Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

GarnettTeenage The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

mark.waltz Taking a tip from Edna May Oliver in "Ladies on the Jury" and Helen Broderick in its remake "We're on the Jury", simple housewife Cloris Leachman becomes embroiled in danger when she becomes compelled to investigate the murder of a married woman whose husband she is sure did not kill his wife. Her husband (Laurence Luckinbill) is upset because she has postponed their vacation in order to serve on the jury, and the involvement in trying to discover who the real killer is becomes frustrating to him as well.The ever busy Leachman was everywhere on TV and in movies during the '70's, but she is not well served by this obvious "movie of the week". Even worse is the fact that the killer's identity and motive are revealed at the beginning of the film, removing all suspense and making it all pointless. Even if it wasn't seen earlier, the revelation is so far fetched that even a child would shout "Hog Wash!" as it all comes out. Leachman is also badly served by some unflattering photography. A bevy of familiar '70's faces from TV and movies make this a curio, particularly William Schallert and Allan Oppenheimer as the attorneys, Peter Hobbs as the judge, and Hope Summers as a very hostile witness.

sol (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

Poseidon-3 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.

raypaquin 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.