A Covenant with Death (1967) User Reviews

The summary on IMDb seems to say too much...and not quite enough either.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 19 September 2016]

Normally, I don't complain but the summary on IMDb for this film is pretty bad. First, it discloses a BIG plot twist. Second, it really doesn't explain what the movie really is all about as well. Sure, there is a murder and execution...but it's all through the eyes of a young Hispanic judge (George Maharis) and there's no mention of him or how he relates to all this.

The story actually is a bit dispassionate...or should I say the first portion. Ben (Maharis) observes what's going on but seems surprisingly impassive about it. Later, however, when the case is surprisingly dropped into his lap, he has to become involved and make a decision based not just on law but common sense as it's really hard at this point to find a precedent for what happens.

Aside from the poor decision to cast Maharis (he's a handsome guy but hardly seems Hispanic), the film is an interesting look at justice and kept my interest. Worth seeing.

I was baited and switched into watching this film..

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 18 September 2016]

... , being the highlighted film on a night of films on Turner Classic Movies starring Gene Hackman who is nary to be found, but I'm OK with that because it was very good. The central figure is a newly appointed Hispanic judge in New Mexico, just twelve years after the territory has become a state. George Maharis plays that young judge, Ben Lewis. He is generally accepted by the legal community, but they have some doubts, some voiced some not, somewhat because of his inexperience, and somewhat because he is of Mexican heritage.

The central legal case has to do with a local real estate salesman found crying next to his recently murdered wife. (Earl Holliman as Brian Talbot). He is arrested for the crime, and although the evidence is completely circumstantial and Talbot never waivers in his declaration of innocence, he is convicted. The only penalty the law allows is death, and thus the older judge, who has been presiding, sentences him to hang, which is the only sentence he can give him. Ben can't help thinking that Talbot's past behavior, the fact that the whole town knew he gave his wife an STD that caused her to have a hysterectomy, the fact that she punished Ben for this by being openly promiscuous for years, was the real reason for his conviction.

The older judge then goes off on a fishing jaunt, thinking the work is done. What he doesn't know is that things are about to really get tricky. When Talbot is hauled to the hangman's noose, and I mean as in kicking and screaming, he makes Daffy Duck look like a profile in courage. He is crying and struggling all of the way, and then in his attempt to avoid that noose on the scaffold he falls off, taking the hangman with him. The hangman hits his head on a rock and then dies. Talbot is alright. So now they have to wait until the next day for another hangman.

In the interim the real murderer writes out a confession and commits suicide. Now the town needs a judge again, to absolve Talbot of the original crime, and to deal with the fact that he did cause the death of the hangman in clear view of two dozen people, and what penalty or charge should be attached to that action. With the older judge out of town and unreachable, it falls to young judge Ben Lewis to handle a case that might make the supreme court scratch their collective heads. After he receives briefs from both the prosecuting and defense attorneys, he is off to study case law, read the attorneys' briefs, and even discuss the case with legal scholars. Oh, and then there is that pesky conscience of his too.

I think this was supposed to be a film about the death penalty, about its finality and its justice, as viewed from the eyes of a man who has made it to the office of judge but is still not given his dues because of lingering prejudice. And that prejudice does not stop with the white community. Katy Jurado as Ben's mother is ultra traditional, very unhappy with Ben's current blue eyed blonde girlfriend, and wants him to marry a Mexican girl. I think Ben rightly sums it up when he says she wants to continue to rule over the house even after his marriage and knows an Anglo girl won't take being bossed around.

I'd give this film an eight if not for so much of the injection of Ben's love life into the film. I know this was 1967 and that Hollywood was just so excited that they could finally show couples in bed together, but Ben's behavior with women ultimately made him look like a - well not Tom or Harry, the other guy. And his ultimate decision in his love life had me going "What the...?". It just went against everything he had been saying and doing up to that point.

This film supposedly got Gene Hackman noticed, at least the TCM host said that it did, but I don't know why because he has few lines and plays his part like the supporting role that it is.

Not very good

[mrsmithgoes · 5/10 · 17 September 2016]

If it weren't for the fact that the idea behind this story is interesting, I would have rated it even lower. I haven't read the book, but it gets good reviews. The first several pages of the book in the free preview on Amazon did not feel like it described the same place or people as I saw in this film. The book also doesn't have any music like that in the movie. I think that's a good thing. Much of the music in the movie is forgettable at best, annoying at times.

In this movie there are too many excursions from the main theme, and Maharis isn't good enough to make those non-essential scenes believable or interesting. His scenes with his mother (Katy Jurado), as well as with Rosemary (Laura Devon), seem like mostly filler for a 1 hour 37 minute movie that could/should have been shorter. Katy Jurado was much better in "High Noon". Here she is okay, maybe trying at times a bit too hard to save scenes where Maharis isn't good enough. Devon's scenes -- both in number and length -- feel stretched to keep the movie long enough.

In other words, if you take just the legal and philosophical issues and work them into a television screenplay, this might have worked better as a 1 hour television episode of ... pick your favorite old legal show -- Perry Mason?. It also might have worked as a science fiction story on "Twilight Zone", where often difficult moral issues are faced head on -- such as the one about the robot that is accused of murder.

This movie does feature a couple of attractive actresses (Laura Devon and Wende Wagner), as well as an early-career performance by Gene Hackman and a good effort by Earl Holliman. As I said the main subject matter is interesting too. But don't be surprised if most of this movie doesn't keep your interest.

One great acting job

[ali-37 · 20 November 2001]

There is not much memorable about this film except for the performance of Earl Holliman. His panicked trek up the stairs to the gallows is so perfect, I'm surprised he wasn't nominated for an Oscar. Probably no one saw the movie but if they had, they'd be awed.

***

[edwagreen · 7/10 · 22 October 2016]

In his haste to avoid the death penalty, Earl Holliman, found guilty of murdering his wife, pushes the hangman causing the latter to fall several feet to his death. Of course, after this, the real murderer commits suicide and Holliman is arrested for killing the hangman!

We have an interesting premise here, but the film gets bogged down with the young judge's affairs. One is with a schoolteacher who in the summer, gloats about her satisfactory rating in teaching from the past school year. The film takes place around 1924 in either New Mexico or Arizona, we've been a state now for 12 years is said during the film.

Veteran actress plays the young judge's mother- overbearing, critical and walking around smoking her cigars, are all indicative of her, but Jurado is given little more to do, far from her amazing performance with Spencer Tracy in "Broken Lance," 13 years prior to this film.

The young judge's dilemma on how to handle this usual case should have been at the forefront, and not suddenly proposing to a second cousin. His proposal reminded me of the late Louis Jordan's one to Leslie Caron in "Gigi." She grew up before my very eyes.

Melodrama falls short of its concept

[bookeryfan · 5/10 · 10 October 2022]

No need to cover the plot beyond what has already been said. As has also been stated, in many ways this seems like a one-hour teleplay that has been expanded into a feature film. Though billed as a courtroom drama, most of the screen time is taken up with two romantic subplots and a third drama involving the relationship between Maharis and his mother (Jurado).

Maharis is bland as the lead, as are the two women in his life (this is more of a script problem than the actors' faults). Gene Hackman has a fairly small role as the sheriff, so doesn't really get to shine. The one standout, surprisingly, is Earl Holliman. He can often be hammy or wooden, but here he deftly alternates between sympathetic and despicable in the movie's one complex role.

The other standouts in the film are its period setting (early 1900s New Mexico), and the luminous photography by Robert Burks in his next-to-last film.

a covenant with death

[mossgrymk · 5/10 · 20 August 2023]

As the title would indicate the film makers chose to go the high minded, serious legal and moral issues route rather than the trashier steamy, lurid, small town murder trial route. Bad decision. What results is a fairly stiff, dull movie with a few good performances (i.e. Katy Jurado as a New Mexican aristocrat/feminista, Earl Holliman as the unjustly accused good ol boy and an early Gene Hackman turn as a none too bright, racist sheriff). Especially bad is George Maharis in the lead. It's not so much that you simply don't buy a Greek/American actor from Queens , sporting a very outer borough accent, as a a native New Mexican (leaving aside the obvious objection that 1967, when this film was made, is getting late in the day for Brownface) it's that Maharis cannot for the life of him shed his Buzz Murdock persona from "Route 66" with his constant moral outbursts, tendency to fisticuffs and advocacy of the natural as opposed to the "plastic" life. The hippy/dippy scene where he rejects Laura Devon as a wife because she won't curl and uncurl her toes and walk naked in a supermarket has to be a low point not only in Maharis' career but in that of director Lamont Johnson (who, you would have thought, had already plumbed the depths in "Kona Coast") and scenarists Larry Marcus and Saul Levitt. Solid C.

An overlooked gem of a film

[Tony Rome · 10/10 · 5 October 2012]

Thanks to Warner Archive for releasing this film on DVD this past September. It would appear that this film was an attempt to make a major film star out of TV actor George Maharis. His performance as the young, inexperienced judge was very well executed. Earl Holliman shines as the convicted suspect. This is film is noteworthy for an early performance by Gene Hackman as a police officer. His performances echos what would soon come later, in his role as Popye Doyle in "The French Connection," The romance portion of the film may be predictable, but overall the acting is well done, and the photography is great. The best selling novel "A Covenant with Death," by Stephen Becker is given fair treatment in this adaptation. I would defiantly recommend this film ***

A thriller a romanic potboiler a bit about race, No, it's NEITHER!

[HEFILM · 2/10 · 18 August 2023]

Earl Holliman is really good in this movie. Often in films he came off as being rather stiff but if you fast forward to his moments in the film you are seeing the only virtues it's got.

Sold as a thriller it has very little thrills or courtroom drama either, it spends most of it's time with the young judge splitting his time in the sack with a white Blonde of a Mexican black haired girl, guess which one his mother prefers. There is a bit of frank talk but not much heat to these romanic elements and one long travelogue day in Mexico seuqence that tries to convince us we aren't just on the Universal Backlot the whole time.

Lamont Johnson had a long career doing good television work, but all his features feel like bad tv movies and this is no exception, even though it's shot by Robert Burks who shot many Hitchcock films this feels overlit and small scale, though it's supposed to be a period film all the costumes look like costumes freshly cleaned in between every shot.

Even Gene Hackman doesn't make any impression here. Really for the most part this tries to be a kind of light weight romance with the young judge bantering with his Mexican mom. Then once in awhile we cut abruptly to something related to the supposed race against the clock to save a man's life.

The film could have sordid elements but probably the censors at the time forbid this so there is nothing much to shake you out of waiting for the next commercial, which doesn't happen as it's not really the television movie it feels like.

Bafflingly happy to lucky Leonard Roseman score, as if told, hey let's push the romance.

The thriller plot is pretty goofy really but perhaps the few twists there might work if the movie was at all interested in being about the murder of the law. It might have had something to say. Who knows maybe they tried to keep too much in from the novel so everything feels undeveloped except the judge's romance and that hardly is about a Covenant with Death--something a rushed speech near the end mentions very briefly because, why should a movie with that title have anything to do with that subject matter.

A dud.

Very good movie with interesting performances and ideas.

[jeffersonskent · 10/10 · 31 March 2014]

I saw this movie when it came out in 1967 when I was 22 and in the Army. I remember it as being an excellent example of a philosophical question used to good effect in a popular movie. I went on to get a degree in Philosophy, so I must have learned something. The plot concerns the rights of a man legally convicted of murder and sentenced to death. What rights, if any, does someone in such a situation have?

I just ordered an used DVD of the movie and am looking forward to watching it again after almost 50 years. I plan to enjoy it as much as I did the first time I saw it.

Maharis was fine as a young, inexperienced judge coping with a highly unusual situation. I still remember Katy Juardo, Whit Bissel, Earl Holliman, and John Anderson for their distinctive performances. Gene Hackman I don't remember at all, although he is now one of my favorite actors. Times change it seems.

Above average surprise

[mollytinkers · 8/10 · 17 August 2023]

I DVR'd this film off of TCM's lineup, frankly because I was intrigued by the title. The only cast members' names I recognized were Gene Hackman, Kent Smith, and Earl Holliman. I'm glad I took a chance on this film.

First, if given the chance, I'd like to shake the hand of Mr. George Maharis. What a wonderful performance he delivers. The rest of the cast is fine, too; and there's no doubt in my mind that they cared about this project and wanted to give it their all. The production is slick, although I concede it feels more like a network movie of the week more than it does a full fledged theatrical release.

One of the aspects of the film that really surprises and pleases me is the representation of a then minority group/characters as forerunners of the plotline. The story centers around a Mexican-American, and while the usual stereotypes and cultural appropriation are present here, the fact that the producers took a chance on making it the focus is worthy of praise. Considering it was released in 1967, it deserves recognition for that fact alone.

If you're cool with melodramas from the late 1960s, you'll like this.