Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

JinRoz For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Spidersecu Don't Believe the Hype

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

MartinHafer When the film begins, a scum-bag husband is meeting with his mistress. She informs him that she's pregnant AND she's giving him an ultimatum to dump his wife...or else. Not at all surprisingly, he soon strangles her to death! Soon there is a trial for the murder of this woman...but the police have arrested the wrong man...her husband (Nick Nolte) and not her lover. Now here is an insane coincidence...the murderer's wife (Cloris Leachman) is picked for the jury...and through the course of this film, she comes to realize that her own husband might have done the killing! So what does she do next? The plot here is very difficult to believe but could work. Sure, it's a HUGE coincidence that the woman would be on the jury for a crime her husband actually committed. But, if well written, the audience can suspend disbelief just this once. Unfortunately, this movie isn't particularly well written because they make the wife too stupid to live. Why? Because when she thinks her husband might have done the crime, she doesn't go to the judge or either of the attorneys to tell them but instead tells her husband!!! And then, she picks up the phone to call the police instead of leaving to get help!! This essentially makes the lady too dumb to be real AND makes women look stupid (after all, the mistress was incredibly stupid to give her lover such an ultimatum). Perhaps such things might have been more likely in films of the era...nowadays I am sure many women would be offended by this sort of nonsense. As a result, I am knocking off a few points...as it could have been handled much more intelligently and would have been a much better movie of the week.This is a film I would really love to watch with a lawyer. This is because as a non-lawyer I don't know how inappropriate the prosecuting attorney was during the course of the trial. Many times his witnesses didn't just report what they saw and knew but drew very damning conclusions---conclusions that obviously would have colored the jury. Sure, the defense attorney objected but it happened often enough I wondered if it would have normally resulted in a mistrial.

moonspinner55 Cloris Leachman plays a wife and mother about to go on vacation with her husband when she's picked for jury duty on a murder trial; naturally, she's eager to be a good citizen, becoming emotionally (and personally) involved in the legal proceedings. Aaron Spelling-Leonard Goldberg production for TV isn't a flashy vehicle for the leading actress, but it doesn't need to be. Leachman is an appealing 'ordinary' woman, a good listener with a compassionate nature, and both her home life and her dedication to finding the truth in the murder case are engaging. Nick Nolte has an early role as the accused killer, and Laurence Luckinbill is appropriately smug as Leachman's spouse. The plot, adapted from the novel "After the Trial" by Eric Roman, is far-fetched, but waiting to see how writer John Neufeld and director E.W. Swackhamer work out all the angles is entertaining.

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