The Verdict (Two-Disc Collector's Edition)

Download TV Series The Verdict (Two-Disc Collector's Edition) (by 20th Century Fox) :

Find Product Discount

Terrible!. I found this movie terrible--the acting, especially of Paul Newman--was lackluster. He seemed to be half-asleep throughout the role. There was nothing gripping about this story. And there were quite a few plotholes that made the story UNBELIEVABLE, especially the forced, contrived ending. It is highly overrated so don't waste your money buying it--there are so many better courtroom dramas around.

The STRONG should PROTECT the WEAK--or slaying the "judicial/bureaucratic" Goliaths!. Paul Newman is great as a despairing, alcoholic "David", once second in his law class, once part of a prestigious law firm, once married...till he dared to stand up to his dishonest law firm owner/and father-in-law who wanted to fix a jury.
The above is past history...just mentioned in the film.
It is some years after, and alcoholic Newman, with only 4 cases in the last few years,
...has an epiphany...where his youthful religious and ethical training reawakens as he gets the picture, so to speak, of a woman treated unjustly, whom he can help.
He forgets himself and his troubles, and the people who have pushed him around,

...and starts fighting for the brain damaged young woman...against the hospital and doctors who damaged her. He will later awaken the conscience (as the movie hints) of one of the "Goliaths" he goes up against.
However, there are pitfalls... as opposing lawyer Concannon is not above using any trick---or person...to destroy the case.
Paul Newman's epiphany scene (which I won't describe further to spoil it for you, but which is clearly recognizable) is quite moving.

His Goliaths include: The biased, hostile Judge, the "Prince of Darkness" superlawyer Concannon (played well by James Mason, always good at suave villians), the doctors and **most** of the attending support staff who attended the unfortunate Deborah Ann Kaye,
...and the somewhat hesitant Bishop Brophy, head of St. Catherine's, the hospital where Mrs. Kaye lost her baby and suffered massive brain damage.
Set in Boston, a largely Catholic city (I am told) we here have nominal Catholics pitted against those of their denomination who take the Christian "Good Samaritan" story seriously.

My family caution: There are some cuss words and a brief suggestion of a bedroom scene.

The Verdict implies the barely seen 12 who also are key players...the jury, who must deliver the verdict.

Will they go with the letter of the law? Or---its spirit? (If you are familiar with this phrase from the Christian faith, you have the answer...)
(Hint of spoiler below)


My wish is that brain injured Terri Schiavo had had a jury
who could see the spirit of the law!

Instead we had lots of judges fighting turf wars against a Congress that dared
(how DARE they question the unquestionable judges seemed to be the attitude) to merely ask for a second look at the whole case. Meanwhile, Terri slowly starved to death...Shame on us! Shades of Nazi Eugenics!!!

The Case of the Missing Nurse. This is a well-polished production that suffers from some over-acting (dramatic pauses). It is a drama about personal failures and the effect it has on the people who suffer from them. The film starts on a wintry day, snow is on the ground, an older man plays a pinball machine (symbolizing the chances of life?). Frank Galvin has time to waste. We see him putting on an act at a funeral home, and being rejected. His buddy Micky comes by to help him with a case of negligence. [Believable?] A woman went into a hospital to give birth but suffered a horrible fate that left her a vegetable. Who is responsible?

A scene with the bishop tells about the defendant and the church hospital. [Could this happen at a non-church hospital?] Dr. David Gruber will testify for the plaintiff as an expert witness. The defense legal team is a large and prestigious law firm, seemingly as invincible as Goliath. Would they do anything unethical? A judge tries to arrange a deal and save valuable court time. No deal. Later the brother-in-law confronts Galvin about his failure to consult with his clients. [Is this grounds for disbarment?] Laura meets Frank and learns about his history; she is a friendly stranger. When Dr. Gruber goes away on vacation Galvin becomes frantic in finding a replacement. The film shows how testimony is rehearsed to present the right image ("horse-shedding" the witness). The plaintiff's expert physician will be closely examined. [Does this seem very dramatic and emotional? Can a has-been lawyer overcome the odds? "Frank Galvin" is not an Earl Rogers.]

The trial begins with testimony form the witnesses. The judge intervenes to ask a question. [Is this realistic or just another dramatic trick? Was this to fix the verdict?] There are discussions about the case. Galvin does some risky detective work to find the missing nurse. His partner Micky inadvertently (?) snoops and finds a secret about Laura that explains her actions. This leads to a violent and dramatic confrontation. [Believable?] Back in court Dr. Tower testifies about the patient. Can a Xerox copy be admitted into testimony? [Yes, to impeach a changed document. This film denies the reality, and we miss a "Perry Mason" moment.] The judge makes a ruling and tells the jury to disregard the testimony of the missing nurse. What will the jury decide? Galvin's summation asks for justice, an ambiguous plea. [You know a film needs a happy ending to commercially successful.] The judge tells the jury they are free to pick any amount of damages. [But this can often be reduced on appeal if it exceeds established standards.]

This film sacrifices believable reality for drama. A law firm would not directly hire an undercover operative, that's what private investigators do (plausible deniability). Does the use of a double agent imply the defense knew of the discrepancies in the evidence? The rigging of this fairy tale story seems like something is wrong with the film writers or producers.


2.5 stars out of 4. The Bottom Line:

Newman is quite good and suitably burnt-out but the legal aspect of the case never moves beyond the mundane and Charlotte Rampling's character seems to serve no purpose beyond manipulating the audience: I thought The Verdict might be the rare intelligent courtroom movie, but regrettably I must keep looking.

TO TELL THE TRUTH. Terrific cast headed by Newman, whose career has declined due to alcohol.Disregarding all advice, he puts his neck on the line, trying to prove malpractice against 2 prominent Bahstin physicians. Defense attorney Mason sends one doctor on vacation to the Bahamas, is friendly with the judge, and has a staff seemingly large enough to fill Fenway Pahk. He also has Rampling, Newman's alleged girlfriend, who's gone over to the enemy. Meanwhile, Newman has only Warden doing his legwork and a 74 year old unlicensed physician working for him. As the case comes to a close, a former nurse from N.Y. is found who gives damaging testimony against the defendants, but is thrown out on a legal technicality. Newman wins his case anyway, and a full measure of self respect, The slow pacing of the movie is its only signficant drawback. Everyone, especiallly at film's end seems to feed off of Newman's exhaustion. It's a wonder that anyone is awake when the verdict comes in, including the viewer. Otherwise this production is top shelf, well worthy of purchase.

EAN : 0024543372295
Publisher : 20th Century Fox
Features :

• ISBN13: 0024543372295
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.

Detailed Product Description

Sidney Lumet's riveting courtroom drama earned five Oscar(r) nominations including Best Picture and Best Actor for Paul Newman's towering performance as a down-and-out alcoholic attorney who stumbles onto one last chance to redeem himself. When attorney Frank Calvin (Newman) is given an open-and-shut medical malpractice case that no one thinks he can win, he courageously decides to refuse a settlement from the hospital. Instead he takes the case, and the entire legal system, to court.In this 1982 courtroom drama written by David Mamet and directed by Sidney Lumet, Paul Newman found the perfect role for a transitional period of his stellar career. As alcoholic Boston lawyer Frank Galvin, Newman shook off his screen persona as a handsome, blue-eyed hunk to portray an aging, weary man whose best years are behind him, with a shot-glass future that looks very bleak indeed. But when Galvin is given a chance to redeem himself--by proving medical negligence in the case of a comatose woman--he makes one final effort to regain his self-respect and tarnished reputation. He's an underdog against formidable odds, facing a powerful, politically connected lawyer (James Mason, slick as ever) who will do anything to win his case, regardless of professional ethics. Further complicating matters is a woman (Charlotte Rampling) who only appears to be worthy of Galvin's trust and love, until Galvin's best friend and colleague (Jack Warden) proves otherwise. Excellent as both courtroom drama and riveting character study, the film crackles with Mamet's sharp dialogue; and Lumet's direction is a brilliant example of forceful restraint. The film gave Newman one of the best roles of his career; many felt he deserved the Oscar (he lost to Ben Kingsley in Gandhi) that would belatedly be given to Newman for The Color of Money. Along with Hud, Cool Hand Luke, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Verdict ranks highly as a signature performance by one of America's all-time greatest actors. --Jeff Shannon

Related Products :

• Absence of Malice
• Class Action
• ...And Justice For All
• Anatomy of a Murder
• A Civil Action

View All Similar Items