| Index | 8 reviews in total |
3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Good actors,awful scenario., 12 January 2002
![]()
Author:
raypaquin from Pembroke, Ontario, Canada
Seeing the name 'Nick Nolte' prominently displayed on the DVD jacket made me buy this film. I am sorry I did. Nolte has no more than a few lines to say. The other actors are *all* great. The problem is the scenario, which is full of holes. This, in a judicial suspense drama, is fatal. I suspect that my DVD only has a shortened version (74 minutes) of a longer film (90 minutes according to your database) that might explain the glaring holes. On my DVD, the picture quality is *worse* that what you would expect from a standard-resolution TV picture. The scenario-writer is billed as 'John Nuefield' instead of 'John Neufeld'. Is this a spelling mistake ? The year in the copyright notice at the ending credits states '1972' instead of '1974'. In any case, it is certainly a Spelling mistake as Aaron Spelling produced this El-Cheapo picture. Avoid.
4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Phyllis: Portrait of a Runaway Juror, 13 December 2004
Author:
Poseidon-3 from Cincinnati, OH
One out of dozens and dozens of tightly constructed TV movies of the 1970's (some hilariously bad, some unforgettably distinctive, most - sadly - missing in action!) Hincks is a clinging mistress, desperate to hang on to her married lover (Luckinbill) despite her own good-looking, but hard-drinking husband (Nolte.) When she pushes too far, Luckinbill does her in, but lets Nolte take the rap. Leachman plays a sincere and naive jurist at the trial who begins to doubt Nolte's guilt despite everyone else's sense that he killed her. When she begins to put the pieces together, she finds that she may have imposed a death sentence on herself! Made when Leachman was still knocking them dead on "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" and about to embark on "Phyllis", she clearly tries to downplay her glamor and attractiveness for this "serious" role. The result is high comedy almost as funny as what she did in her sitcoms! With mousy hair parted in the center, no make-up and some really ugly glasses, she spends the entire movie with the same pinched, unappealing expression on her face. Her character is dippy to begin with, but she adds extra hilarity through her wooden reactions to the events around her until she is forced to confront the killer personally, at which point the film soars into the comic stratosphere. Sopping wet, wearing ugly cream-colored heels and with her glasses all smeared, she creates the most abhorrent expressions paired with the zaniest physical manifestations. She flails around at the end like someone who's being zapped with a cattle prod! All this work and her name isn't even printed on the DVD case! Luckinbill gives a decent double-edged performance. Nolte, at the very start of his career, has almost nothing to do (and his case is never properly resolved.) Various familiar TV actors dot the cast such as Oppenheimer and Schallert as lawyers and Lang (famous for her hysterical turn in "The Birds") as the victim's devastated and opinionated mother. As loony as it is (and there is one twist to the tale not divulged here), it's great to see some of these old films turning up as they are too enjoyable (for either the right or the wrong reasons) to stay buried in a vault somewhere.
Unremarkable., 2 May 2012
Author:
DigitalRevenantX7 from Australia
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Plot Synopsis: John Healy is placed on trial for the murder of his
wife. Everyone in the town is of the opinion that he is guilty but as
the trial goes on, one of the female jurors begins to suspect that her
own husband had an affair with the murder victim & killed her to keep
their affair secret.
The Review: Death Sentence (not to be confused with the more recent
film by SAW mastermind James Wan) was an early 1970s
made-for-television film produced by Aaron Spelling, the master of that
era's television soap operas. It also features Nick Nolte in one of his
early roles.
Death Sentence is, in most respects, an unremarkable film. Nothing in
the film stands out in any way (except perhaps for Nolte giving one of
his better performances as the murder victim's husband, a role that
Nolte nails with such precision that you wonder if he was actually
being himself), not even the novelty plot device that plays with every
juror's worst nightmare what if you were on the jury in a murder
trial & you discover that your partner was responsible for the deed?
The other thing I must mention is the fact that producer Spelling must
have been hands-on with the film featuring the same brand of needless
melodramatics that his other works have featured. I thought the idea of
revealing the killer early on in the film was kind of interesting but
it also has the effect of taking all the mystery out of it other than
the climax, you are never on the edge of your seat..
Taunt and Skillfully Made Movie of the Week type Thriller, 15 January 2011
![]()
Author:
Jay Raskin from Orlando, United States
This is a well-acted, well-written, well-directed little
murder-suspense piece that is still quite watchable and entertaining.
Unfortunately, this is being promoted as a Nick Nolte movie on DVD. He
is only in about four scenes for about ten minutes. The stars here are
Cloris Leachman, Laurence Luckinbill, and William Schallert. Cloris
Leachman is best known for her role on the "Mary Tyler Moore"
television Show, but she was in 80 television shows before that and has
been in about 80 television shows and movies since then. In films, she
is best known for her role in Mel Brooks "Young Frankenstein" movie.
Fewer people remember that she won an Oscar for her role in the "Last
Picture Show."Her movie career started with a great small role of a
young woman running nude on a Highway at the start of "Kiss Me Deadly"
(Aldridge, 1956). Here she is terrific as the housewife who slowly
comes to realize that her husband may be a killer. Laurence Luckinbill
is excellent as the husband. He gives a very natural and smart
performance, going against the stereotypes of the genre. William
Schallert, with over 350 television appearances is legendary. He gives
his usual lovable and sympathetic performance as a clever defense
attorney.
The movie is mainly a courtroom drama with the gimmick that one of the
jurists is actually involved with the real murderer. The suspense comes
from the jurist slowly putting together the clues to figure this out.
Some things ring a bit hollow here and there like the prosecutor making
basic mistakes while presenting his case, but we can just chuckle over
the goofs and enjoy the rest. Overall, it is a pleasant and suspenseful
74 minutes.
Objection! Consul is presenting his summation! He's not offering any evidence in this case!, 11 February 2008
![]()
Author:
sol from Brooklyn NY USA
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
(Some Spoilers) Not much to figure in this court suspense/drama in who
exactly did it because we all saw who did it within the first ten
minutes of the movie. The sleazy and manipulative Don Davies, Laurence
Luckinbell,the low down rat of a husband of poor sweet innocent and
naive, to what he's doing to her, Susan Davies, Cloris Leachman,has
been having an affair behind Susans back for over a year.
The other woman in the affair Marilyn Healy, C.J Hincks, had gotten
pageant by Davies and has been blackmailing him ever since. Before
having the child aborted, by causing a miscarriage, Marilyn married the
not too bright John Healy, Nick Nolte, so that her child would have a
name and she would not be suspected of having the baby out of wedlock.
All this came to a tragic end with Don Davies murdering Marilyn and
making it look like the totally innocent John Healy was the culprit.
As fate would have it Don Davies' wife Susan is called to jury duty and
picked as a juror on the very trial that the totally Innocent John
Healy is fighting for his life in him being indited in his wife's
Marilyn's murder! Susan who at first is not at all convinced that Healy
is guilty of murdering his wife Marilyn becomes more and more
convinced, as all the evidence is presented, that her husband Don is!
As all the pieces in Marilyn Healy's murder fall into place Susan is
certain that her husband Don, not John Healy, murdered her. It's now up
to her, and two other jurors who are holding out for acquittal, to save
John Healy from ending up behind bars for the rest of his life, being
that the story takes place in 1974 there's no death penalty, behind
bars.
Somewhat unbelievable in how Susan acts after she finds out that her
husband not only cheated on her but murdered his lover, Marilyn Healy,
when she was going to go public with his infidelity. The totally
confused and what seems like fatalistic, in not being all that
interested in being found not guilty, John Healy is the most
sympathetic person in the cast. Trying to do the right thing by giving
Marilyn's unborn child, by Don Davies, a name John is dragged through
the mud and made to look like a fool by her, refusing to even have sex
with him, that drove the man to almost drink himself to death!
****SPOILER ALERT****What's the most ridicules thing about the movie
"Death Sentence" is that besides it's giving away who the killer is at
the beginning it also doesn't give it's audience just what the jury
verdict is at the end! All we have is Susan screaming and acting
hysterically in the rain as her by now whacked out of his head husband
Don, who had just attempted to murder her, is seen smirking and acting
as if he doesn't have a clue to what her actions are all about. All
this is happening as the police, who Susan called on the phone for
help, are coming to her rescue! You get the impression, without the
movie having a jury verdict, that Don Davies gets away with his crime
and both John Healy and Susan end up spending the rest of their lives
behind bars in a state penitentiary and mental institution
4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Death Sentence adequate for title, 19 December 2004
![]()
Author:
Robin Cook from USA
I bought this DVD for $.88 and has Nick Nolte larger on the cover than
Cloris Leachman. The mistress' acting in this movie was so bad I was
delighted she was offed quickly. During the court scenes I kept hoping
to maybe see a flashback or two of Nolte and his relationship with the
deceased, but nope .. then again as I said, her acting was so bad
anyway, I gave up caring. What little lines they handed out for Nolte
were disappointing. Cloris Leachman appeared pained in struggling to
give each and every one of her lines as if to say, "Nobody could be
this dimwitted."
When Lawrence Luckinbill, Leachman's husband in the movie was preparing
to strangle her, I was almost hoping the movie was going to improve.
What little of Nolte was in this movie, the only thing that was on my
mind was if he was wearing a wig or not since the hair didn't move when
his forehead moved. Pass on this one folks .. it is so bad it qualifies
for its' own death sentence.
4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Nolte has a very small role in this one., 25 January 1999
![]()
Author:
Robert Grant from Calgary, Canada
This is a TV movie that has Nick Nolte in a minor role. He does not have
many lines in this one. If I remember right, Chloris Leachman is actually
the star of this film which is a predictable court room drama and is not
indicative of Nolte's acting talents at all.
The box for this film has Nolte pictured on it but he is very seldom seen in
this film.
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
One big stinkeroo, 22 August 2007
![]()
Author:
paulmasters1 from United States
This "movie" was incredibly painful to watch. Stilted, wooden dialogue,
utterly predictable plot, lousy directing and bad camera work - in
short, this thing's a train wreck.
The film possesses a strange juxtaposition of talented-but-wasted
well-known actors (Leachman, Nolte, Luckinbill, Schallert) and
eager-but-untalented relative unknowns. That the director approved this
atrocity and that TV network executives allowed it to be aired is
incredible. And now it's available on DVD - but why???
The talents of Ms. Leachman and Mr. Nolte are completely wasted. At
least Ms. Leachman redeemed herself later that year (1974) in Young
Frankenstein.
| Ratings | External reviews | Plot keywords |
| Main details | Your user reviews | Your vote history |