Paul Neumann was dead on in his portayl of a functioning, messy alcoholic. There is one violent scene involving a woman that was gratuitous and didn't have to be so heavy handed.

Fiz Direito, mas nunca quis advogar, participei do tribunal Juri e me apaixonei, filme de tribunal me atraem profundamente, seja pela beleza intelectual e de oratória dos grandes advogados, seja pela maestria em usar palavras, escritas (lei) e oral (defesa/acusação) em prol do seu "lado". Ainda que previsível, uma excelente produção, emocionante e cativante, Paul Newman geniosamente lembrou me Clint Eastwood, em meio a tantas balanças desniveladas, lampejo de justiça, adoravelmente reconfortante

This courtroom movie was really good. Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling, James Mason, Jack Warden, James Handy, Roxanne Hart, and the rest of the cast did a fantastic job in this movie. The plot of the movie was dramatic, tense, and tragic. It's about working on a case to turn a wrongdoing into a victory for the victims. If you haven't seen this movie yet, check it out sometime. It's a must see.

Justice may not come easy, but it does come through the people fighting for it! As a disgraced lawyer is given a medical malpractice case, he sees a chance to redeem himself amidst corruption and cynicism throughout the trial. Paul Newman adds the emotional weight in this emotional trial drama that will leave you bawling when the credits roll!

One of, if not THE best Paul Newman movie. Powerful, modern performances. Riveting trial. And beautiful ending.

Watching in 2024 and it was a ok watch. Nothing extraordinary or superb, but watching it for free was ok. Not all that impressive and the late twist or three was just that as I clearly saw most of them coming.

I'm so glad I saw this in 2023, otherwise L.A. Law would have sucked even more.

Wonderful movie from 1982…

Formulaic and way slower paced than it needed to be (too many dramatic pauses; this could have been an hour and a half instead of two, and you wouldn't have had to change a single line). The last act is pure formula you've seen a million times, with a slow and depressing tone. He starts giving his "hail mary" closing argument and the camera slowly pushes in on him. But it's essential for Paul Newman fans. It's always good to see James Mason and Jack Warden. The Charlotte Rampling part is typically underwritten, cliched, gratuitous ("we've got to give Paul a love interest!") and ridiculous. Instead of James Mason having Eva Marie Saint working for him, he's got Charlotte Rampling. It was a plot device that worked better in the 50s. Still, it's compelling to watch, the shots of Newman playing pinball have always stayed with me as an image. Lumet obviously peaked a few years earlier with "Network" and "Dog Day Afternoon" and although this hasn't aged as well as those two masterpieces, it's essential if you're going through the best of his filmography. It certainly was well-received at the time, but I think it's worth watching only if you're studying Newman or Lumet or Mamet (or James Mason, or Jack Warden for that matter!)

The plot itself could've made a great educative movie for all law students/legal specialists, as well as out of the field viewers. However, there are do many legal mistakes in the moview that those simply affect the overall impression. The main character, attorney, didn't nother with the judge pressing him to take the proposed settlement offer, neither did he make a motion to ask for a new trial based on the error (where his assistance was caught accepting checks from the opposing party, suggesting the opposing party's unethical acts) and the cherry on top was the sudden jury's verdict in favor the of plaintiff - based on what? No evidence favored plaintiff's claim and yet jury decides in its favor. The opposing part has a good chance, I suppose, to reverse the decision on appeal, but regardless, these details fail the movie significantly for me.

Awesome movie. Courtroom drama at its finest.

Exceptional. Simply put.

This is one of the greatest movies of all time not just because of the acting which is probably Newman's best role, but because of the truth that today is even more suppressed by the powers that be. It should be required reading, of every civics class in America because school boards are going backward, to whitewash truth about our institutions and as such, The Verdict is even more prescient today than was 1984 when it hit the world in 1949 [following what was or should have been a lesson that seems to have been forgotten In time by those who would keep us in the dark].

So heavy with heart you might forget it‘s a lawyer movie, so fantastic in the end you'll think Disney was at the controls, so appealing is The-Verdict it supplants Inherit-the-Wind (60), To-Kill-a-Mockingbird (62), Anatomy-of-a-Murder (59) and My-Cousin-Vinny (92) as this critic's favorite courtroom cinema. Paul Newman ("Mr Independent") had to salivate at playing the pathetic to profound ambulance chaser Frankie Galvin and would've agreed that the crackerjack cast in every character, including mentor Warden (Mickey), Rampling (Laura), Mason ("the Prince of Fg Darkness"), Crouse ("Who WERE these men!!"), Hardy & Hart the caretakers, Addy (Dr on stand), O'Shea ("bagman" judge) and Seneca as expert witness, all help to make his, an exalted performance, showing Jim Rockford-like detective skills (USPS box break) and setting the bar (pun) with what may be the most eloquent trial summation on film. Verdicts rendered by juries that put personal bias, prejudice, fear or foible ahead of sworn duty will work a stain upon our system of jurisprudence, but when their charge is taken seriously and, in some cases, with courage, those decisions can be a beautiful thing to behold, making 온라인카지노추천, just gorgeous (4★/4).

Whenever I need reminding why I became a barrister - I watch this.

Absolutely a brilliant movie , great storyline great acting 👏👏👏

An underrated movie about a drunken lawyer trying for one last case to give his life meaning and to help restore his faith in the system and of himself.

This might have fooled theater-going audiences into thinking it was a good film four decades ago, but it comes off as laughable now. Medical malpractice is serious business these days; no one with even a flimsy case would rely on a drunken hack such as our protagonist. The best that can be said for this is that Old Blue Eyes does his best with the script, glaring legal gaffes and all.

Stunning courtroom drama withPaul Newman giving his best performance dince the 60s.

A movie that builds on an archetype — the alcoholic, ambulance-chasing lawyer (Paul Newman), the asshole judge (Milo O'Shea) that cozies up to the "White Shoe" firm, the femme fatale (Charlotte Rampling) — The Verdictpossesses enough substance and conflict to merit a (75), but drags at times and has some really ridiculous legal moments. First, as always, I must note an excellent movie bar, which after doing some research, availed itself to be a bar I've been to and love (the 7B Horseshoe Bar aka Vazacs, or simply, The Horsehoe) — this surprised me, for as much of the film takes place in Boston, a lot was shot in NYC. The watering hole is where Frank, our legal knight, frequents to tell dirty jokes with the usuals, play pinball, and occasionally drop a raw egg into a glass of beer. The conflict arises when Frank is given a medical malpractice case as a favor from an old friend and biz partner (Jack Warden), which is set to settle for a pretty sum, if only Frank doesn't have a change of heart, hides the offer from his clients (a big no-no), and loses his star witness to… vacation? You can imagine where the plot goes from here. Despite the system being against him (the "system" here being a judge with a ridiculous haircut and an army of corporate lawyers), Frank conducts some shoe-leather investigations to beat the insurmountable odds. Frank's iron will is commendable, but he commits at least two counts of malpractice, the first I already noted, the second coming when he didn't motion for a mistrial after the red-handed evidence of opposing counsel's (James Mason) ethical violations. Even though the jury finds in favor of our hero (and against all the weight of admissible evidence..) it still is unsatisfying because we never hear the awarded amount. I simply don't understand this. When there has been so much emphasis on the amount from the settlement negotiations, what Frank could've accepted for his clients and the cut for himself, when that amount seemed hopelessly lost, it was a shock that the script didn't include the amount in the namesake verdict. Like so many movies before really the past 10 years or so, we end with whether the romantic interest be tied up, in which, like usual, I don't care. Moreover, if Frank even contemplated continuing a relationship with Laura, I'd want to smash him over the head with his own beer glass. It's a solid legal drama, but with a few changes, could've been something special.