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.
13 Reviews
Nolte has a very small role in this one.
Robert-8725 January 1999
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.
The box for this film has Nolte pictured on it but he is very seldom seen in this film.
Objection! Consul is presenting his summation! He's not offering any evidence in this case!
sol-kay11 February 2008
Warning: 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
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
What Is Suspense?
cutterccbaxter14 December 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I've noticed some IMDB reviewers for this type of film tend to make the following statement: "Seeing who the murderer was in the opening scene ruins the suspense."
Uhm...if we don't know who the murderer is then there is no suspense as the plot unfolds.
Alfred Hitchcock once said something (and I'm paraphrasing): If we have a character who is carrying a bomb on a crowded bus and the audience knows the bomb is set to go off in three minutes - then we have suspense.
If we have a character carrying a box and the audience doesn't know what is in the box and it suddenly goes off - then we have surprise.
Structurally, in terms of plot, this movie could have revealed the killer later in the story but that wouldn't necessarily have made it more suspenseful. It actually could be argued that it made it less suspenseful since less time would be spent on suspense and more on the "who-done-it" aspect.
The suspense occurs in this story because we know Cloris Leachman is married to a murderer after the opening scene.
I'm not arguing that the suspense was handled brilliantly in this movie. But I would argue that if we the viewer didn't know who the murderer was from the get go, the film would be less suspenseful and not more.
An idea which could have worked...except the writer made a couple women in the film just too stupid to be realistic.
planktonrules9 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
Passable TV Mystery-Thriller
dglink4 October 2015
A passably entertaining made-for-TV thriller, "Death Sentence" reveals the killer in the opening scene. Laurence Luckenbill strangles his annoying blonde mistress with his own yellow scarf, because she threatened to go public with their affair, which would have destroyed his cherished family. Cut to the courtroom, where Luckenbill's wife, Cloris Leachman, has been accepted as a juror in the trial of Nick Nolte, who is on trial for the murder of his wife, the woman that Luckenbill killed in the opening scene. If the premise sounds a bit far fetched, it is, not to mention the murdered woman preferring Luckenbill to the young Nolte. Based on the novel After the Trial, the film cuts back and forth between the courtroom testimony and Leachman's domestic scenes with her husband and children. As the testimony progresses and evidence is presented, Leachman slowly suspects her husband's involvement.
The performances are uneven; Leachman is good as the wife, intently listening to witnesses, while slowly connecting the dots. However, Luckenbill, the family-values man, overacts at times, and poor Nolte sits looking at his hands for most of the movie, until he provides brief testimony in his own defense. Director E. W. Swackhamer keeps the proceedings moving fast enough to distract viewers from the inconsistencies and gaps in logic. Absolutely no motive or evidence are presented to implicate Nolte, other than the malicious dislike of his mother-in-law and unreliable claims from a nosy neighbor. Leachman's suspicions are all circumstantial, and some of her actions are completely implausible. However, for non-demanding viewers with an hour or so to kill, "Death Sentence" is decent entertainment, if they just go with the flow and do not ponder the details.
The performances are uneven; Leachman is good as the wife, intently listening to witnesses, while slowly connecting the dots. However, Luckenbill, the family-values man, overacts at times, and poor Nolte sits looking at his hands for most of the movie, until he provides brief testimony in his own defense. Director E. W. Swackhamer keeps the proceedings moving fast enough to distract viewers from the inconsistencies and gaps in logic. Absolutely no motive or evidence are presented to implicate Nolte, other than the malicious dislike of his mother-in-law and unreliable claims from a nosy neighbor. Leachman's suspicions are all circumstantial, and some of her actions are completely implausible. However, for non-demanding viewers with an hour or so to kill, "Death Sentence" is decent entertainment, if they just go with the flow and do not ponder the details.
Death Sentence adequate for title
RobinCook7019 December 2004
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.
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.
Good actors,awful scenario.
raypaquin12 January 2002
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.
One big stinkeroo
paulmasters122 August 2007
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.
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.
Taunt and Skillfully Made Movie of the Week type Thriller
jayraskin115 January 2011
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.
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.
Woman in Peril thriller with a bit of "Ladies on the Jury" thrown in.
mark.waltz3 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
Phyllis: Portrait of a Runaway Juror
Poseidon-313 December 2004
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.
DigitalRevenantX72 May 2012
Warning: 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..
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..
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
