MovieChat Forums > The Verdict (1982) Discussion > Bruce Willis In The Verdict

Bruce Willis In The Verdict

posted 2 years ago by ecarle (14979)
3 replies | jump to latest

In The Verdict(1982) when Paul Newman makes his closing argument speech at the end of the movie, in the specator seats behind him about five rows back is...Young Bruce Willis. With hair.
You can see him a LOT, and at one point, he smiles.

Willis was a mere Boston-based extra in The Verdict. Shows you how quickly you can become a superstar. Only 6 years later, Willis was the lead in a big giant hit(and pop classic), Die Hard.

In between: Moonlighting on TV. Willis breezed past 100 plus guys to get THAT role, and that set him up for Die Hard.

12 years after The Verdict, Big Star Bruce Willis appeared in the Paul Newman movie "Nobody's Fool." Newman was looking pretty old by then.

Bruce Willis has a few scenes in Nobody's Fool, and he's very good.

Willis had two stipulations:

ONE: He would only appear in scenes opposite Paul Newman(though other people are in some of those scenes.)
TWO: He would not take billing.

On set, Willis reminded Newman that they had already worked on a movie together. Newman couldn't remember it.

And then Willis told Newman about The Verdict.

Quite a rise, yes?

A nobody extra in The Verdict.
An instant TV star in Moonlighting
An instant movie superstar(after a few false movie starts) in Die Hard.

[–] Roguemail (1614) 2 years ago

Very, very old news. This has been known about for ever..

[–] Boricanator (1440) 2 years ago

Not only is Willis there, Tobin Bell, who plays Jigsaw in the Saw movies is there.

In fact, he is sitting to the left of him.

McClane and Jigsaw sitting in a Courtroom watching Paul Newman deliver a closing statement. That’s a meme right there.

[–] Interlepos (1807) 8 months ago

It's strange to observe Willis as an extra in "The Verdict" and reflect that within a mere 6 years, he'd skyrocket to stardom in "Die Hard." It's an astonishing leap.

"Nobody's Fool" is a wonderful film, but what a strange set of stipulations! "He would only appear in scenes opposite Paul Newman (though other people are in some of those scenes)". It's about the narrative and the film's story, not merely about sharing scenes with Newman! You can't help but wonder why certain films succeed despite actors imposing such ego-driven conditions. If it indeed was ego, I'm not sure, but the film worked wonderfully anyway.

Another actor I admire, Steve McQueen, often imposed similar conditions because he was a star and knew his brand. Was it ego-driven, or does some actors possess a keen instinct for what works? Take Sylvester Stallone, for example. He suggested an alternative ending for First Blood because he realized the original one involving suicide wouldn't resonate with audiences, and he was proven right during testing.