Talk:The Verdict

'Lumet's special style![edit]

This film appears to me as a real extraclass one. The camera frames are build upon a perspective, which is strange, unconventional.

Guess it might be the perspective of the victimezed young lady, the coma patient. This suggestion leads to angles which depend on the real experience of immobility and a threehundert year old wheight of unjustice. The laywers ability is settled in that weird angle system. Get right moving in stable opression! So Mr. Lumet found a real solution to improve a story at the democrat line, which means "-suppressors wrong!" No question, who this supressor is, the church, the famous doctor, the unrightfull judge, out of prejudices and so on... Film work as a medium for time axes in a special case, which is film class of it#s own. No conventional suspense, but increasing tension, by handling this unkwon perspective in the right way. Old man#s innovation works well! The alcohol problem doesn't act like a movens, it#s an actors studie to this theme. Clear and enlightning! Couragious either!--Danaide (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is an innapropriate comment, as it relates to the movie and not to the article.Toyokuni3 (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected Bruce Willis info[edit]

Bruce Willis is in fact an extra in the courtroom scene at the end, but he's not the man smiling after the verdict is read.PacificBoy 09:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Persistent vegetative state'[edit]

this is simply wrong. she is not in a persistent vegetative state. she is in fact comatose, as she is described in the next paragraph. the writer actually wikilinked persistent vegetative state, and one has only to mouse over the term to see that the description doesn't fit. the term persistent vegetative state is never mentioned in the movie. someone is adding details that aren't there.Toyokuni3 (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]