The Verdict

---

Page 1 of 1 Start Over Page 1 of 1. Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment. It's A Very Good Case. The video content is inappropriate. The video content is misleading.

Navigation menu

The ad is too long. The ad does not play. The ad does not inform my purchase. The video does not play. There is too much buffering. The audio is poor or missing. Video is unrelated to the product. Please fill out the copyright form to register a complaint. Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a customer review. Read reviews that mention newman paul performance mason lawyer james warden courtroom jack drama acting lumet rampling actor cast frank galvin role alcoholic movies.

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Prime Video Verified Purchase. Sometimes, justice is served. This is a film that shows the importance of Registered Professional Nurses, one their duties. Stellar performance, as always! He was born to his craft. And missed by many. His mentor, Jack Warden is excellent supporting actor. I saw this when it came out, back in It was a great portrayal of what can go on. Thank goodness for computerized charting nowadays! I saw both movies, and certainly Ben Kingsley is deserving, but there is indeed something special about Paul Newman's performance in this movie.

No doubt the Gandhi movie had a more impactful message portraying the greatest symbol of civil disobedience in our lifetime, at a time when India was still a colony. But I would still have given Newman an Oscar albeit a smaller one for his role in this movie James Mason a perfect foil, Sidney Lumet directing. One person found this helpful 2 people found this helpful. The film that Newman as attorney Frank Galvin deserved an Oscar for. The performance of his career.

It wasn't Paul Newman playing Paul Newman. The film is strengthened by impeccable performances from superb artists like the always "steady-eddie" and vastly underrated and unappreciated Jack Warden; the mysterious Charlotte Rampling; LIndsey Crouse an absolute moving performance ; James Handy dead-on, perfect acting; unforgettable ; James Mason perfect as Frank Galvin's foe, who has all the loyalty of a rabid dog, and all the ethics of an alleycat; he deserved an Oscar, too ;Julie Bavaso an absolutely superb actress ; Edward Binns brilliant as the Archbishop who is caught between his religious ethics and practical considerations of the case ; and many others.

Flawless acting, directing, casting and writing. David Mamet deserved the Oscar for his superbly-crafted script, Sidney Lumet for his brilliant, understated and unobtrusive directing. One of the ten greatest films of all time, and the best courtroom drama I've ever seen, bar none, though in fact, much of the film takes place outside the courtroom.

The Verdict () - IMDb

Based on the fine book by Barry Reed. There is redemption and a second chance in this life, and this movie proves it. Not a day goes by that I don't think about it, and it was made in the s. One of my favorite credos is this: Not a second of filler I this film, thanks to Mamet, Lumet and the whole cast. On a zero to ten scale, it goes off the sheet. I read the book, which was very good, and the move adaptation is brilliant.

The director Sydney Lumet did a great job with this story and they also had one of the great writers, David Mamet, who wrote the screenplay. All of the acting is very good but this was easily Paul Newman's best performance. Before this film I didn't think he was a great actor, but he should have won the Academy Award for this film.

This Film contains examples of:

Charlotte Rampling plays Newman's lover in this and she has tremendous screen presence. Although this film was made in , it is not dated at all. Newman plays an attorney, burnt-out and world-weary, who is given a case that should carry him easily and financially for a long while. Instead, the attorney earnestly against his lack of drive investigates, deciding that the lawsuit should go to trial, against the wishes of his colleagues and those involved on both sides of the suit.

What transpires is drama in the courtroom and drama in life outside as passions, manipulations, strategies for victory, and hopes for redemption intertwine. The dialogue is smart and real. The setting of the cold city effectively mirrors the need to move against freezing forces that is the challenge of the protagonist attorney. Others can say more about production details and personnel, sources for inspiration, and so forth. These are my recollections and opinions from having seen the film thirty years ago.

I recommend you, the reader, watch the film to form your own opinion. Mainly, watch the film to be wondrously entertained. The film opens with down and out attorney Frank Galvin Newman spending his day the way he usually does - with alcohol and playing pin ball games. A former editor of his college law review and partner in a prestigious law firm, he is now an ambulance chaser and alcoholic.

A professional lapse in judgment which led to almost being disbarred and to the end of his marriage has taken its toll. A friend and former colleague, Mickey Morrissey Warden refers him a 'softball' case which should easily settle out of court with the insurance company for a nice fee.

With only ten days before the case goes to court Frank has forgotten his conscience starts to bother Frank and he really believes he can go to court and win, contrary to the client's wishes and everyone else's advice. What follows is a fascinating courtroom drama as well as character study. The woman is now comatose and on a respirator.

Her sister and brother-in-law are hoping for a monetary award in order to give her proper care. Frank assures them they have a strong case. Frank visits the comatose woman and is deeply affected. Later, a representative of the Catholic hospital where the incident took place offers a substantial settlement. Without consulting the family, Frank declines the offer and decides to take the case to trial, stunning all parties including the presiding judge and the victim's relatives.

Meanwhile, Frank, who is lonely, becomes romantically involved with Laura, a woman he had spotted earlier in a bar. Things quickly go wrong for Frank: Concannon is shown paying off Laura. Frank's break comes when he discovers that Kaitlin Costello, the nurse who admitted his client to the hospital, is now a preschool teacher in New York.

Frank travels there to seek her help, leaving Mickey and Laura working together in Frank's office. Mickey discovers the check from Concannon in her handbag and infers that Laura is a mole , providing information to the opposing lawyers. Mickey flies to New York to tell Frank of Laura's betrayal. Shortly thereafter, Frank confronts Laura, striking her and knocking her to the floor. Mickey later suggests it would be easy to get the case declared a mistrial.

But Frank decides to continue. Costello testifies that, shortly after the patient had become comatose, the anesthesiologist one of the two doctors on trial, along with the archdiocese of Boston told her to change her notes on the admitting form to hide his fatal error.

She had written down that the patient had had a full meal only one hour before being admitted. The doctor had failed to read the admitting notes. Thus, in ignorance, he gave her an anesthetic that should never be given to a patient with a full stomach. As a result, the patient vomited and choked. Costello further testifies that, when the anesthesiologist realized his mistake, he met with Costello in private and forced her to change the number "1" to the number "9" on her admitting notes.

But before she made the change Costello had made a photocopy of the notes, which she brought with her to court. Concannon quickly turns the situation around by getting the judge to declare the nurse's testimony stricken from the record on technicalities. Feeling that his case is hopeless, Frank gives a brief but passionate closing argument.

While the jury is out, a diocese lawyer praises Concannon's performance to the defendant bishop, who asks "but do you believe her? The jury finds in favor of Frank's clients. The foreman then asks the judge whether the jury can award more than the amount the plaintiffs sought.

The Verdict

The judge resignedly replies that they can. As Frank is congratulated, he catches a glimpse of Laura watching him across the atrium. That night, Laura, in a drunken stupor on her bed, drops her whiskey on the floor, drags the phone toward her, and dials Frank. As the phone rings, Frank sits in his office with a cup of coffee. He moves to answer it, but ultimately does not. Film rights to the novel were bought by the team of Richard Zanuck and David Brown. A number of actors, including Roy Scheider , William Holden , Frank Sinatra , Cary Grant and Dustin Hoffman , expressed interest in the project because of the strength of the lead role.

• Essence of Memory (Progress in Brain Research)
• Confessions of a Recovering Stupid Male: Creating Loving Relationships That Will Last a Lifetime
• Cuba Libre: Von der Kunst, Fidel Castro zu überleben (German Edition)
• Sweet Lou: Lou Piniella a Life in Baseball
• Regionalisation, Growth, and Economic Integration (Contributions to Economics)
• I See Therefore I Am I Think: Why are we here...Where are we going ...and what happens when we get t
• My Mistress After Service Due