The Verdict (1982)

After giving poor reviews for some of the recent hollywood movies (Annihilation, Black Panther), this is a movie with real characters who change over time, and an interesting story with excellent plot twists.And kudos to the director. The two most pivotal scenes in this movie have no dialog, no words at all. It's all done with eyes and body language. Remarkable.

I've loved this movie since I saw it when it came out, for all the reasons and more that people have written here. Newman at his best. James Mason even better. Great plot. Both the best law movie AND the best medicine movie.But I write here now because of a dinner conversation held earlier today in which I noted that every great movie has dozens of really negative reviews. So we went to GODFATHER, ET, GONE WITH THE WIND, SHAWSHANK, even SINGING IN THE RAIN, and sure enough there are dozens of negative reviews. Sometime later I remembered this movie and went to the reviews to see how it fared: only 2 negative reviews. Maybe the best reviewed movie on IMDb, and well deserved.

In "The Verdict," you have Sydney Lumet directing a tight, evenly paced courtroom drama. Paul Newman delivers an Oscar worthy performance, as he lets us inside the character of a drunk, washed-up lawyer. This performance was somewhat pivotal in his career: Newman had been cast in more dashing lead roles, but now (1982) was the time for him to take on a role more revealing of his age (56, at the time). Jack Warden delivers a powerful performance as Newman's "side man," a guy trying to encourage Newman to recall his earlier successful days before becoming the classic ambulance chaser. Newman's performance is very emotional, as he seems to be seeking redemption. James Mason is perfectly cast as his foil on the other side, representing two negligent doctors and a diocese-backed hospital of renown. Charlotte Rampling's contribution to the film left this film viewer somewhat dissatisfied, and the film's ending seemed a little abrupt. Otherwise, The Verdict is well worth the time.

I was 15 years old when the film was released. I didn't get to see it then, but remembered it as a film dramatically lost so many of its Oscar nominations to Richard Attenborough's Gandhi, especially the ones for Best Actor-Paul Newman and Best Director-Sidney Lumet. I still remember the face filled with painful disappointment of James Mason, the film's nominee for Best Supporting Actor, who died shortly after the film's great success. Thirty-three years passed, and I finally got to see this film, if you can believe it. Lumet, Newman, and Mason are all dead. The mysteriously beautiful Charlotte Rampling has become an old lady, still carrying with her some mystique. Bruce Willis and Tobin Bell, who were extras in the courtroom with no dialogue, have become a major and minor great stars respectively. This Lumet's film still holds. The power and the intent are still there with little to no blemish. Even the images of outdated phones, furniture, cars, and all the rest have failed to discredit the film. We know it is an old film, but we cannot care less. The story of the verdict of a man fallen out of the main road and trying to get back, professionally and morally, is timeless. It is not as cheesy as Rocky and not as flashy as The Wrestler. It is calm, serene, constantly moving, even without one single reason why the main character should have bothered continuing. It is a very exciting non-action film. This is a life you can find around you almost on daily basis, a totally failed drunken loser, yet watching it is freshly breathtaking, like discovering something new. "The Verdict" was purposely made in the stage style: rehearsal after rehearsal, long takes and dialogues one after another, plus the virtually motionless cinematography. Brown tone of color all through the screen. All this should have bored and tired the audience to the bone. Yet we find two hours and 9 minutes of this film seamless and rather short. This is what a classic does.