Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

mark.waltz Courtroom dramas outside of murder mysteries are a mixed bag, and some are incredibly boring. That is far from the case in this case, a medical malpractice suit where a woman goes into the hospital to have a baby and ends up in a lingering coma. Ambulance chaser attorney Paul Newman is on the verge of an alcoholic breakdown and is haunting funerals hoping to get a client. His actions are a disgrace, an embarrassment to watch, and when he takes on the case of the comatose woman from her sister, he seems to have crossed the line into callous immorality. But a sudden visit to the hospital opens his eyes, and after visiting the local cardinal whose diocese runs the hospital, he becomes determined to take the case to court rather than just accept a pricey settlement.After his showy performance in "Absence of Malice", Newman tops it, playing a greatly flawed man whose ethics have unexpectedly disappeared. But there's more to him than meets the bar exam and the bar tabs, and it comes down to a beautiful stranger (Charlotte Rampling) he meets to bring out those vulnerabilities that he's kept hidden. Jack Warden as Newman's veteran attorney mentor, James Mason as the head of the defense team and Milo O'Shea as the tough talking judge round out the cast of famous names, with Wesley Addy as a specialist on the case and Joe Seneca as an important witness give powerful performances as well. Seneca, known to"Golden Girls" as the man suffering from Alzheimer's whom Estelle Getty's character briefly befriended, is particularly memorable in his gentle characterization.Now a 35 year old modern classic, this is still timely because of legal ethics, medical malpractice issues still prevalent today, and is the type of film that really makes you think. I think had it not been for "Ghandi" the year that this came out, this may have been a front runner for Newman to win his first Oscar. I only find some of the Charlotte Rampling scenes to be out of place, even with the twist I saw coming long before it did. It's both a reunion for Warden and director Sidney Lumet from 1957's "Twelve Angry Men" and for Warden and Mason from "Heaven Can Wait". You'd have to be a pretty savvy New Yorker to recognize some of the locations for this Boston set film, but like the Charlotte Rampling issues, those factors are minor.

HotToastyRag The Verdict is what The Color of Money should have been. In The Color of Money, Paul Newman plays an old hustler who used to be young and famous. He trains and teaches a young upstart, but it was hardly an interesting storyline. Wouldn't it have been a more captivating plot if he used to be young and famous, and now, he's washed up, playing the small time again and struggling with an alcohol problem? I think so.In The Verdict, Paul Newman plays a lawyer who once had a future in a prestigious law firm. Now, he's a washed up alcoholic, chasing ambulances for clients. He's given one last chance to bring a big case to court, but can he get and keep his act together and win? With a running time of over two hours, it feels a little slow. But courtroom dramas can be notoriously slow, especially in the 80s, so it's not the end of the world. It's also a little predictable, but if you like Paul Newman or stories about underdogs, definitely give it a chance.

Solnichka McPherson Well, Paul Newman is good, but this film is not among his best. His character is annoying at best, for a variety of reasons, the least of which is he's a lawyer. That being said, let's get to the rest of the film. It is a strong-plotted film, with the time- earned theme of the wronged-little-guys against the big-money-big-guys in a courtroom. Who wins? Watch the movie. Medical malpractice always makes for engaging material. Not much else to say about this film. Newman is solid, but not great. Jack Warden is okay, because that's all he really can be. James Mason is good, and the court scenes are among the best in the film, especially when Mason cross- examines an Irish-accented former Boston nurse. There is a gratuitous love interest and an eventual plot twist that is totally predictable. Watch it, but if you want better Newman, watch Seinfeld or Absence of Malice.

Thaneevuth Jankrajang 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.