The Verdict

This movie, the verdict starring Paul Newman was very difficult to find. It’s one of our very favorite. It was filmed in his later years. It’s a real classic. Only on Amazon. Can you find nostalgic items that are rare and at a low price. I’m so thankful for Amazon.

An excellent film. This film is arguably one of Paul Newman's best. It is raw, real and moving. It was released in 1982 and another aspectone can enjoy, aside from the quality of the film, is how different life was just back in 1982!!! Zero tech!!! It is like viewing a time capsule in realtime!!! In my opinion, it really juxtaposes life then as well as the fact that you have a real story in a film rather than explosions, CGI, the hyper over budgeted offerings that leave one amazed but thinking.....what did I just see?Now to the story line. Frank Galvin, the character played by Newman, is an alcoholic, ambulance chasing attorney at the end of his rope. He starts the day at the local pub for a shot of whiskey, a quick game of pin ball and beer with a raw egg in it before court. He is known in his circles as a burn out. As the film plays out, you do find out that at one time he was at the top of his game but a crooked law firm took advantage of him in his youthful naiveté, he was accused of jury tampering. It was all a set up and lie but he was fired from the firm, lost his wife and he never quite got over it. Thus leaving him in his current state. He does have a very good friend and former teacher played by Jack Warden who gets him a "winner case". A major medical malpractice case involving a Catholic hospital and world renown doctors. His client is a young mother who as a result of the physicians care ended up in a vegetative state and needing 24/7 hospital care. The night before he is going to meet with the sister of the young woman in question Galvin goes on a drunken binge and nearly destroys himself and his offices. Mickey finds him in the ruins of his office, gets him sober and the next morning warns Galvin...."now this is it Frankie I'm not fuxxxxxx around with you anymore". Frank meets with the family and they just want enough money so that the sister can be well cared for and so that they could move on with their lives. Frank assures them that he is on the case and things start rolling. Galvin goes to the 24 hour care facility that the now comatose woman is housed at and is moved deeply. His original plan was to take the pictures and his arguments to arrive at a settlement with the archdiocese that owns the hospital. When he arrives at the meeting they actually offer him a settlement...but he just can't accept it. He wants to fight for the young comatose woman. Perhaps in doing this he feels he can save himself as well. So, no settlement.Galvin finds a very good physician that will testify that the doctors were indeed negligent....but then terrible things start happening. Mickey says it best..."the lead attorney for the archdiocese is the f-ing prince of darkness"...Mickey is right and the dirtiest, lowest, backward dealings begin.Paul Newman give a performance of epic proportions!!!! As Frank Galvin, Newman plays a man on the ragged edge which has rarely been seen on screen. Remember this man is an alcoholic, he is in fact dealing with the lowest prince of darkness with no misgivings about destroying Galvin completely. You literally see Frank Galvin come apart at the seams and yet...he still works the case. His true brilliance and ability shine subtly through when he is the one that is asking all the right questions from all involved in the malpractice against this young mother. The audience is kept guessing about "did the doctors really do this to her".... A femme fatale, one Charlotte Rampling is interjected into the story and boy is the outcome of this tryst a shocker.....I will leave the description here. I don't want to ruin it for anyone. In conclusion I will say that this is a great, moving and satisfactory film. Perfect for a quiet, rainy afternoon of popcorn and TV. Paul Newman, Jack Warden, Charlotte Rampling, James Mason, Milo Oshea, Linsay Crouse and many more delivery powerhouse performances in substance and subtlety.I can Highly recommend this film

It's a cool movie. Not a great movie. But can see why people would go watch it in a theatre back in the early 80's. Paul Newman is good, Jack Ward is good - everybody is good in it - EXCEPT for James Mason - that man is absolutely AWESOME! He is really something else as a big bad wolf of a lawyer.

Excellent Movie

THIS IS AN UPDATE AFTER READING THE BOOKIt was not until I read the reviews on Amazon Instant Prime for the movie, that I realized that there was a book the movie was taken from. I immediately wanted to read it, because the movie left me with so many questions that were unanswered. Before, I delve into the differences of the stories, let me begin by stating that for some reason the people who made the movie changed some of the characters names in the movie. Considering the book was fictional it is not as if they are protecting the fictionally innocent. For this review, when I will be talking about the movie I will put the book's name for the character in Parenthesis and vice versa. The movie does not begin to scratch the surface of how Attorney Frank Galvin is such a complex character. It is never mentioned in the movie that Galvin was in World War II and how he returned home unemployed with nowhere to turn. The movie fails to talk about how at ten years old Galvin watched his father slowly drink himself to death at thirty six years old. The movie also does not touch upon the relationship between Galvin and Morrissey (Moe Katz). In the book Katz (Morrissey) met Galvin on the street and saw that he needed help. Katz (Morrissey) paid Galvin to run his errands in his law firm, he also ended up paying for a Galvin to go to law school as well, but this is never mentioned in the movie. In the movie Galvin is divorced, however; in the book Galvin is not only still married with children that he never sees, but he is openly flaunting his affair with Lois Chen, a Chinese lady whose father own the biggest restaurant in the city. In fact, this is why the other lawyers are trying to disbar him, unlike in the movie where it is explained that Galvin was tried for tampering with the jury, because he was about to turn in his firm because they were taking bribes. According to the book, Galvin is still under investigation, while in the movie the investigation while it ruined, it was over. So, in the book Galvin had a wife, a mistress, and was having an affair with Laura Fisher (Donna St. Laurent). In the book, it is Deborah Ruth Rosen, the patient, (Deborah Ann Kay) brother who is bringing the suit, but in the movie they make it the sister. The movie, does not mention her husband, but the book talks about how he never visits Deborah and in fact he has remarried. The book also talk about how the husband is not caring for the children, but instead they are bounced around between different relatives almost every three months. Galvin, in the book also goes to go visit them. The movie very much confused me, when it came to Laura Fisher (Donna St, Laurent), because she went into the bar and waited for him to approach her in the movie. What if she was not his type? What would she have done? In the book, she made the first move. As a matter of fact, unlike in the movie, Concannon did not send her to meet Galvin. In the book, she did not work for Concannon, she actually worked for the Church. According to the book, St. Laurent (Fisher) was also fantasizing about sleeping with Concannon, but he coldly turned her down. At the end of the book, she actually leaves Concannon on his own as far as the case goes. Yes, as in the movie St. Laurent (Fisher) did sleep with Galvin in order to get information for the case. And while she is working for the church, Concannon is the attorney for the church, so he does get some information about Galvin's strategy, but he does not get much as Galvin quickly finds out what St. Laurent (Fisher) is up to. Galvin, does not have to tell her, she can tell by the tone in his voice that he knows what she is up to. She quickly tells him to stop acting like a child and that they are both more concerned with the case then with another. They agree to meet at a hotel to discuss the case, however; unlike in the movie Galvin does not have to punch St. Laurent (Fisher), instead he stands her up, leaving her to wait in the hotel all night for him, which is even better. I still do not understand why in the movie, Galvin had to punch Fisher (St. Laurent), it just seems like useless violence against a woman that proves nothing. In fact, after that scene I had no respect for Galvin after that. In the book, Galvin did not even have to raise his voice let alone his fist. The witnesses in the book were also quite different, for beginners, in the book there was no Dr. Gruber, there was only the Black doctor, Dr. Thompson. Like in the movie, Maureen Rooney (Mary Rooney) one of the nurses in the delivery room refused to testify, however, in the book she gave them the name of the admitting nurse Natalie Campinelli-Stampanatto (Kaitlin Castello-Price), but in the movie Galvin went to the chapel and fooled her into saying where the nurse was. In the book, the admitting nurse was eager to testify, while in the book Galvin had to coax her to. In the book, it is Katz (Morrissey) who actually goes and visits the nurses and not Galvin. While Judge in the book also seemed to favor the defendant it was not to the extent that the movie made it out to be. In fact, in the book, when the former admitting nurse testifies about having a copy of the original admittance sheet the judge's attitude seemed to change a bit, seeming to be more sympathetic toward Galvin. Unlike, in the movie Sweeney did not overrule the copy of the admittance sheet nor did he strike any of the nurse's testimony. The judge also allowed for the most part Galvin to question his witnesses. He did stop Galvin after a while, but it was not as soon as he started it was later on in the questioning. The movie only shows Galvin as a fumbling drunk, however, this is quite the contrary in the book. In the book, Galvin, while he still drinks heavily, was not incompetent in the courtroom, his opening statement was great and even took Concannon by surprise, angering him. The way the book describes Concannon, I would think he had Post Traumatic Syndrome Disorder (PTSD), because he compares everything to his days in the war and everyone who is not with him is the enemy. The book ended with Galvin visiting his mentor in the hospital after his second stroke in the book. However, the movie ended with Fisher (St. Laurent) trying to contact Galvin, but in the book, there was no doubt that the two were never going to get back together. Galvin was back with his mistress. There were of course some similarities between the film and the book besides what the lawsuit was about, but those times in the movie it was as if the writer and director (probably two separate people) just lifted whole passages out of the book. I feel the movie either veered so far from the book or just stole from it. While, I feel the acting is quite, I do not like the setup of the movie. I strongly feel that more about Galvin's background and his relationship with his mentor should have been in the movie. If they felt making Galvin's character divorced when he began seeing Fisher (St. Laurent) would make his character more sympathetic, they lost me when he punched a lady. Overall, the movie was not bad, but in some ways it is so far from the movie, that it is laughable. I think it should be remade.

This is a review of the standard Region 2 DVD from 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment. At 123 minutes, it is the slightly edited version, apparently missing a final conversation between the Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Boston, and the defending lawyer.This Courtroom drama, made in 1982, was directed by Sidney Lumet, who 25 years before had made one of the greatest films in the genre, ‘Twelve Angry Men’.‘The Verdict’ focusses not on the Jury, but on the prosecuting Attorney. Frank Galvin, a washed-up drunk, is played with intensity and integrity by Paul Newman, and he was nominated for an OSCAR. Galvin, a man who has lost his career and his wife through the duplicity and malfeasance of others, seeks justice for a victim of medical malpractice. And in doing so, he seeks to restore meaning to his own life. He is pitted against the Catholic Church, two eminent doctors and a huge, wealthy and well-staffed law firm, prepared to use every trick, legal or not, to win. James Mason, as the lead defence attorney and mastermind, is majestically machiavellian and manipulative - a role for which he was also OSCAR-nominated. And Jack Warden, a hugely reliable veteran character actor, is superb as Galvin’s long-suffering friend, aide and former teacher.The feel and look of this film, moving between Galvin’s apartment, his run-down office, the Court building and any number of Boston bars, is pitched just right. You experience with Galvin, the booze and smoke-filled dives pulling him down. You also experience with him the desperate plight of his young client, and the hypocrisy and subterfuge of those arrayed against him. And like him, you want justice.There are reviews here saying that the film is dated. Clearly, it was made in 1982, and society has changed beyond all recognition in the intervening years. But we need films like this to remind us of how far we have come, and where we have come from. We really enjoyed the excellent performances, excellent plot and excellent script. Whilst it is not ‘Twelve Angry Men’, it is a worthy companion piece.

Excellent movie. Delivered on time.But the quality of the film print is dated. Not HD.The picture looks like one of those cheap worn out prints of a filmshown on a low budget satellite station.If this is not the seller's fault, then a film like this (Lumet, Mamet, and Newman)needs to be digitalized and cleaned up for posterity.The clips on youtube are much sharper...

A strong drama and accusation toward church istitution by a master of both drama and political films like Sydney Lumet, a guy who never stopped making cinema and standing up for good causes, but always remembering he is a director and a guy who pushed the boundaries of cinema (12 angry men, Network, anderson's tapes, Dog day afternoon, etc...). Here he looks more classic, proving he can keep you on the screen even slowing down and giving time to actors and story to reveal themselves. And here the resal story is that of a guy who need to catch up with himself and find again a sense and a pkace in the world. And Paul New,an gives one of his top performances and work perfectly with Lumet: just see the long shot with the camera travelling through the courtroom while he is giving his last speech before the verdict. The two guys look perfectly in tune with each lpother. Sydney realizes he has just to move the camera following the pace of Paul speech, and Paul readapt his soeech to the camera movement, in order to create a suspended and totally focusing viewers on what is going on and being said st that special moment. A cinema lesson

Ben Kingsley won the Oscar that year for Gandhi.Many people including myself thought it was Newman`s year,he would of course win eventually for a lesser film,The Color of Money(1986).I think this film is great,great acting,darkly lit/moody photography(which suits the film) and although the outcome itself is predictable,one thing which really wins me over everytime i watch it is the ending(by ending i mean after the outcome of the trial).I watch so many good films that lose whats gone before in the last few minutes but i don`t think they could of ended this one in any better way.Please note this has been a review of The Verdict only.

Pretty much everyone has a good role in this movie which allows them to demonstrate their acting skills. Newman shows what he can do with an entirely believeable role as a washed up ambulance chaser who finally tries to redeem himself and do the right thing. Rampling is a bit two dimensional in this portrayal, but the others do a great job supporting a movie which is all about self respect and honour, but without being sentimental or self-righteous. James Mason is convincingly wicked and scheming and O'Shea cynical and hard hearted. In the end, the outcome is a bit predictable, but that seems to be inevitable for such a story.