Image Unavailable
Color:
-
-
-
- Sorry, this item is not available in
- Image not available
- To view this video download Flash Player
The Verdict [Blu-ray]
Return this item for free
Free returns are available for the shipping address you chose. You can return the item for any reason in new and unused condition: no shipping charges
Learn more about free returns.- Go to your orders and start the return
- Select the return method
- Ship it!
Return this item for free
Free returns are available for the shipping address you chose. You can return the item for any reason in new and unused condition: no shipping charges
Learn more about free returns.- Go to your orders and start the return
- Select the return method
- Ship it!
Purchase options and add-ons
Genre | Drama |
Format | NTSC, Blu-ray, Dubbed, DTS Surround Sound, AC-3, Dolby, Widescreen, Subtitled |
Contributor | Sidney Lumet, Charlotte Rampling, David Brown, David Mamet, Barry Reed, Milo O'Shea, Paul Newman, Jack Warden, Richard D. Zanuck, Wesley Addy, Lindsay Crouse, James Mason See more |
Language | English |
Runtime | 2 hours and 9 minutes |
Frequently bought together
Similar items that may ship from close to you
- The Hustler [Blu-ray]Paul NewmanBlu-rayFREE Shipping on orders over $35 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Sunday, Mar 24
- The Sting [Blu-ray]Robert RedfordBlu-rayFREE Shipping on orders over $35 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Sunday, Mar 24
- Network [Blu-ray]Peter FinchBlu-rayFREE Shipping on orders over $35 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Sunday, Mar 24
- FRENCH CONNECTION, THE [Blu-ray]Gene HackmanBlu-rayFREE Shipping on orders over $35 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Sunday, Mar 24
- Cool Hand Luke (4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray + Digital) [4K UHD]Stuart RosenbergBlu-rayFREE Shipping on orders over $35 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Sunday, Mar 24
- The Verdict (1946)Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet, George CoulourisDVDFREE Shipping on orders over $35 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Sunday, Mar 24
Product Description
Frank Galvin (Paul Newman) is a boozy washed-up attorney with a losing streak a mile long. So when he's handed a lucrative out-of-court settlement, everyone expects him to take the money and run. But Frank is tired of running. In a desperate bid to reclaim his self-respect, he recklessly brings the case to court only to discover that if finding the whole truth is a little like trial and error, then finding real justice is a lot like trial by fire.
Product details
- Aspect Ratio : 1.85:1
- MPAA rating : R (Restricted)
- Product Dimensions : 0.7 x 7.5 x 5.4 inches; 2.01 ounces
- Item model number : 2283209
- Director : Sidney Lumet
- Media Format : NTSC, Blu-ray, Dubbed, DTS Surround Sound, AC-3, Dolby, Widescreen, Subtitled
- Run time : 2 hours and 9 minutes
- Release date : May 7, 2013
- Actors : Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling, Jack Warden, James Mason, Milo O'Shea
- Dubbed: : French, Spanish
- Subtitles: : English, French, Spanish
- Producers : Richard D. Zanuck, David Brown
- Studio : 20th Century Fox
- ASIN : B00BN3EE14
- Writers : David Mamet, Barry Reed
- Country of Origin : USA
- Number of discs : 1
- Best Sellers Rank: #6,659 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
- #830 in Drama Blu-ray Discs
- Customer Reviews:
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonReviews with images
-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
one can enjoy, aside from the quality of the film, is how different life was just back in 1982!!! Zero tech!!! It is like viewing a time capsule in real
time!!! In my opinion, it really juxtaposes life then as well as the fact that you have a real story in a film rather than explosions, CGI, the hyper over budgeted offerings that leave one amazed but thinking.....what did I just see?
Now to the story line. Frank Galvin, the character played by Newman, is an alcoholic, ambulance chasing attorney at the end of his rope. He starts the day at the local pub for a shot of whiskey, a quick game of pin ball and beer with a raw egg in it before court. He is known in his circles as a burn out. As the film plays out, you do find out that at one time he was at the top of his game but a crooked law firm took advantage of him in his youthful naiveté, he was accused of jury tampering. It was all a set up and lie but he was fired from the firm, lost his wife and he never quite got over it. Thus leaving him in his current state. He does have a very good friend and former teacher played by Jack Warden who gets him a "winner case". A major medical malpractice case involving a Catholic hospital and world renown doctors. His client is a young mother who as a result of the physicians care ended up in a vegetative state and needing 24/7 hospital care. The night before he is going to meet with the sister of the young woman in question Galvin goes on a drunken binge and nearly destroys himself and his offices. Mickey finds him in the ruins of his office, gets him sober and the next morning warns Galvin...."now this is it Frankie I'm not fuxxxxxx around with you anymore". Frank meets with the family and they just want enough money so that the sister can be well cared for and so that they could move on with their lives. Frank assures them that he is on the case and things start rolling. Galvin goes to the 24 hour care facility that the now comatose woman is housed at and is moved deeply. His original plan was to take the pictures and his arguments to arrive at a settlement with the archdiocese that owns the hospital. When he arrives at the meeting they actually offer him a settlement...but he just can't accept it. He wants to fight for the young comatose woman. Perhaps in doing this he feels he can save himself as well. So, no settlement.
Galvin finds a very good physician that will testify that the doctors were indeed negligent....but then terrible things start happening. Mickey says it best..."the lead attorney for the archdiocese is the f-ing prince of darkness"...Mickey is right and the dirtiest, lowest, backward dealings begin.
Paul Newman give a performance of epic proportions!!!! As Frank Galvin, Newman plays a man on the ragged edge which has rarely been seen on screen. Remember this man is an alcoholic, he is in fact dealing with the lowest prince of darkness with no misgivings about destroying Galvin completely. You literally see Frank Galvin come apart at the seams and yet...he still works the case. His true brilliance and ability shine subtly through when he is the one that is asking all the right questions from all involved in the malpractice against this young mother. The audience is kept guessing about "did the doctors really do this to her".... A femme fatale, one Charlotte Rampling is interjected into the story and boy is the outcome of this tryst a shocker.....
I will leave the description here. I don't want to ruin it for anyone. In conclusion I will say that this is a great, moving and satisfactory film. Perfect for a quiet, rainy afternoon of popcorn and TV. Paul Newman, Jack Warden, Charlotte Rampling, James Mason, Milo Oshea, Linsay Crouse and many more delivery powerhouse performances in substance and subtlety.
I can Highly recommend this film
The acting was excellent on everyone's part.
There were surprising plot twists. Incidentally, I disagreed with one online reviewer, I think it was Ebert, that the Newman character was still drinking when the movie ended, giving it a somewhat cynical cast. I didn't think it looked that way at all.
There were a few loose ends. Why did the doctors who were prepared to testify for the plaintiffs convinced that the wrong anesthetic was given, when it turned out that no anesthetic at all should have been given under the circumstances? Was this an educated guess? How would that have stood up in court?
Did the former admitting nurse really change the notation, or did the doctor do it? I thought that wasn't clear. Either way, the outcome was the same: she soon left the hospital and stopped being a nurse, either because the doctor forced her to do it or because she felt so bad about what had happened. I guess the implication was that she changed it. I may have to see it again to be sure.
A fascinating detail for us today is the way that the existing technology, or lack of it, affected the plot very much. The rotary phones were there all the time. Nobody had a cellular phone, making some people unreachable at times. No one had a PC. When Frank Galvin's ex-girlfriend tries to call him, he has no way of knowing who it is because the phone would not have a display panel, but somehow you guess that he suspects that it is she, and he doesn't pick up. Also, nowadays, when you go to the hospital, there's a nurse sitting at a computer taking down the information. I doubt any system is failsafe, but a computer can be set up so that no one can change an entry once the Enter or Submit key has been hit, and if there's an override possible, only authorized personnel, determined by the instituion, can do it. This was true at the agency where I worked--the Human Resources Administration of New York City--regarding comments the workers entered on anything they put into a client's record. You might be able to add a comment that a mistake was made, but you couldn't change the original entry.
The black doctor, who was unable to help as much as he wanted to, was very affecting. I think he probably did have some good influence on the jury. The way he spoke about justice was sincere. The character, and the actor playing the part, would have known firsthand about the need for justice as he had encountered racism. Some racism shows itself in the film right away when he enters the picture, and it was clearly designed by the filmmakers to make a statement about that.
The film haunted me. It seems so dated, and yet all the issues it raises are up to date.
Lindsay Krouse (sp?) as the former nurse was very fine.
I had heard of the film but never seen it before. I learned more about it when it was discussed, with selected clips, in the very fine class on the cinema given at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation by noted filmmaker Ken Kimmelman.
Top reviews from other countries
Du grand Newman, à voir absolument pour son jeu tout en profonde restreinte.
This Courtroom drama, made in 1982, was directed by Sidney Lumet, who 25 years before had made one of the greatest films in the genre, ‘Twelve Angry Men’.
‘The Verdict’ focusses not on the Jury, but on the prosecuting Attorney. Frank Galvin, a washed-up drunk, is played with intensity and integrity by Paul Newman, and he was nominated for an OSCAR. Galvin, a man who has lost his career and his wife through the duplicity and malfeasance of others, seeks justice for a victim of medical malpractice. And in doing so, he seeks to restore meaning to his own life. He is pitted against the Catholic Church, two eminent doctors and a huge, wealthy and well-staffed law firm, prepared to use every trick, legal or not, to win. James Mason, as the lead defence attorney and mastermind, is majestically machiavellian and manipulative - a role for which he was also OSCAR-nominated. And Jack Warden, a hugely reliable veteran character actor, is superb as Galvin’s long-suffering friend, aide and former teacher.
The feel and look of this film, moving between Galvin’s apartment, his run-down office, the Court building and any number of Boston bars, is pitched just right. You experience with Galvin, the booze and smoke-filled dives pulling him down. You also experience with him the desperate plight of his young client, and the hypocrisy and subterfuge of those arrayed against him. And like him, you want justice.
There are reviews here saying that the film is dated. Clearly, it was made in 1982, and society has changed beyond all recognition in the intervening years. But we need films like this to remind us of how far we have come, and where we have come from. We really enjoyed the excellent performances, excellent plot and excellent script. Whilst it is not ‘Twelve Angry Men’, it is a worthy companion piece.