Paul Newman won the Oscar in 1987 for The Color Of Money, but he should have won it for his performance in this searing 1982 courtroom drama; in my opinion, it's the best perf of his long career. Newman plays alcoholic Boston attorney Frank Galvin, who is handed a malpractice case concerning a woman who was put into a coma while giving birth. Top notch support from Jack Warden, Charlotte Rampling, James Mason et al. The film is kind of long (two hours and 20 minutes) but I didn't want it to end.

I agree that Paul Newman's performance in "The Verdict" was more worthy of an Oscar win than his performance in "The Color of Money".

However, I note that although a lot of people say that Paul Newman should have won his best actor Oscar for "The Verdict" (1982), rather than for "The Color of Money" (1986), I've never heard any of those people say, with justification, that Newman should have won the Oscar at the April 1983 Academy Awards show over his co-nominee that year, and the actual winner, Ben Kingsley, who won for "Gandhi" (1982). The only rationale offered as to why Newman should have won for "The Verdict" rather than "The Color of Money" is that the performance in "The Verdict" was better or more compelling than the performance in "The Color of Money", which alone isn't enough to justify the claim.

During a settlement meeting in the judge's office, the judge (Milo O'Shea) pours coffee into Galvin's cup. The amount in the cup differs from one camera angle to another.