Recensioni degli utenti

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.

In Boston, the former successful lawyer Frank Galvin (Paul Newman) is presently a divorced and decadent alcoholic ambulance chaser, searching funerals in the obituary to get new clients.

His friend and former professor Mickey Morrissey (Jack Warden) brings one client to Frank, Deborah Ann Kaye (Susan Benenson), who reports that her sister lost her baby in the delivery and had brain damage in the St. Catherine Labouré Hospital due to the medical malpractice.

Frank meets Dr. Gruber (Lewis Stadlen), who tells that the woman received wrong anesthetic and drown in her own vomit due to negligence of Dr. Marx and the anesthetist Dr. Towler (Wesley Addy). Further, he offers to witness in court and Frank sees the chance of going to trial against the Archdiocese of Boston and win the case.

Frank goes to the hospital to take pictures of Deborah's sister and he is affected by the vegetative state of the woman. Out of the blue, Bishop Brophy (Edward Binns) summons Frank and offers an endowment of US$ 210,000.00 to drop the case. However Frank sees the chance to bring justice to the family; save his career and earn respect and he does not accept the small fortune.

Frank calls Mickey to help him in the investigation, but he finds difficulties, since his unethical opponent Ed Concannon (James Mason) anticipates his actions and Dr. Gruber mysteriously travels to the Caribbean to spend a week on vacation and Judge Hoyle (Milo O'Shea) tries to force him to accept the settling. Meanwhile Frank meets the gorgeous Laura Fischer (Charlotte Rampling) in a bar and they have a love affair. But when Mickey seeks cigarette in her purse, he makes a discovery that will hurt Frank.

"The Verdict" is one of the best courtroom dramas of cinema history with one of the best performances of Paul Newman. Directed by Sidney Lumet, "The Verdict" is also the third work of the talented David Mamet that wrote the great screenplay with an unusual (open) end for an American movie.

I saw this film in the 80's in the movie theater; than on VHS and today I have just seen on DVD and I realize that after almost thirty years, this film has not aged. The magnificent cast has top-notch performances and I love Charlotte Rampling in this film, who is also very elegant and beautiful. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "O Veredicto" ("The Verdict")

And Newman nailed the character convincingly.

I first saw this in the early 2k on a dvd which I own.

Revisited it recently with my family.

The scene where Frank (Newman) does sort of yeehaw knowing that he is gonna win the case n later his facial expressions in the hospital during the Polaroids developing is top notch.

It has one of the best ending when Newman is sitting next to the phone... I also agree with the striking/slapping scene.

I have seen this movie, on screen and as a video, many times. Each time, it gets better. This is no doubt the best acting by Paul Newman in his career. Why he didn't get the Oscar for this role, but instead got it for the lackluster "The Color of Money", is beyond me. The movie is actually about redemption, or the attempt to be redeemed.

His interpretation of Frank Galvin, a desperate, conniving, down-to-the-last-case attorney, is fascinating and totally convincing. And he has a fantastic supporting cast -- from Jack Warden as his partner, Charlotte Rampling as his chance for romantic redemption, Milo O'Shea as the corrupt judge, Lindsay Crouse as his surprising ace-up-his-sleeve, and most of all, in a landmark supporting actor role, James Mason as the seemingly distinguished and respected defense attorney.

And I found the direction by Sidney Lumet to be, once again, outstanding. Lumet has such a long list of great movies that you wonder why he has never won an Oscar or been given an AFI Lifetime Achievement award.

This is a riveting movie -- about the law, but mainly about the flawed nature of the human beings who are entrusted with it. Please hear Newman, as Frank Galvin, on his last, crippled, despairing leg, give the summation to the case. It needs to be carved in marble somewhere. David Mamet, who wrote the screenplay, deserves accolades for how he was able to hand Paul Newman such a moving summation. The summation is about life, not just the law. It is a masterpiece, worth seeing the entire movie for.

Most of all, it is Newman's Finest Hour.

The title of this movie is deceiving. THE VERDICT suggests a courtroom drama, something like TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, or INHERIT THE WIND. It does have some riveting court scenes, but what happens outside of court and to Paul Newman is the real attraction here. The title not only refers to the inevitable decision of the important case of the film, but also to how the Newman character is going to live the rest of his life. Should he sell out and take the easy settlement, or take the highly regarded archdiocese of Boston to court for real justice. These are the questions Newman must face in this profound drama that seems more like a picture of the 70's than an 80's film.

Director Sidney Lumet has dealt with the legal system before in his first film, 12 ANGRY MEN. He takes it to a more personal level and Paul Newman, one of the finest actors of the past 40 years, is the person to do it. He is a legend and he bares his soul as attorney Frank Galvin, a lonely, corrupt drunk whose license to practice law is hanging by a thread. Jack Warden plays his trusty assistant who gets him a case that could help Frank change his life. Warden, however, has had enough.

Newman plays an excellent drunk, even cracking an egg into an 8am beer to start his day. This is a dim looking movie, shot during a cold winter in Boston. There are no great shots, or even any emotionally-rousing speeches, but this is Lumet's style. It is plodding and we see into the life of a lawyer on the ropes. James Mason is perfect as the slimy defense lawyer. Newman is constantly underestimated because of past failures. He is a drunk, but he still has some tricks up his sleeve.

NOTE: Look closely at the closing argument given by Newman. In the background, you can glimpse a then-unknown Bruce Willis.

Frank Galvin (Paul Newman) is a rundown drunk lawyer chasing cases in the obituaries and spending his days in a bar. He was accused of jury tampering and resigned from his job. His former associate Mickey Morrissey (Jack Warden) gives him an easy medical malpractice suit. The Doneghys are suing the Archdiocese of Boston for leaving her sister in a coma after childbirth. Frank is looking to settle and then changes his mind despite the easy $70k payday. He meets Laura Fischer (Charlotte Rampling) at his bar. His opposition Ed Concannon (James Mason) has a big team. His expert Dr. Gruber has gone vacationing. Judge Hoyle (Milo O'Shea) is blocking him at every turn for turning down the offer. He himself is not prepared. The case is going badly until he discovers nurse Kaitlin Costello (Lindsay Crouse).

This is a terrific performance from Newman. His drunk acting is masterful. His inherent likability shines through this darker messy character. The David Mamet script is well-researched and meticulous. Sidney Lumet's direction is a little slow and needs greater intensity. Nevertheless, it's a great movie to see great acting from everybody in a well-written script.

I've always believed that actors are drawn to courtroom material because of the inherent conflict within them makes for good drama and good parts. They're quite a few of them in The Verdict.

This has always been my favorite Paul Newman film, it's the one he should have won the Oscar for. His Frank Galvin is not the noblest of creatures, he's a once promising attorney now an alcoholic ambulance chaser. But the skills are still there and he shows them battling tremendous odds. Thirty years earlier Frank Capra could easily have made this the subject of one of his populist dramas.

Newman gets great support from an outstanding cast. James Mason, Jack Warden, Charlotte Rampling, Joe Seneca deliver some outstanding performances. The one I particularly liked here was Milo O'Shea as the corrupt and biased judge.

Most of the great courtroom dramas have been about criminal cases. The Verdict was a landmark film that set the stage for the success of other great films about civil cases, including A Civil Action and Erin Brockovich. Those I don't think would have been made but for the critical and popular success of The Verdict.

Paul Newman was never better on screen.

The Verdict is what The Color of Money should have been. In The Color of Money, Paul Newman plays an old hustler who used to be young and famous. He trains and teaches a young upstart, but it was hardly an interesting storyline. Wouldn't it have been a more captivating plot if he used to be young and famous, and now, he's washed up, playing the small time again and struggling with an alcohol problem? I think so.

In The Verdict, Paul Newman plays a lawyer who once had a future in a prestigious law firm. Now, he's a washed up alcoholic, chasing ambulances for clients. He's given one last chance to bring a big case to court, but can he get and keep his act together and win?

With a running time of over two hours, it feels a little slow. But courtroom dramas can be notoriously slow, so it's not the end of the world. It's also a little predictable, but if you like Paul Newman or stories about underdogs, definitely give it a chance. He's up against the formidable James Mason in court, and on his own time, he has to tough it out against Charlotte Rampling (a funny re-pairing of the two Georgy Girl stars) who claims to believe in him but then kicks him when he's down. It helps to have a loving woman in your corner when you're in the biggest fight of your life. Is Charlotte the right woman for him? If he loses the case, will she still stick by him?

I saw that A Civil Action was on this weekend and it reminded me of another great film - this one. With 30 years of acting under his belt, Paul Newman gave an outstanding performance as a drunk, washed-up lawyer that was handed a cakewalk that he proceeded to screw up. He managed to come out smelling like a rose through luck and skill as a lawyer. Newman was superb! He should have gotten an Oscar for this film, and I am not saying that just because I like seeing someone stick it to the high and mighty.

Sidney Lumet was also great as director as should have been rewarded for this and not just given an honorary Oscar.

Bruce Willis has another walk-on role.

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.

This film is okay. It takes the usual lawyer which only works for money and transitions him into a moral being fighting for justice. This film also focuses on morality subtlety while focusing on justice primarily. Paul Newman gives a good performance.

"The Verdict" is simply one of the best legal dramas ever done. Of course much of what happens in the movie is unrealistic and wouldn't happen in a real case but the movie isn't a study in courtroom procedure (watch the fantastic "Anatomy of a Murder" for that) it is a study about redemption and in that respect it excels.

This movie captures Paul Newman's finest screen performance and that alone makes it an important movie. The scenes where Newman hardly says anything show how great an actor he is---his look of self-loathing when he's thrown out of the funeral home, his palsied hand and lost look when he's trying to drink his whiskey, his panic when Charlotte Rampling lambastes him for being a failure. Then throw into that his terrific courtroom scenes, his arguments with the judge in chambers, it is just a sensational performance all around.

The level of acting is high all around in this movie. James Mason was Oscar nominated for playing the silky smooth, totally corrupt defense attorney. Jack Warden shines as Frank Galvin's world-weary former law partner. Lindsey Crouse has a small role as a nurse but is given the most powerful and dramatic moment in the entire movie. Her cross-examination by James Mason is where the movie really shines and shows that Paul Newman can keep his ego in check. How many movies give the most powerful and dramatic moment of the film to one of the secondary players? How many lead actors would be willing to just sit there quiet in a chair while a bit player and the second male lead share the big moment? It was a bold decision by both Newman, director Sidney Lumet and writer David Mamet and it is unforgettable.

The movie shows the two extremes of the practice of law. James Mason's win-at-all-costs cheating and Paul Newman getting so emotionally wrapped up in the case that he is no longer protecting his client's interests and instead is out to settle his own personal scores. A great, great movie.

Sidney Lumet reaches into a certain style in this film that took me a few minutes to, if the word is right, adjust to. One might almost think the way he keeps the camera on a character or goes for the shots keeping the characters far away (long-shots) or in dark spaces (when not in the courtroom) or seemingly small in the scope of the areas around then, as detached. It is, but there-in lies his talents as a director, by letting the acting- slow but very sturdy and all based on David Mamet's script (also not one of his very best, but then again different from his plays). It's not a great film by the director as some have gone to lengths to write about, but it is one that is resonating further as I write this, and does successfully dig into further what it means to be a lawyer, or just trying to live, when odds are stacked against you. I'm almost reminded of a European director here, searching under the obvious in the story- points of which in the case that could just as well be on an OK episode of Law & Order- doing more of a character study than a full-on courtroom drama.

It helps, however, that Paul Newman is at the top of his game here, giving a performance that is textured, if that's a word to use as well, and kind of sad. He's playing Frank Gavin as much of a tragic figure as a real human being here, and there's a scene where he is in his office at a big moment of doubt "there is no other case, there is no other case". Newman is able to tap into what Lumet and Mamet have in the material superlatively, as if he knows how this character thinks. The early scenes show him as a low-level guy, ambulance chaser, who gets a case of a malpractice of a woman. In one of the most crucial and successful scenes in the film (for both director, writer and star), Gavin takes a couple of Polaroids of the girl in the hospital, seemingly just doing his work, but then has a pause, and the photos come into focus. This kind of change-of-thought has been done in other dramas to be sure, but here it really clicks with the pace, the mood and timing from Newman, and how this situation is given room to breathe.

If the rest of the film doesn't follow this same pattern it's not necessarily a full-on crutch. The courtroom scenes themselves are very good, with James Mason (among other British character actors) convincing in their roles of the more 'weighty' side of the court. Jack Warden adds some presence too as Gavin's partner (and adds a memory of Lumet's own classic 12 Angry Men). Only the sub-plot between Newman and Rampling seems just slightly off. Her character is necessary for the film, and there are one or two excellent scenes with her in it (particularly the one with him feeling most shaky before the trial). But her part is that of a more conventional picture, and her motivations are only made so clear as to not be totally believable. The final scene between her and Newman is maybe the best out of all of them, but it goes without saying that it's mainly a credit to him and Lumet, a kind of catharsis that is laid on that does add a fine point.

The Verdict is not really one of those films that is "over-rated" in the scope of things, and it's possibly more of the deserved Oscar nominated turns for Newman when compared to The Color of Money (good, not great there). It's worth seeing again, even as it is a different kind of courtroom picture, where the good and evil in man is not as revealed as in Lumet's first feature, but there are some poignant scenes of the need of redemption for a broken person.

The Verdict is a fine film with an adapted screenplay by David Mamet. There are some brave editing choices where key moments are left to the imagination rather than shown, which is to say the audience is being treated like adults, so thanks for that one. Paul Newman is very good in this film. Charlotte Rampling, who has very little actual screen time, is fabulously understated with sheer screen presence. Jack Warden is as reliable as ever. The story is about a man seeking to redeem himself through the case he takes on, instead of settling out of court he decides to fight, much to the distress of his needy clients. Is he really being selfish? You decide. The photography was good too. A throughly decent film.

Screenwriter David Mamet has turned Barry Reed's novel--about a boozy Boston lawyer getting one last chance to prove himself in the courtroom--into theatrical dramaturgy. Perhaps he thought this story had the potential to be another "Death of a Salesman", but unfortunately it's closer to a well-heeled movie-of-the-week (sprinkled with expletives). Paul Newman was at precisely the right age to tackle the role of Frank Galvin, the little guy who takes on the system in a case against a hospital owned by the Archdiocese of Boston, and Mamet stacks the deck against him...even the judge has ties to the Church! Still, the film has an anti-climactic feel; there's very little emotion expended--in court or out--and really no suspense. Director Sidney Lumet sets the pace at a workmanlike even-keel, though it might have been more effective had he instructed his cinematographer, Andrzej Bartkowiak, to keep the camera active instead of inert. Opening near the end of 1982, the filmmakers clearly saw this as prestigious Oscar-material, but, aside from Newman's solid work, it isn't very extraordinary. **1/2 from ****

I can only agree wholeheartedly with the first submission about this film, it is one of the most grown up works of American cinema that i have ever seen. Everything about the film is just great - Newmans Frank Galvin is a truly great character, and it just shows how great an actor Newman is when he can portray someone washed up so well, when as a person he has lived a very fulfilling and successful life. As a character study it is superlative, and there are no wasted moments - just like Training Day there is not one wasted moment in the film. The way he is chastised by the sister and her husband for being 'Just like all the others' when in fact he isn't, he actually knows that it is an occasion to really address the issue properly, yet risks all by doing so - shows the kind of contradiction that rarely is shown in films. Cutting, biting wit. A film for grown ups. Fabulous.

Quentin Tarantino once called the 80s the worst era in cinema, or words that that effect, due to the political correctness in every film at the time - and I think he was absolutely correct. Even the better made films like 'The Verdict' are just so painfully dull and safe. There is nothing memorable about them whatsoever. This wasn't a bad film, it was nominated for Best Picture for the record, yet I doubt I'll ever remember it again a week from now.

I typically really enjoy courtroom dramas, but I had a really tough time staying focused on this one. For one thing it takes an extremely long time to actually get to the courtroom scenes. They really are just a minor part of the film, even though they are far and away the most interesting thing it has going for it. For another thing the suspension of disbelief required in terms of the conduct of the lawyers and the judge is enormous. Everything feels very fake and unrealistic.

I went in expecting to love this film, but I just couldn't find a way to connect to it. Awful characters everywhere and a plot that simply wasn't gripping. It's not a bad film, but it is nothing special either. 6/10.

The man is a failure ... he's a failure because circumstances made him so. He's no different than you and me. He's just unlucky. And you know how it is. Adversity calls adversity. You lose your job, your wife leaves you, you start drinking, you can't have another job back and like that, you're labeled as a failure, a loser. Frank Galvin, played by Paul Newman, is one of them. A loser. A Boston lawyer, he became what they call an "ambulance chaser". A man who gives you a card during your father's funeral to tell you he was a friend of him. The first scenes of Lumet's "The Verdict" clearly announces the character as a man who's not your typical Paul Newman's character, he's no Hud, no Cool Hand Luke, no Eddie Felson, yet it's one of the most brilliant and masterful performances from the late actor.

Frank Galvin hasn't solved a case in years. He hasn't won anything. He developed a 'brilliant' reputation that totally discredited him in the profession. Obviously, something must change in his life and Galvin, although not much appreciated, has one true friend : Mick, played by the late Jack Warden, who manages to get him a golden case to get back on the rails. A guaranteed win if Galvin accepts. He does, but for selfish reasons, at least at first. He cares for people, he cares for the case, but something is burning inside him: he cares for himself. There is a profound desire of redemption calling from the bottom of his soul, he tries to find the right way and this case is the promised land for him. A young mother condemned to coma for the rest of her life, for what appears to be a medical error. Obviously, Galvin can't fail.

BUT. What is failure? and what is success? That's the genius of the film. When Galvin takes snapshots of the poor victim, he realizes one thing he didn't quite get at the beginning. She's a victim of a criminal injustice. It's clear. Any other thing is a lie, any other attempt to silence the truth is criminal, and anyone who accepts that is accomplice. Anyone who accepts anything he believes against, whether because it is untrue or unjust, is a weak. The weak is the one who doesn't believe in his own principles, by not following them. The weak can win if he joins the liars, the cheaters, the winners, to win by default, but he'll always be weak, because he doesn't believe in himself, and will forever live with that. There's no salvation for the weak even if he wins. Galvin might be a loser, but he's not weak.

Galvin is flawed, indeed. He has many weaknesses, alcohol being the biggest one, but his evolution all through the movie is a great example of an inspiring character study, from the brilliant director, Sidney Lumet (who, in 1982, had an already impressive and qualitative filmography). Galvin shows how justice is an abstract but powerful idea that can only live through our deep faith in our success in the quest for truth, because what is true, implies justice. Justice's blindness is a noble concept except when the blindness is deliberate. That is corruption, blinding justice, disguising it, using influence to silence it. Galvin despises this kind of corruption, refuses the generous offer from the opposite side, who like the people he defends, doesn't want a trial and prefers an out-of-court settlement. But HIS mission is personal, though he doesn't fight for selfish reasons anymore, but for his idea of justice. And hell yes, they'll go to trial.

It's quite ironic that the movie lost the Best Picture Award to "Gandhi", when Galvin is almost a Gandhi-like figure when you examine his ideas and beliefs. Everything is against him, yet he believes he's right. Gandhi said "Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth", this is Galvin's spirit. He believes in himself, he's given a mission that will redeem him, by bringing justice to the unfortunate couple, to a family devastated by the loss of a young woman. In this case, the opposite side is defended by the powerful, suave, charmingly villainous, Ed Concannon, brilliantly portrayed by James Mason. Concannon practices law with such perfectionism and obedience, the case is like David vs. Goliath. Evertyhing seems lost, everyone is against Galvin, including a memorable one-sided judge. But he goes on, despite his fears, his mistakes, his clumsiness, the way he seems so unsure of his words ... Frank Galvin doesn't have the phlegm of Atticus Finch, nor the flamboyance of Hans Rolfe, or the charisma of Arthur Kirkland, but his weaknesses make him 'strong' and the case 'personal' in the noblest sense of the word.

This movie is probably one of the greatest courtroom dramas ever directed, because it gives its true meaning to the word 'justice'. Justice is not about values, it's about faith, it's a blind faith which makes us take all the risks, because ironically, justice can only be accomplished through 'illegal' ways when the opposite side buries important elements under obscure judiciary concepts and in these cases, when the system is against Justice. Frank Galvin was against the system, and believed in Justice. He's a hero.

Frank Galvin fought for an idea of Justice threatened by the system, men like the judge or Concannon, who make justice, sometimes, unfair. "The Verdict" is the greatest courtroom drama because it is the one that gives you the greatest faith in justice ...

As time progresses, and as standards for film making escalate, the Verdict falls behind and does not stand the test of time from multiple perspectives.

The tempo of this film is a snail's pace. Given that this film was from 1982, this seems to be far behind the times of the early 1980's. The pacing may have passed as normal prior to the 1970's. The Verdict is painfully slow, which is further amplified by the lack of soundtrack or orchestral support. If watched late at night, there's a chance that this film may put the viewer to sleep. This may steer away all but the most patient and well rested viewers.

For whomever owns the rights to this film, there's a very good opportunity to edit out the extended pauses and give this movie new life. This film has moments, but those moments are drowning in a sea of slow moving characters/plot, coupled with monotone dialog (mostly). With the right editing team, this film could potentially be shaved down by a significant fraction and the viewing experience would be more compelling.

Regarding the characters, it is challenging to identify with or become attached to any of the characters. Supporting characters are forgettable, shallow, and rarely developed, again amplified by the slow pacing. The main character is beyond help. He stumbles through most situations and stands up for what may be perceived as the hard path, on rare occasions. Dumb luck is the only hero of this film.

Shouting is not acting. This seems to be more common with older films, so it may have been more acceptable in 1982, but moping followed by yelling like a junkyard dog makes characters less believable and separates the viewer from the character. This makes it difficult to identify with the main character. Logical one moment and belligerent the next, without provocation. The viewer may opt to root for the opposing legal team, as they seem to be above average intelligence and they have their affairs in order.

Cinematography is substandard. Beyond the bleak characters, this film lacks color variance. Scene after scene is drab, or dimly lit. There's a lack of scenes that pop with color or beauty. There are no unique camera perspectives to make things interesting. An average college level film student could have shot this film easily, as most scenes are wide angle, steady, or slow panning in one direction.

Sound quality and volume normalization is bottom of the barrel. Character dialog volume seems to swing wildly even within the same scene, indicating that there was likely one microphone in a fixed position. As a character approaches the microphone the volume spikes. If a character walks away the volume quickly fades. This makes it challenging to watch since the viewer needs to adjust the volume up and down to compensate. This is a failure on the production side and the supporting team also failed to fix this in post before release.

This is very far from a perfect movie.