The Verdict

Starring: Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling, Jack Warden, James Mason, Milo O'Shea, Lindsay Crouse, Edward Binns, Julie Bovasso, Roxanne Hart, Joe Seneca, Tobin Bell (bit)(uncredited), Bruce Willis (bit)(uncredited)
Directed by: Sidney Lumet
Rating: R
Genre: Drama
1982

Times Seen:
Tim: 1

Summary: An alcoholic lawyer (Paul Newman) is gifted a medical malpractice case, but instead of settling, makes the unpopular decision to try the case.

Review:

Tim: I'm genuinely a big fan of legal dramas, but I wasn't totally sold on The Verdict at first. Oh sure, the cast and crew were excellent, but it felt like a slower film. It's pretty long, all things considered, and features a somewhat unlikable character in the lead position. However, the more I watched, the more intrigued I became by Sidney Lumet's film. I got caught up in the drama, in the injustice of the case. I felt compelled, focused on the outcome of the story. That's what good movies do. In the end, I really enjoyed The Verdict. It may not be the greatest legal drama, but it's an especially solid, effective one.

The script does a fantastic job of setting up the central issue- a woman is comatose because of something that happened in an operating room. Were the doctors at fault? The intake nurses? The victim herself? Or, was the whole thing an accident, an act of god with no responsible parties? We obviously suspect we know the truth, but to see how bits of evidence and information comes out keeps us enthralled by the proceedings. Will the truth ever be known, or will it get buried among an avalanche of legality? There were multiple writers for the script, but you know David Mamet contributed quite a lot, based on the quality of the writing. The narrative here is truly compelling and it throws a few surprises and twists in, for good measure. So, although the movie is admittedly a bit too long, it never quite feels that way. Side note- yes, I did wish for a bit of more urgency and a sense of momentum at times, but that's never fatal for the film.

The movie does spend a ton of its runtime on character development. That absolutely pays off. We get to know all the interested parties here. We learn something about the character of these characters. As new characters come in, the script does an excellent job of getting us up-to-speed on who they are and how they see the world. Lumet weaves them into the tapestry he's creating and the movie takes on a new dimension. I thought this film handled the introduction of new characters brilliantly- how we get to really know the characters played by Charlotte Rampling, Jack Warden, Joe Seneca, and others.

Maybe I'll continue with the supporting characters, since I mentioned them. James Mason gives a rousing performance as the opposing attorney. His performance is understated, yet powerful. He feels completely at ease in the role and makes a big impact on the film. Rampling gives a good performance- it feels minimal at the outset, but her importance builds as the film goes on. She's enjoyable in the role. Jack Warden was an absolute standout. I'm not sure when he went from average supporting character to someone I felt truly interested in invested in, but his performance makes that so. Warden is such an underrated actor and deserves more credit. Milo O'Shea has some memorable moments throughout the film as well. Joe Seneca is fascinating to watch and has several outstanding sequences where you can see how talented he is. Edward Binns makes a few nice appearances that add to the movie- really, the whole supporting cast here is tremendous. It's also humorous to me to learn that Bruce Willis and Tobin Bell appeared as background characters in the courtroom scene. Who knew?

That just leaves us with Paul Newman. Newman is one of those excellent actors that never quite comes to mind when I'm thinking of the best all time. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe he just made fewer films than some of his contemporaries? This is only the 14th Newman film I've seen, although most are exceptionally good. He truly carries this film with a complex, fascinating performance. It's always amazing to see actors play people like this- Frank is lost. He's an adrift alcoholic Boston lawyer, scraping by in an existence that feels like the best days are far in the past. I'm not sure he has much hope of anything in the future. And, by a twist of fate or chance, he gets the right case at the right time. It causes him to pull himself out of his stupor, to see the world again. The case lights a fire within him. His story isn't a straight line- there are multiple setbacks, many doubts. But, he continues to move forward. It's a wonderful character arc and Newman sells it so well. I admit I didn't really like his character to begin with. As the movie progresses and we learn more about him, it's nearly impossible not to root for him, to hope he succeeds- not just in the case, but in his own redemption. None of this was a guarantee- yes, Newman had a terrific script to work with. He needed to make us care. To pull that off, he has to give a multilayered performance and authentically show a wide variety of emotions. Some of this is indeed dated- I despised the slapping scene. I get that many viewers were numb to that in the 1982, but it's a terrible sequence to view in 2024. Newman absolutely makes this movie.

Sidney Lumet also deserves immense credit for this film. He's an exceptional director and has delivered multiple great films and many highly effective ones, too. This one isn't close to great- it's pacing is too slow and there's not the deep emotional connection with any of the characters that we'd need. However, it's an effectively made, must-see film. The movie was nominated for 5 Academy Awards, including Best Picture! Newman, not surprisingly, was nominated for Best Actor. I was a little surprised James Mason received a nom for Best Supporting Actor- not that he's not competent and effective, but his performance wasn't quite as memorable as I would have expected. Lumet received a nomination for Best Director, and David Mamet for Best Adapted Screenplay. 5 nominations is impressive- but it's also interesting that the film didn't gain a single trophy. That feels right to me, actually. This is an exceptionally good film that misses out on being great. If I could have pushed one category to a win, it would have been Mamet's screenplay.

Still, all the evidence points to The Verdict being a movie that's well worth our time. I really enjoyed it and it's yet another successful legal drama. If you've never seen it, I object to that oversight (okay, I'm done).

Rating 1-10
Tim's Rating: 7.5



If You Enjoyed This Movie, We Recommend:
12 Angry Men, Network, Absence of Malice