When I first saw The Verdict back in 1983 I thought it was a gripping, thought provoking legal drama with outstanding performances by Paul Newman, James Mason, Jack Warden and Milo O'Shea. Had I written a review back then, I would have given a 9. However, I was a teenager back then with a naive and inexperienced worldview. Now 36 years later, when I went back and watched it again I really see all the flaws with the film. While the performances still are the best part of the movie, Im bothered by all the plot holes.
1 - The film drags on about Newman's drinking and ambulance chasing in funeral homes. Not enough explanation is given on how he got to this place in his life, except for a couple of brief scenes. Flashbacks to his experience standing up to corruption at his previous law firm would have pulled the story together more cohesively and garnered more sympathy and emotional connection to Newman's character, Frank Galvin. We are left to pretty much draw our own conclusions about Newman's path to this state of despair.
2. Why in the world would Frank turn down an offer of 200k and not at least consult with his clients? I'm no lawyer but how is that even possible in the real world, couldn't he lose his law license over That? That would be like me selling a house and getting an offer from a buyer but turning it down without even telling them.
3 How in the hell is that judge (O'Shea) and defense lawyer so obviously chummy that Mason got to hang up his coat in the judge's closet but Newman had to hold his coat. Are judge's supposed to be that blatantly biased, the whole thing smacked of a conflict of interest but Newman never reported him, he seemed like he was on the take from the start. Perhaps this was to make the audience feel for the corruption, the David and Goliath thing our leading man was up against.
4 If the Charlotte Rampling character was a lawyer at a firm in New York, why did she have to sleep with Paul Newman and spy on him for a $1,500 check from Mason, why not just get a job somewhere. And why did Mason pay her by check anyway so it could be traced? Why did Jack Warden put the check back in her pocketbook, why the hell wouldn't you keep it as evidence of bribery?
5 The scene where Newman punches Rampling in the face to the point she fell down and was bleeding was gratuitous and excessive even back then. That's not the first time Newman used unnecessary violence against women in his movies.
6 Newman just never convinced me he was a great lawyer throughout the entire movie, if anything, Mason was a legal scholar. Either you use the law to help your client or you do something else for a living, go work in a homeless shelter. The ending was just 12 jurors decided to do the right thing even tho legally they weren't supposed to consider the surprise witness. That's great Hollywood but it doesn't make Newman the terrific lawyer who lost his way which is the premise of the whole movie.
Movies are about suspension of disbelief and a lot of viewers may feel differently when watching but this movie didnt age well, for me anyway.
1 - The film drags on about Newman's drinking and ambulance chasing in funeral homes. Not enough explanation is given on how he got to this place in his life, except for a couple of brief scenes. Flashbacks to his experience standing up to corruption at his previous law firm would have pulled the story together more cohesively and garnered more sympathy and emotional connection to Newman's character, Frank Galvin. We are left to pretty much draw our own conclusions about Newman's path to this state of despair.
2. Why in the world would Frank turn down an offer of 200k and not at least consult with his clients? I'm no lawyer but how is that even possible in the real world, couldn't he lose his law license over That? That would be like me selling a house and getting an offer from a buyer but turning it down without even telling them.
3 How in the hell is that judge (O'Shea) and defense lawyer so obviously chummy that Mason got to hang up his coat in the judge's closet but Newman had to hold his coat. Are judge's supposed to be that blatantly biased, the whole thing smacked of a conflict of interest but Newman never reported him, he seemed like he was on the take from the start. Perhaps this was to make the audience feel for the corruption, the David and Goliath thing our leading man was up against.
4 If the Charlotte Rampling character was a lawyer at a firm in New York, why did she have to sleep with Paul Newman and spy on him for a $1,500 check from Mason, why not just get a job somewhere. And why did Mason pay her by check anyway so it could be traced? Why did Jack Warden put the check back in her pocketbook, why the hell wouldn't you keep it as evidence of bribery?
5 The scene where Newman punches Rampling in the face to the point she fell down and was bleeding was gratuitous and excessive even back then. That's not the first time Newman used unnecessary violence against women in his movies.
6 Newman just never convinced me he was a great lawyer throughout the entire movie, if anything, Mason was a legal scholar. Either you use the law to help your client or you do something else for a living, go work in a homeless shelter. The ending was just 12 jurors decided to do the right thing even tho legally they weren't supposed to consider the surprise witness. That's great Hollywood but it doesn't make Newman the terrific lawyer who lost his way which is the premise of the whole movie.
Movies are about suspension of disbelief and a lot of viewers may feel differently when watching but this movie didnt age well, for me anyway.