantastic too in one of his last ever roles. Both are totally believable as lawyers coming from the opposite ends of the spectrum.

If I have to critical it's that there should have been more courtroom scenes. It definitely feels rushed at the end and I'm not sure why ? The actual ending is ridiculously abrupt and leaves the viewer up in the air. Sometimes that's a good thing but not in this case . We don't even get to see the final outcome of the case and that's extremely frustrating.

The expression is " Leave then wanting more " and that's definitely the case here.

Incidentally the film that stopped this winning any Oscars in 1983 was Gandhi. I actually think The Verdict stands the test of time much better .

Quentin Tarantino once called the 80s the worst era in cinema, or words that that effect, due to the political correctness in every film at the time - and I think he was absolutely correct. Even the better made films like 'The Verdict' are just so painfully dull and safe. There is nothing memorable about them whatsoever. This wasn't a bad film, it was nominated for Best Picture for the record, yet I doubt I'll ever remember it again a week from now.

I typically really enjoy courtroom dramas, but I had a really tough time staying focused on this one. For one thing it takes an extremely long time to actually get to the courtroom scenes. They really are just a minor part of the film, even though they are far and away the most interesting thing it has going for it. For another thing the suspension of disbelief required in terms of the conduct of the lawyers and the judge is enormous. Everything feels very fake and unrealistic.

I went in expecting to love this film, but I just couldn't find a way to connect to it. Awful characters everywhere and a plot that simply wasn't gripping. It's not a bad film, but it is nothing special either. 6/10.

This movie was depressing, and completely unrealistic.

There is no way a judge would act the way the one in this movie did. I also don't know why the court was straight out of 19th century England.

I'm very forgiving on movies but this one was honestly pathetic. If Paul Newman hadn't been in it I'm sure that its ratings would be much lower than they are.

It's insulting to the watchers intelligence.