'The Verdict' | Critics' Picks | The New York Times
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 ноя 2009
- A. O. Scott reviews Sidney Lumet's film about an alcoholic trial lawyer on a medical malpractice case.
Related Article: bit.ly/40QJ6w
Subscribe to the Times Video newsletter for free and get a handpicked selection of the best videos from The New York Times every week: bit.ly/timesvideonewsletter
Subscribe on RUclips: bit.ly/U8Ys7n
Watch more videos at: nytimes.com/video
---------------------------------------------------------------
Want more from The New York Times?
Twitter: / nytvideo
Facebook: / nytimes
Google+: plus.google.com/+nytimes/
Whether it's reporting on conflicts abroad and political divisions at home, or covering the latest style trends and scientific developments, New York Times video journalists provide a revealing and unforgettable view of the world. It's all the news that's fit to watch. On RUclips.
'The Verdict' | Critics' Picks | The New York Times
/ thenewyorktimes 
Развлечения
This picture has it all. Great screenplay, great acting (and I mean from everybody in it, no exceptions), great cinematography, great direction, great editing. It's an enduring masterpiece.
In my opinion..Newman should have won the Oscar for Best actor, such a brilliant performance, extremely riveting.
One of the most powerful performances ever by an American actor.
I think he should have beaten Ben Kingsley for the Oscar that year.
@@MrLoaded2012 Absolutely. Ben Kingsley SUCKS
Agreed. Probably the last truly great performance of his career.
Newman was also very good in Nobody's Fool which I think was also made around this time.
I love this move because Newman's character scores both a professional and moral victory...and yet suffers a personal defeat by finding out he's been played the whole time. It's not a typical Hollywood ending with the entire courtroom standing up clapping while corny, uplifting music plays in the background.
But in the end of the film there's still the implication that he answers Charlotte Rampling's call and they make up. American films need to plant the seed of a happy ending, even if it's not completely clear
@@commanderkeen3787 There’s no implication of that to me. Yes, he does ALMOST reach for the phone…before thinking better of it and stops himself from doing so. You presume to know something happens before the phone stops ringing and he changes his mind... something the audience isn’t privy to once the screen goes black and the credits rolled. Why on earth would he ever forgive her for that treacherous betrayal? Why?
@@commanderkeen3787 That is not the implication, and that is not a happy ending for the film, she betrayed him and he no longer has any illusions about her. The ending tells us he chooses not to answer, which is the happy ending as he moves on from his philandering ways and also simply moves beyond her.
@@johnboy32064 Because she also gave him the courage to win, and because in fact, they're two peas in a pod and need each other. Because he has the power and compassion to forgive her. She's a complex animal -- a self-abusive woman desperately struggling to survive. His mirror
image. If he forgave her, he'd likely have the most loyal and devoted woman he's ever known.. Without her, he'll probably go back to drinking.
Personally, I would have ended it with Newman losing the case.
Best scene in the movie is when Paul Newman’s character discovers his “ girlfriend “ was hired by opposing attorneys to get information.... he walks up to her in a restaurant and belts her straight in the face!!!!! Phenomenal!!!!
YESSSS! The best scene in the movie! Bitchen scene
@@joanmarie7631 I remember seeing an interview where Newman talked about that scene and how difficult it was for him to punch Charlotte Rampling. I believe he said he knew he could only do it once. One take. The end.
Yeah.... no way that would be allowed today! 😂
newman is on top of his game in this movie.
What I like so much about this movie is that the two most pivotal scenes (spoiler alert) when his assistant tells Newman that the girl is being paid, and when he confronts her in the restaurant, both have no dialog. It's all body language, facial expressions. His face in the restaurant is enough to have her face turn so drastically, great stuff!
Amazing. Best movie I have ever seen. Paul Newman should have won Best Actor. Instead it went to actor playing Ghandi. I watched Paul Newman at the Oscars and I felt that he also knew he deserved the Oscar
Such a brilliant film..in my opinion, it was Newman`s greatest performance.
Newman had so many great performances and you would have thought they were all in the past. Then this movie came along. Probably THE great American actor. And he still had other great performances awaiting him.
@@davidlindenmuth5431 Indeed, Newman has had many. I'm a huge fan and I would narrow his absolute best work down to, The Verdict and Hud. Followed closely by Cool Hand Luke, Hombre, Slapshot, Nobody's Fool. Wow, yeah, just too many. Knew it.
fine choice.
I think you’re right. It’s Newman’s best. He must have been 56 or 57 when he made this. Absolutely haunting, gorgeously made movie. Lumet was a wonderful filmmaker.
@@waynej2608 What about Cat on a Hot Tin Roof?
I remember it was this AO Scott review that introduced me to The Verdict and inspired me to watch it. It is a film that has become very near and dear to my heart. However, after all these years, I have to disagree with Mr. Scott's notion that there's a "sour" feeling leftover at the end. I absolutely agree that this film does not revel in the triumph of "justice will prevail", but i do think it has a very profoundly satisfying ending. While it is a court room drama, justice is primarily a vehicle in which the real dramatic core (Frank Galvin's redemption) is propelled through the plot. In the end, his victory is so sweet that it would be criminal to not let Galvin relish it by opting to not pick up the phone call from his femme fatale. As cynical as the film is, it still gets the last laugh in the face of pessimism, and that's a happier ending than anyone really needs.
If anyone from from the New York Times monitors this channel I’d like to request that you bring back this Critics Picks short video format to RUclips. Please!
Paul Newman was such a brilliant and charismatic actor. This was one of his best performances!
Verdict takes plot turn unexpected, which for a standard malpractice story really draws one in. And I disagree the end did not leave a sour taste, it was rewarding (to the audience)
It's a bittersweet ending. Yes, he won the case and it gave him and his clients a ton of money. But it didn't bring the victim back, and it could never repair the relationship he had with Laura. They fell in love, but he would never be able to trust her again. He went from a broken-down lawyer with a yearning heart to a wealthy successful lawyer with a broken heart.
Excellent movie. Have watched it a number of times.
Brilliant film with a brilliant performance from Paul Newman
I would agree with you 100% Ralph Adamo.My favorite picture.Like you said great cast great screenplay great direction great cinematography an enduring masterpiece..
The justice DID compensate for the harm that had been done. Without the harm, there could not have been a case, and without the case, there could not have been justice.
It's not that the verdict was "too little, too late." The cynical twist was that the only way justice was accomplished was through jury nullification: Frank convinced the jury to set the law aside and vote with their guts. The last scene left us with the questions "Where does Frank go from here? Where does the justice system go from here?" Mamet should have won the Oscar.
i would not call that cynical, i would call that the opposite. the cynics are the people who desperately need the ending to be more downbeat then it is. even the last scene with formerly needy frank deliberately letting the phone go on ringing is showing that he's reclaimed himself. it has a happy ending, and that's good, because it's well done. just except it.
Newman and Lumet, too.
The verdict wasn't jury nullification. Newman had an open and shut case. To create some drama, the script confused and obfuscated the story the same way a lawyer will try to complicate a case when the facts are against him.
Both parties agreed the anesthetic was safe on an empty stomach but dangerous on a full stomach. The patient's stomach was not empty, therefore the admitting form (patient last ate 9 hours ago) was incorrect, pointing to error on the part of the hospital (the patient had no reason to lie, and who goes 9 hours without eating when near full term, especially when--as the script implies--she was admitted not long after dinnertime?).
The kicker is that the defense does not call the admitting nurse to testify, and objects when the plaintiff does. The nurse's testimony is disallowed so we of the jury don't know what exactly happened, but it's pretty clear the hospital/doctors didn't want the admitting form discrepancy explained.
You CAN argue "jury nullification" in the amount of the award (unknown, but more than was sought). Here the jury was pretty clearly taking the disallowed testimony into account.
Speaking of which: I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the copy of the admission form should have been admitted. The copy was consistent with the other facts of the case (patient's full stomach) whereas the official form was not. That would seem to outweigh whatever precedent the defense quoted, and make the choice of which form is correct a question of fact for the jury to decide.
I beg to differ with the conclusion. The idea of taking on this case was to exact justice. Similar to a criminal case involving murder: the victim will never get his/her life back, but the fact that the killer will be sentenced to jail exemplifies justice and a perdition to those who might think about committing the same act (they will pay for their crime). I personally did not feel a sense of bitterness or frustration at the rendering, but rather redemption. Justice was served.
But he took on the case simply because it seemed like an easy slam dunk settlement. In the end he won a monetary verdict for the family and gains personal redemption, but nobody actual pays for their crimes. That's the point of the story. Not a single person is held accountable.
This film is about the personal redemption, of the Galvin character. Newman says it himself, quite eloquently.
The critic is absolutely correct. The result is "too little, too late" and doesn't compensate for the harm done.
On the other hand, since absolutely nothing can right the wrong, this is the best that anyone can expect. Presumably the reputations of the doctors, the hospital, and their lawyers will also suffer (deservedly) as a result.
It may have been too late to right the wrong, but the victims get some degree of closure.
"I wanted to be a nurse"
Good performance by Lindsay Crouse. I'm always glad to see her on screen.
Best scene in the movie
Heartbreaking
Justice is better late than never. Everything is about justice.
Heavy movie Life is so hard for sensitive big hearted people.... Selfish people just cruise through life always get their way and hurt alot of people... Frank was a sensitive man with a heavy heart..... I felt so bad for him and everyone was against him the only one that couldn't be bought was Jack Warden....
exactly. thanks for that analysis.
James Handy's brief moment to shine is such a highlight of this film.
When the verdict is being read the camera pans from looking down on Galvin to eye-level. Galvin is not a weak, pitiful ambulance-chaser but the lawyer he was. It's not a story about the inability to find justice but when denied justice we lose faith in ourselves.
I love this movie.
Before the clip started you refer to Paul Newman's character as "a loser". I don't agree with that. Perhaps his character is just more morally astute, and the business of being an attorney, has taken more of a toll on a man, who in his heart, believes that justice should come first.
Frank was not a loser he was a leader and had a heavy heart.... He wasn't a follower line the rest of them.... He was a good man with strong morals and cared about people.... A loser is someone who only cares about themselves and hurts people in the process
At the beginning of the film, Frank Galvin was literally an ambulance chaser and a self-hating drunkard. Up until the moment he photographed his client he was in this case strictly for the money. He found his character for the first time in the film when he turned down the settlement offer.
Even then, he was far from redemption because he turned down the offer without telling his clients. Huge ethical violation. I recently rewatched and was shocked to see that, even on the eve of trial, he was still drinking heavily.
Queda demostrado a travès de la historia que,Sidney Lumet,fue el mejor director de todos los tiempos,en cuanto a cine judicial.
@dzanier That's true. But what AO Scott is talking about is the idea that Justice is the human attempt to make up for mistakes made in the past. It's necessary, certainly. It allows us to make an order out of the world we live in. But the past can never really be changed. For the most part, time is a one way street, and there's nothing we can do about this.
Ed Concannon, the opposing counsel to Pail Newman, referred to as the “Prince of F-ing Darkness” is a character based on my real life Grandfather, John Francis Finnerty, a force in the duke it out, on your toes, battle of words world of early (1940s-90s) tort law in Boston, Ma. In medical malpractice and personal injury cases, the client represented was personal-RE horse in the race/dog in the fight.
Catholic Hospital, here, in fictional, and the case details loosely based on a firm matter. Still, the movie is key to the idea that any client was, in that era, and in every case, personal to a trial lawyer. Reputation and character was key to the equation and the body as a whole. Finnerty and Finnerty and a dozen + tort lawyers framed a cast of players in the courthouses, clerks offices and area pubs of the financial district and tough adjacent Quincy Market Irish ancestors hustle of bustle of commerce and trade . Boston was home and its people and institutions personal.
Gone is that idea of local intellect duking out local verdicts with heart and soul. In the area of Tort, Finnerty and similar court players created a body of holdings that became basic principles of Tort law that remain. today. Gone is the day when ones work is a thing he can see change the system as a moving body memorialized in print and practice simultaneously. The shift to the corporate model/globalization caused a slow and steady fade of the small med-mal tort firm in favor of big law big insurance. The Verdict’s characters show a passion pre-this culture of disconnecting from place/depersonalization. Finnerty’s holdings (“Ed Concannon”) remain very alive in required 1st year law school curriculums on Tort Law nationwide (Hood Milk v. Bertha Sullivan of note.) Paul Newman’s one man shingle-the idea of a it’s livelihood hinging on the outcome of one case is the same passion embodied and the same Everyman missing in 2021
The film has a HUGE McGuffin!!! (Plot mistake/error) When Paul Newman interviews the doctor whom he wants as his star witness he does it on the fly in a whirlwind of movement. We as an audience are supposed to believe that is how you interview and lock down your linchpin witness. The doctor disappears and Newman is left looking stupid. This is not believable. He would have insisted the doctor stop and sit down. Then write up his statement, sign it, have it witnessed. In short an Affidavit. But no, we get incompetence from the get-go. Incompetence from a man who graduated top of his class and knows basics like Affidavits inside-out.
It makes it harder to believe the rest of the story.
Especially when Newman NEVER presents the $200,000 offer to his clients before rejecting it. Which he is required to do by law.
And with all that plot error we are supposed to think it's a great story?!?!
Great acting all around, sure. Tension, pacing the corruption angles, yes indeed.
The use of a plant to destroy Newman via a love interest is the best part for me.
7/10 maximum. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble. No, I am not a lawyer.
WHY DIDN'T HE WIN THE OSCAR FOR THIS?
The sister was suing for money damages but the victim had kids of her own... Wouldn't the kids get the money????
Early in the film the sister says the husband took the kids and left, apparently unwilling to sue. The sister then became the legal guardian, I assume, with the legal power to hire a lawyer on behalf of the victim. Apparently they want none of the money, just enough to assure lifetime care for the victim so they can relocate to Tucson (?). I assume the rest would go into a trust fund for the kids.
Film shows how valuable phone metadata is and how to get it, and they didn't use a FISA court.
Subject: Confronting Conspiracy Theorists
Anagram: Fish Inn tact Cognoscenti Pro Sorry
I loved this movie when I first saw it. Now, I can't get past the major mistake in the plot: the attorney (Newman) is legally obligated to present the settlement offer to his clients, who would have taken it=no movie.
Not really a mistake in the plot. It’s exposed that he’s done exactly that.
Not a mistake. His client confronts him about it and says that he could have him disbarred for not telling them about the offer. They're furious, but they decide to continue with the case, perhaps because the alternative is to start all over again.
Why do you always show the ending? Why ruin it for the people who have never seen it?
That's a bold staement, but it's in my Top Ten for sure.
Mine too. Sydney lumet takes an unordinary story and makes it extaordinary.
This is a film with brilliant performances that overshadow so many problems because there was literally nothing realistic about the scenes actually depicting the practice of law, and everyone was committing ethical violations throughout.
No way this case is THAT important for the Concannon firm that 20 lawyers were working on it. That the clients found out about the settlement offer from the other side showed 2 ethical violations - Galvin for not presenting the offer to his clients and the Concannon firm for communicating with the plaintiffs directly and not through counsel.
Then you have a scene where Newman and Warden were preparing for trial and citing to cases. Case law has nothing to do with a trial once motion practice is done. Bunch of silliness to make it seem like law was being practiced.
The trial is a travesty. Frank is unprepared. He brings in Caitlin Costello and SHE has not been prepared. Plus, he has no idea that she has a key document? She takes it out for the first time at trial? More nonsense.
Plus, the case law cited by Concannon to have the document thrown out was nonsense and just ridiculous that they have a book with them that has a case that supports them. Copies are absolutely admissible with proper foundation. Then he argues that since the document is inadmissible, her entire testimony should be disallowed. Uh, what?! More nonsense. She testified to the events and to her memory. No basis at all to throw her testimony out.
Finally, the verdict showed complete jury nullification. If I am Concannon, I ask for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the jury plainly considered testimony and evidence that had been disallowed. And certainly, if we assume that the evidentiary rulings were proper, the verdict does not survive an appeal.
I get it, it's a movie and we need to suspend disbelief, but this was a lazily written screenplay.
Generally a good review with most points agreed upon. But why did you have to give away the the eponymous "Verdict" at the end? Don't ruin it for those who haven't seen it yet.
Wtf? If you people haven't seen it by now, that's on you. It's not like this is some sleeper film that no one knows about.
newman a bien bien choisi lhistoire de films
Film criticism is fool's errand. AO Scott wasted a lot of breath on characterizing this film as a cynical dirge, but it's obviously a redemption story. Just see the movie for yourself.
Newman robbed of another oscar.
Yep, Ben Kingsley should have been a distant second.
He indeed was robbed, but not of "another" Oscar. The Academy was so embarrassed about not awarding him here that they gave it to him for The Color of Money. One of the all time make-up awards.
You've never heard about Ben Kingsley playing Gandhi?
For me I would have chosen either Newman or Hoffman
Wouldn't the jury award be overturned based on the surprise testimony that was stricken? The initial settlement offer was more than fair, in today's money. Certainly the brother-in-law thought so. Doctors are human beings, and human beings make mistakes.
The early 1980s were the beginning of "jury nullification." Certainly the Archdiocese knew that the outrageous conduct of the doctors would come out, and would probably negotiate a reduction in the award. The judge was in their pocket and would do whatever the Defense wanted.
The verdict probably wouldn't be overturned. There was ample evidence that the hospital was at fault, i.e. the admitting form was obviously incorrect (patient had clearly eaten recently), patient had no reason to lie, and the hospital clearly didn't want to investigate the topic further.
It's my understanding, however, that the amount of an award is often reduced on appeal, so that's a possibility.
i dont agree with that analysis
Scott, like many professional critics, see only what they want to see, and then pronounce their opinion as fact.
He stated what he thought of the movie and why. That's what critics do.
@@DS-wk1kn If only. He made sweeping declarative statements instead of merely offering his own opinion. He fails to mention anything about what I find to be the film's biggest theme: salvation. How can one read the film as cynical if they understand Frank's arc?
@@sethfarmer590, the salvation is implied. The cynical view of the American court system is the underlying theme. He may find personal salvation, but in the end she is still in a coma and no persons are really being punished for it happening.
@@davidlindenmuth5431 Exactly.
A small review and yet managed to spoil the ending.
Except you’re probably the only person on here who hasn’t seen it.
There's no justice for the victims the mother and the baby the early 80's is when they started to keep people in a vegetative state...
Once again the Times completely blows the point.
Wow-thanks for ruining the ending
Eh, spoiler alert! WTF!
The movie is nearly 40 years old. Even when you posted this it was more than 30 years old. Spoiler alerts no longer apply.
Hey A.O, you're a smart guy. So let me add two words to your vocabulary: SPOILER ALERT!! Geez, you gave away the whole ending.
A spoiler alert for a film from 1982?
@@DS-wk1kn What's the point of these reviews if it's not to get people to watch these great classic movies?
@@lynnturman8157 The very nature of the film telegraphs the conclusion, plus it's a pretty good flick even when you know the ending.
BTW, in "Star Wars" aka "Episode IV", the good guys win. Oops, spoiler alert. 😀
Why do you give away the verdict in your video? Why don’t you warn people that they sound NT watch your video before watching the movie? Just as a courtesy... Ugh!
This is a movie which begs to be viewed. A story of how many, different, corrupt forces join together to destroy those how push back against the rot....and--at least this once--fail. Newman is perfect in this role and there are no low marks to be found. Compelling, gripping, heart-wrenching and satisfying. If you haven't seen it, put it on the list. Pax.