how long is the movie the verdict

What is the movie The verdict about?

In the story, a down-on-his-luck alcoholic lawyer accepts a medical malpractice case to improve his own situation, but discovers along the way that he is doing the right thing. The Verdict garnered critical acclaim and box office success.

How many minutes did NBC edit out of the verdict?

NBC edited 33 minutes from this film for its 1985 network television premiere. Featured in At the Movies: Tootsie/The Verdict/Sophies Choice/Airplane II (1982) What is 'The Verdict' about? Is 'The Verdict' based on a book?

Is the verdict by Sidney Lumet a good movie?

Sidney Lumet's The Verdict (1982) is a natural depiction of a lawyers fighting their case with or without ethics. Lumet returns to form in the courtroom after his classic 12 Angry Men (1957) with The Verdict. Lumet's smooth direction gives The Verdict a grounded quality. The problems are all gritty and down to Earth.

When was The Verdict (1946) made?

The Verdict (1946) Approved | 1h 26min | Crime, Drama, Film-Noir | 23 November 1946 (USA) After an innocent man is executed in a case he was responsible for, a Scotland Yard superintendent finds himself investigating the murder of his key witness.

Photos

Cast

See more

Who wrote the verdict?

For other uses, see The Verdict (disambiguation). The Verdict is a 1982 American legal drama film directed by Sidney Lumet and written by David Mamet from Barry Reed 's 1980 novel of the same name. It stars Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling, Jack Warden, James Mason, Milo O'Shea, and Lindsay Crouse.

What is the rating of The Verdict?

Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a score of 88%, with an average rating of 7.77/10, based on 32 reviews. The website's "Critics Consensus" for the film reads: "Paul Newman is at the peak of his powers as an attorney who never lived up to his potential in The Verdict, supported by David Mamet's crackling script and Sidney Lumet's confident direction." In a poll of 500 films held by Empire magazine, it was voted 254th Greatest Movie of all time. In 2013, the Writers Guild of America ranked the screenplay No. 91 on its list of the "101 greatest screenplays ever written". Richard D. Pepperman praised the scene in which Judge Hoyle eats breakfast and offers Galvin coffee as "a terrific use of objects, making for a believable judge in his personal, comfortable and suitable place, as well as a Physical Action (motion) that demonstrates the subtext of the Judge's objective (in support of the insurance company, the doctor and their attorney) without an abundance of expository dialogue."

Why did Newman keep the scene where he strikes Rampling?

The producers were reluctant to keep the scene where Newman strikes Rampling, believing it would turn the audience against his character and even damage his public image. However Newman insisted on keeping it, believing it was right for the film.

Did Lumet have a final cut?

After the film was finished, the studio's executives sent Lumet several suggestions and urged him to shoot a new ending when Newman's character picks up the phone, but Zanuck relayed to them that Lumet had final cut and the film would remain as-is.

Did Lumet have rehearsals?

Before shooting began, Lumet held extensive dress rehearsals, which was standard practice for Lumet's films but not common on Hollywood productions. Newman was very appreciative as they proved crucial in developing his performance, giving him the time he needed to tap into the emotional bankruptcy of his character.

Storyline

Mr. Grodman was a respected superintendent at Scotland Yard until a mistake in an investigation caused the execution of an innocent man. He takes the blame, is dismissed, and replaced by the obnoxious, gloating Buckley. Feeling vengeful, Grodman would like nothing more than to see Buckley look foolish on the job.

Contribute to this page

By what name was The Verdict (1946) officially released in India in English?

What to know

Paul Newman is at the peak of his powers as an attorney who never lived up to his potential in The Verdict, supported by David Mamet's crackling script and Sidney Lumet's confident direction. Read critic reviews

Movie Info

A boozing lawyer (Paul Newman) takes on a law-firm dean (James Mason), the Archdiocese of Boston and the system in general.

Movie & TV guides

The percentage of Approved Tomatometer Critics who have given this movie a positive review.

Who is the director of the verdict?

But the director and the star of this film, Sidney Lumet and Paul Newman, seem to be going for something more; "The Verdict" is more a character study than a thriller, and the buried suspense in this movie is more about Galvin's own life than about his latest case. Frank Galvin provides Newman with the occasion for one of his great performances.

What is the moment in The Verdict?

There is a moment in "The Verdict" when Paul Newman walks into a room and shuts the door and trembles with anxiety and with the inner scream that people should get off his back. No one who has ever been seriously hung over or needed a drink will fail to recognize the moment.

What does Galvin expect from the settlement?

Galvin can expect to settle out of court and pocket a third of the settlement - enough to drink on for what little future he is likely to enjoy. But Galvin makes the mistake of going to see the young victim in a hospital, where she is alive but in a coma. And something snaps inside of him.

Who plays Frank Galvin in the movie?

Newman plays Frank Galvin, a Boston lawyer who has had his problems over the years - a lost job, a messy divorce, a disbarment hearing, all of them traceable in one way or another to his alcoholism. He has a "drinking problem," as an attorney for the archdiocese delicately phrases it.

Is Galvin's redemption a thriller?

Galvin's redemption takes place within the framework of a courtroom thriller. The screenplay by David Mamet is a wonder of good dialogue, strongly seen characters and a structure that pays off in the big courtroom scene - as the genre requires. As a courtroom drama, "The Verdict" is superior work. But the director and the star ...

Kids say

Sorry, we're having trouble retrieving streaming and purchasing options. Please try again in a bit.

We're glad you're here!

Want recommendations for movies (and more) that match your kid's age and interests? Learn more.

Did we miss something on diversity?

Research shows a connection between kids' healthy self-esteem and positive portrayals in media. That's why we've added a new "Diverse Representations" section to our reviews that will be rolling out on an ongoing basis. You can help us help kids by suggesting a diversity update.

A lot or a little?

Standing up for the underdog. Holding those in positions of power accountable for their actions. Discussions of bribery and corruption by institutions such as the church.

What parents need to know

Parents need to know that The Verdict is a legal drama about a disgraced lawyer living with alcohol addiction, who has a chance at redemption when he takes on a medical malpractice case. Despite his addiction, lawyer Frank Galvin ( Paul Newman) makes an effort to act in the best interests of his client.

What's the story?

THE VERDICT follows disgraced lawyer Frank Galvin ( Paul Newman) as he takes on a medical malpractice case that he hopes will salvage his reputation.

Is it any good?

Dated by the slew of movies and TV series that have followed, this 1982 courtroom drama, while solid enough, suffers from not delving enough into its main character. In The Verdict, Newman brings enough gravitas to the role of Galvin.

What does Frank tell the jury in his closing statement?

So Frank, in his closing statement, tells the jury that they are the judicial system, that they can tell what is wrong from what is right, and that he believes that they WILL do the right thing.

What does Frank do after all his evidence has been disallowed?

In the courtroom, after all his evidence has been disallowed, Frank reaches deep into himself and banishes his Disbelief. He musters a new Faith in the judicial system as a whole, telling the jury that THEY are the law, and no matter what forces work against the truth, he has faith they will do the right thing.

Why does Frank decide to bring the case to court?

Main Character Issue#N#Frank decides to bring the case to court because he believes he can get a larger award—it just isn’t right what they did to that poor young woman; he also doesn’t want the physicians, people who are supposed to help other people, to be free to continue harming others through negligence.

Does Frank settle the case?

Frank doesn’t sett le the case, but decides to bring it to trial even though he hasn’t had a successful trial case in years.

Overview

Plot

Cast

Production

Reception

See also

External links