Review of The Verdict (1982) by Hadley L — 30 Nov 2012

More masterful courtroom majesty from Sidney Lumet who crafted the genre's finest example with his debut 12 Angry Men way back in 1957, and then half a life sentence later in 1982 he brings The Verdict. Paul Newman is nothing short of excellent as a boozy lawyer who gambles all-in on a make-or-break malpractice case instead of accepting a handsome settlement because having the negligent doctors face justice is "the right thing to do." Told in a very 1970's style with keen characterization and many low-key moments, starts slowly but builds interest and tension as the stakes are raised higher and higher. And like the best films of the '70s, I could not be sure of the outcome until the namesake verdict was actually read!

Lumet takes a broader look at the justice system than he did with 12 Angry Men and thus avoids repeating that statement about the value of the jury system. This time he is more critical about the nature of justice as defined by the courts. The cards are always stacked against the little guy, as he demonstrates by the firm led by James Mason hired by the defendants with their team of a dozen trained lawyers ready to gain every advantage they can, whether through the press or jury selection or even espionage. Even so, he praises the bedrock essence of the American system in a great passage that Newman discloses to cagey love interest Charlotte Rampling:

"The weak. {takes a long drag on cigarette} The weak need somebody to stand up and fight for 'em. Ain't that the truth? That's why the courts exist. But you see, the courts don't exist to give them justice - the courts exist to give them a CHANCE at justice.".