|
|
Whistle Stopper - Verdict (1982)
|
List Price: $9.98
Our Price: $18.95
Your Save: $ ( % )
Availability:
Manufacturer: 20th Century Fox
Starring: Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling, Jack Warden, James Mason, Milo O'Shea
Directed By: Sidney Lumet
|
Average Customer Rating: 
|
|
Audience Rating: R (Restricted)
Binding: VHS Tape
EAN: 9786301599894
Format: Closed-captioned
ISBN: 6301599896
Label: 20th Century Fox
Manufacturer: 20th Century Fox
Number Of Items: 1
Publisher: 20th Century Fox
Release Date: 1997-04-01
Running Time: 129
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Theatrical Release Date: 1982-12-08
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spotlight customer reviews:
|
Customer Rating:
Summary: Newman's Own
Comment: I've been filling out my collection of Paul Newman films since his passing - and THE VERDICT is one of his best films. A classic script by David Mamet, splendid direction by Sidney Lumet and one of Paul's best performances. The extras in this package are a great bonus. And it's a kick to see a young Bruce Willis sitting in the gallery in the courtroom scenes. An early acting lesson for him watching Newman work (along with Jack Warden, James Mason and a stunningly acted cameo by Lindsay Crouse in a pivotal role. For any fans of Newman - or fans of courtroom dramas - this is one of the all time greats.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Tremendous Actor
Comment: This was a great role for Paul Newman. He was simply brilliant in his portrayal of the down-trodden Frank Galvin, esq. Good storyline as well.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Paul Newman In The Verdict on DVD
Comment: The Verdict (Two-Disc Collector's Edition)
One of many of the late, GREAT Paul Newman's fine work on film. I first saw this film in the theater and simply had to purchase the DVD after the sad news of his passing. I think it is one of the must-haves of his work as an actor.
Customer Rating:
Summary: The jury is the law, when they are not afraid
Comment: In many ways it is a great film. It is a film about justice and how crooked it is. Justice is not interested in truth but in respecting some procedures, some rules that only aim at protecting the powerful. The flaw in that system is not the judges who are unbreakable walls keeping the defense counselors of the victims in their place, which is in the margin of the case. The flaw is the jury when there is one and when this jury is not crooked, bought up, bribed or simply afraid. This jury has all powers they can dream of in their hands as for making justice and making the law, the common law of jurisprudence. But what can a jury be afraid of? Many things. In this film it is not the racial problem. It is not the social problem either. This case has to do with hospitals and medicine and doctors. The fear is enormous because these jurors could be patients one day in the hands of the very doctors they are trying for negligence and malpractice. And that is the argument of the film. A judge can accept a surprise witness and even a document that he should not accept to cover his back in case the defense should appeal his decision, the court's decision or even question his competence and fairness. But in the end he crosses out the witness and the piece of evidence she was bringing because a certain procedure and a certain jurisprudence was at stake, though he could have decided to go over it since jurisprudence can be changed by any decision of any court or judge, and in that case the doctors and their lawyers could not have appealed since then the lethal witness would not have been a surprise witness any more, but part of the investigation. But it goes beyond these simple facts. The lawyers of the doctors are bribing everyone when they can, especially the nurses who witnessed the negligence and malpractice. They even pay a spy to infiltrate the defense lawyer's office of the doctors' victim. In other words they are rotten. They don't do their best. They win. At least they do all they can to win no matter what, no matter how. And that's when the flaw in the system works properly for once and the doctors are severely convicted and sentenced. But, the film is sad, very sad indeed. For one case to work like this one in a film, in virtual reality, how many work the other way round in real reality? The film is all the more efficient in our own minds because the lawyer of the victim, played by Paul Newman, is shown to be completely at a loss in front of life, unsure, unsafe and definitely decomposed to the point of appearing as a failure due to some past and present circumstances. His doubts are our doubts and if we doubt it's good for justice and for us because we may not believe any more and we may require proof and evidence and certainty about the fairness of that justice whose flaw works for us, the victims, one every so often in a blue moon.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines
Customer Rating:
Summary: Best of the Best
Comment:
"The Verdict" is Paul Newman's best movie and David Mamet's best screenplay. I never get tired of watching this film.
|
|
|
Editorial Reviews:
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
