Reviews

"The Verdict" is a very good courtroom drama and a fine character study. Paul Newman, James Mason and Lindsay Crouse give extraordinary performances. Sidney Lumet, who made such masterpieces as "12 Angry Men," "Long Day's Journey Into Night," "The Pawnbroker," "Dog Day Afternoon," "Prince of the City" and "Running on Empty", creates a gripping atmosphere and very fine courtroom images.

Some critics have called "The Verdict" one of Lumet's masterpieces. I'm not sure about it. The plot seems somewhat constructed sometimes, especially towards the end. There are also some errors in legal details, as others have indicated.

It has also been said that the behaviour of Newman, Mason and O'Shea wasn't credible, since it wasn't always ethical and since they risked their licenses. I disagree with this kind of criticism, since it completely misses the point of the picture. In Lumet's pictures you seldom find characters without human flaws. Newman's character should certainly have consulted his clients and should have asked them whether they wanted to accept the hospital's offer or not. That he hasn't consulted them shows his complete obsession to win this one case to restore his self-esteem. It shows a human flaw in Newman's character. He makes a mistake. This is made pretty clear in the picture! But it's an understandable mistake. He also beats Rampling, which is also morally wrong. But that's what makes the movie so interesting. Its "hero" is a three-dimensional one, a character with both good and bad aspects. The behaviour of O'Shea's and especially Mason's characters isn't ethical of course. But people who criticize this as incredible don't see that there is corruption among lawyers and judges as there is corruption in most professions. Those who think that this is false or that the corruption is always revealed and punished are a bit naive. The movie has been misunderstood by some as a criticism of defense lawyers and judges in general. This is wrong. Lumet's works often deal with problems in the society and with corruption. But as his famous films about police corruption ("Serpico," "Prince of the City") don't claim that ALL cops are corrupt, "The Verdict" doesn't make such generalizations about the legal profession. Mason and O'Shea are NOT supposed to represent the majority of people who work as lawyers and judges (as Rampling's character isn't supposed to represent all women). You wouldn't think that L. Olivier's character in "Marathon Man" represents all dentists, would you? :-)

This is not the best courtroom drama ever made. I prefer Lumet's own "12 Angry Men," Preminger's "Anatomy of a Murder," or Wilder's "Witness for the Prosecution" for instance. But "The Verdict" is in one league with a flawed, but admirable film like, say, "Inherit the Wind."

9/10 (**** out of *****)

The main virtue of "Death on the Nile" is Agatha Christie's unbeatable whodunit plot, which is arguably even more beautifully constructed than that of "Murder on the Orient Express." The latter had been adapted for the screen in 1974 by one of America's great filmmakers, Sidney Lumet.

Like its predecessor, "Death on the Nile" was filmed with a fine all-star cast, in which Peter Ustinov, Bette Davis, Angela Lansbury, Maggie Smith, Mia Farrow, David Niven and Jack Warden stand out. Ustinov's Hercule Poirot is perhaps a bit less eccentric than Albert Finney's or David Suchet's, but I actually like all three interpretations.

The film is as lavishly produced as "Orient Express." It has nice costumes and beautiful natural locations. John Guillermin isn't as strong a director as Lumet is. Consequently, the images in "Death on the Nile" are pretty, but less artistically interesting than those in the preceding film. Moreover, Guillermin's visual storytelling is a bit repetitive (he shows all the possible versions of the murder in detail, which tends to become a bit tedious after a while), and the first half could have been shortened a bit. Still, the direction is way above average, and Guillermin handles the action scenes and the solution in a convincing way.

To me, "Murder on the Orient Express" is the most artistically satisfying Poirot film, but "Death on the Nile" is the most entertaining of the Poirot adaptations with Ustinov as the Belgian detective. "Evil Under the Sun" is also enjoyable, since its strong second half more than compensates for the overlong exposition.

I'd give "Death on the Nile" a rating of *** out of ****.

Sidney Lumet ("12 Angry Men", "Long Day's Journey Into Night", "Dog Day Afternoon", "Network", "Prince of the City", "Running on Empty") usually makes complex and serious films. This one is lighter stuff and not his most important achievement, but it's an exquisitely photographed, highly entertaining mystery movie with a well-playing all-star cast that includes Albert Finney, Sean Connery, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Vanessa Redgrave and Wendy Hiller. I think, it's unnecessary to summarize the plot here.

When I began to enjoy movies, I was very interested in mystery movies. I particularly liked to see Agatha Christie adaptations, because I loved her books and stories. At this time, I cared more for the plot of these movies than for their cinematic qualities. I believe that's why I once enjoyed "Death on the Nile" even more than "Murder on the Orient Express." The plot of "Death on the Nile" is even more beautifully constructed than that of "Orient Express." Nevertheless, time has convinced me that the latter is a superior motion picture.

The main reason is that Lumet is a better director than John Guillermin. Lumet's images, which give "Murder on the Orient Express" an ironically nostalgic tone, almost have the stylistic accuracy of paintings: each color, every use of light or lenses has its meaning. In "Nile," Guillermin primarily photographs pretty locations. He does that quite well, but the images are less interesting than Lumet's. "Orient Express" is an atmospherically brilliant movie. The scene that shows the start of the train is a masterpiece in its use of camera and music. Another advantage of "Orient Express" is the fact that it is more than 10 minutes shorter than the other movie. The visual storytelling in "Orient Express" is less repetitive than in "Death on the Nile" (Guillermin shows almost all possible versions of the murder in detail, which gets a bit boring after a while). And, while Guillermin has a good feeling for the action sequences in "Nile," the first half of his film could have been told faster. (I would have liked to see Lumet's version of "Death on the Nile.")

Both films distinguish themselves by a high technical standard and good acting. I like Finney's version of the detective as much as Ustinov's, even if the interpretations of the role are very different.

Along with Billy Wilder's "Witness for the Prosecution," "Orient Express" is one of my favorite Christie pictures. I'd rate it ***½ out of ****. I also recommend "Death on the Nile" (***), "Evil Under the Sun" (despite its rather boring first half), the Poirot series starring David Suchet (especially the longer episodes, like the atmospheric "The Mysterious Affair at Styles") and the four Miss Marple films with Margaret Rutherford (even if they aren't very faithful to the Christie stories).

Director Sidney Lumet ("12 Angry Men", "Dog Day Afternoon", "The Verdict") has found a very interesting style for this picture about a police detective's wrong way of dealing with his problems and the evil in the society around him. "The Offence" (1973) is well-photographed by Gerry Fisher (who also did the cinematography for two other Lumet films: "The Sea Gull" and the great "Running on Empty"). The performances are extremely good. Sean Connery is as brilliant as in Lumet's masterful prison drama "The Hill". And Ian Bannen, Trevor Howard and Vivien Merchant are excellent as well.

Although the suspenseful film gets sometimes a little slow-moving, it is a really admirable achievement.

A complex, suspenseful, and sometimes surprisingly funny spy thriller by master director Sidney Lumet ("12 Angry Men", "Long Day's Journey Into Night", "Dog Day Afternoon", "Running on Empty"). The picture has a really brilliant cast, including James Mason, Simone Signoret, Maximilian Schell, Harriet Andersson and Harry Andrews. The photography is interesting too. Lumet and cinematographer Freddie Young used a technique called "preflashing". In his book "Making Movies" Lumet writes: "Thematically it was a film about life's disappointments. I wanted to desaturate the colors. I wanted to get that dreary, lifeless feeling London has in winter. Freddie suggested preexposing the film."

Lumet's approach in "The Deadly Affair" (1967) is perhaps even a little too realistic to make it a suspense masterpiece. But nevertheless you should really see this little gem.

DANIEL

"Some day I shall understand"

Some words abouts the complex story. Paul and Rochelle Isaacson (Mandy Patinkin, Lindsay Crouse) were executed in the early 1950s for alleged espionage. Their children Daniel and Susan can't get over this. In the late 1960s, after an attempted suicide of his politically active sister Susan (Amanda Plummer), the rather unpolitical Daniel (Timothy Hutton) tries to find out what exactly happened in the past, tries to understand his parents' lives, tries to help his sister and to get along with his own life...

Sidney Lumet's film "Daniel" (1983) and E.L. Doctorow's novel "The Book of Daniel", which it is based upon, are inspired by the controversial Rosenberg case.

The film shows how children can be affected by the lives of their parents. And it is about the search of one's place in life. Lumet treated these themes again later in his fascinating "Running on Empty" (1988), starring River Phoenix, Christine Lahti and Judd Hirsch. Another theme of "Daniel" is the wish of human beings to understand their parents. Lumet described the movie in a Village Voice interview in the following way: "To me, "Daniel" is the story of a boy who buries himself with his parents, and spends the rest of his life trying to climb out of the grave." The film uses a complex flashback structure to tell its story. "Daniel" illuminates from Daniel Isaacson's view the history of the American left from the 1930s to the late 1960s, including the different left movements. In its criticism of death penalty and McCarthyism, "Daniel" is also a political statement.

Sidney Lumet is one of the great directors of the American cinema. Lumet himself is politically left-leaning, and "Daniel" is probably one of his most personal works. It was about seven years before he got the chance to realize this project. Many people worked on the film for the minimum salary set by the union. Timothy Hutton turned down a million-dollar offer on a film and played Daniel instead for about 25000 dollars.

And Lumet is right when he writes in his informative book "Making Movies": "Despite its critical and financial failure, I think it's one of the best pictures I've ever done." The film proves again Lumet's ability to tell complex, emotionally absorbing, unsentimental stories. Everything works in this uncompromising picture. A few of Lumet's films were marred by their scripts ("The Appointment", "Power", "Family Business", "A Stranger Among Us"). But Doctorow's screenplay for "Daniel" is excellent and extraordinarily multi-layered. Lumet's direction is sensitive and fascinating. Timothy Hutton (who later starred with Nick Nolte and Armand Assante in "Q & A"), Edward Asner (who plays the Isaacson's attorney), Lindsay Crouse (who also appeared in "Prince of the City" and "The Verdict"), Mandy Patinkin, Amanda Plummer and Ilan M. Mitchell-Smith (in the role of the young Daniel in the early 1950s) stand out in a fine cast. The impressive cinematography, which supports the flashback structure by a careful use of color filters, is by Andrzej Bartkowiak, who has worked on 11 Lumet pictures up to now. The rich soundtrack, mainly consisting of songs interpreted by Paul Robeson, perfectly fits and illustrates the film's themes. The editing is excellent as well (a good example is the brilliantly filmed end sequence).

There are many great moments in this film. For instance, there is a powerful rally scene in which you can feel that the Isaacson's children are afraid of the world around them. Another moving scene is a sequence in which young Daniel and young Susan (played by Ilan M. Mitchell-Smith and Jena Greco) walk through New York in search of their home. This scene, also showing Lumet's typically great use of the city of New York, reminded me of Michelangelo Antonioni.

I'm an admirer of Sidney Lumet's cinema. "Daniel" is one of his most underestimated motion pictures, really a must-see. Of course, don't expect standard Hollywood entertainment, but a serious work.

The extraordinarily complex "Prince of the City" (1981) is one of the greatest achievements of master director Sidney Lumet ("12 Angry Men", "Dog Day Afternoon", "Network", "Running on Empty") and one of his most typical films. The cop Danny Ciello (powerfully played by Treat Williams) agrees to give information about the police corruption in New York City, but only if he won't have to betray his partners in his unit... The film is not only about police corruption. In his informative book "Making Movies" Sidney Lumet describes "Prince of the City" in the following way: "When we try to control everything, everything winds up controlling us. Nothing is what it seems." The movie is also about friendship, about values and about drug addiction. "Prince of the City" is the greatest of Lumet's police films, which are all fine (see also "Serpico" (1973), "Q & A" (1990) and "Night Falls on Manhattan" (1996)). Lumet deservedly won the New York Film Critics Circle Award for his brilliant direction. (When will he finally get the Oscar he has deserved since his debut "12 Angry Men"?) Jerry Orbach (who plays one of Danny's police partners) stands out in a fine supporting cast. And pay attention to Andrzej Bartkowiak's impressive cinematography!

**** out of **** (A++)