A New York City narcotics detective reluctantly agrees to cooperate with a special commission investigating police corruption. However, he soon discovers that he's in over his head, and nobody can be trusted.
Sully is a rascally ne'er-do-well approaching retirement age. While he is pressing a worker's compensation suit for a bad knee, he secretly works for his nemesis, Carl, and flirts with ... See full summary »
A TV producer who is the mistress of her boss, tries to have him make their relationship more permanent, and begins a relationship with a younger man. When her boss hears of this, he tries ... See full summary »
Spanning nearly 40 years from 1925 to 1964, two Texas farm boys; straight-arrow Gid and laid-back Johnny fight over the affections of the beautiful and headstrong Molly Taylor, who ... See full summary »
Frank Galvin is a down-on-his luck lawyer, reduced to drinking and ambulance chasing. Former associate Mickey Morrissey reminds him of his obligations in a medical malpractice suit that he himself served to Galvin on a silver platter: all parties willing to settle out of court. Blundering his way through the preliminaries, he suddenly realizes that perhaps after all the case should go to court: to punish the guilty, to get a decent settlement for his clients, and to restore his standing as a lawyer. Written by
Murray Chapman <email@example.com>
In the climactic courtroom scene, when Frank calls Kaitlin to the stand, Concannon is flustered and confers with one of his lawyers. We then see the lawyer leave the courtroom, presumably having been given some direction by Concannon. Later, after Kaitlin has been questioned by Frank and cross-examined by Concannon, the lawyer returns with a book containing the case Concannon cites to get the judge to disallow the admittance of the photocopy of the hospital admission form as evidence. However, at the point at which Concannon calls the lawyer over and then, presumably, sends him out to "find" this book/case, he doesn't even know about the existence of the photocopy because he hasn't yet questioned Kaitlin; it's during his questioning of Kaitlin that she reveals she has a photocopy of the form. So there's no way the lawyer would have known to go out and find a case regarding the inadmissibility of a photocopy. See more »
an old story, an important question, a great performance by a great actor
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.
36 of 38 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?