jimbo-53-186511 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.

Danny Blankenship I must say that "The Verdict" is a wonderful film an excellent courtroom drama a case that is a challenge, but settles in the end with courage and determination. And the performance from Paul Newman is top notch maybe one of his best. All legal dramas are always interesting with the usual twist and turns of a case and the drama on the courtroom witness stand is always revealing and compelling and this 1982 film has all of those moments to occur.Set in Boston Paul Newman is Frankie Galvin an ambulance chasing lawyer who's on the downside of his work and his life. Frankie has lost three or four cases in a row, and he's divorced and he's became an alcoholic as his battle with the bottle is now a daily obsession in the form of many shots and glasses of whiskey. And much of Frankie's time in the free is conducted with him playing pinball at the local bar. Really a sad life for a lawyer it's like a midlife crisis. Only all of a sudden dumped in Frankie's lap is a dream case a medical malpractice case that seems impossible to win, yet Frankie is determined to fight the hospital and doctor's who negligence put a young woman in a coma for the rest of her life. As Frankie owes answers and money and justice to the family of this young lady. And you guessed it the determined Frankie wants to get his game back as he refuses settlement and instead takes the case to court.And in somewhat of a subplot Frankie has a fling somewhat of a one night stand with a divorced lady(played clever and elegantly by Charlotte Rampling)as with life the case has ups and downs still the film becomes a powerful drama as the entire legal system seems like it's put on trial in the courtroom. "The Verdict" is a film that searches for answers and it finds the truth leading to justice and most of all it's a moral and life and job awakening of a man named Frankie Galvin.

bryanprzy After a brush with disbarment, attorney Frank Galvin (Newman) now resorts to chasing ambulances and attending funerals to feed his booze habit. A meager law office, an aging mentor (Jack Warden) and the pinball machine at the local bar are all he has when he decides to make a lifestyle change. With his client in a coma and little hope of ever recovering, Galvin decides to reject a sizable payout from the Catholic Hospital that put her there and takes them to court in a high profile malpractice case.The 57-year-old Newman looks a far cry from his typical on screen self. His ratty suit and near constant stubble fit the hard-drinking Galvin, who frequently stumbles to the bar before lunch for a quick hangover cure. While his actions spiral him deeper and deeper out of control, the actor's steely blue eyes pierce through the character's rough exterior giving the audience hope for his redemption.As Galvin turns from the bottle and throws himself into the case, he begins to see the client as a person instead of a payday. Even as every tactic he throws at the jury is shot down by the Hospital's high powered attorney (Mason), he never loses hope. While the Catholic Church is at times depicted as the villain or at least a corporate entity, faith becomes the overwhelming theme of the film.The Verdict garnered five Oscar nominations, including only the second in Newman's long career. Though he would again lose out on the award, he would reinvent himself by proving he could still step out of his comfort zone as an actor.There is no real hero in this courtroom drama that relies more on emotional draw than actual evidence. Even though sometimes the leaps of the faith the plot takes are a little hard to believe, any fan of Newman will be a fan of The Verdict.

dimbost I really thought that i was going to love this film. Being an enthusiast of Law and a film geek. but with the great story of redemption and under-dog facing all of the challenges that are in front of him, the movie lost me at his capability of trying to defend his client. Apart from the obvious objection ,he did not even try to do anything to save himself. He always gave up and took a seat. While the other Lawyer payed the judge, his girlfriend and experts, he also was shown to constantly search for angle around when presenting his case. Where as Newman's character just simply asked questions and then sat down. There was no skill, but pure luck that he won that case. I wanted to like this film, but unfortunately in the end i couldn't.