Deadlocked (2000 TV Movie) User Reviews

Fine little thriller.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 6/10 · 5 April 2006]

This is a well made, made for TV movie. Nothing too impressive but certainly good enough and enjoyable to kill some time with.

The story is nothing special, although the concept, of the father of a murder suspect taking the entire jury of the trail hostage, itself is pretty good and interesting. The movies does have its moments but it has lots of missed opportunities as well. Such as the fact that the husband of the murdered wife is also among the hostages, is an highly underused story element. They could have made more out of this, such as some interesting and heated confrontations between the suspect and the husband but nothing ever happens with the husband at all. Really a missed opportunity there.

But sure, the movie also has its expected flaws and it lacks in credibility at times. Still the movie and its story work effective enough to keep you watching till the end. It isn't terribly exciting and to be honest it also was quite predictable but the way the movie is constructed and the way the story is told, provides the movie with some good sequences and moments.

Also the two main leads are a reason why the movie works effective enough and serves its purpose. David Caruso is a convincing leading man and Charles S. Dutton is good as the hostage taker. He portrays his character very humane and understandable. Most of the other characters aren't really interesting enough, mainly because they don't play a prominent enough role in the movie.

It all in all was a better than expected, made for TV thriller with some good moments that mainly works because of the two main actors of the movie. It's a movie well worth watching if the opportunity is there but obviously by no means a must-see.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

An enjoyable TV movie

[24540647 · 7/10 · 4 April 2006]

A young man is accused of rape and murder and sentenced to death. During the sentencing, the boys father takes the jury hostage convinced of his son's innocence.

The boys defender has 14 hours to find evidence to disprove the verdict, or the jury dies.

It's a good movie, well filmed and keeps it taut throughout. The only problem I have with it is that the defender finds so much overlooked evidence so quickly. Also, the ending could have been better, instead of it finishing with the gun totting morons of the SWAT team.

If you get the chance, it's well worth watching next time it's on TV.

Crime and Fatherhood

[wes-connors · 6/10 · 5 September 2013]

At home in Seattle, Washington, deputy district attorney David Caruso (as Ned Stark) appears to be having trouble understanding his school-aged son Lorne Stewart (as Cory Stark). At work, Mr. Caruso convicts Jo D. Jonz (as Demond Doyle) of raping and bludgeoning a woman to death. The evidence against Mr. Jonz is overwhelming and it's considered an "open and shut" case. Jonz' priors include violent arrests and gang participation. The convicted man's father Charles S. Dutton (as Jacob Doyle) has arrived during sentencing. Estranged from his son for the past four years, Mr. Dutton interrupts the (death) penalty proceedings by grabbing the bailiff's guns to take the jury and victim's husband hostage...

Dutton is sure his son did not commit the crime. He demands prosecutor Caruso re-open the investigation to prove his son innocent, or Dutton will start killing off jurors. There are some major problems, here. Dutton is convinced his son is completely innocent, but offers little proof. He also appears quite ready to commit mass murder...

There is a parallel drawn between Caruso and Dutton, as fathers. The issues of race and socio-economic status are used well, but the comparison fails because Caruso has no idea whether or not is son is guilty of the problem reported at school. Caruso doesn't know, but Dutton does; it doesn't make sense, unless there is a race and/or class distinction being made. As the story unfolds, we are also puzzled by the son's failure to discuss the case. There is little interaction with the victim's husband, Malcolm Stewart (as Richard Castlemore). Considering what happened, you'd expect these individuals would have a lot more to say about the crime. Despite these concerns, "Deadlocked" is an engaging and nicely acted TNT Movie.

****** Deadlocked (6/18/00) Michael W. Watkins ~ David Caruso, Charles S. Dutton, Jo D. Jonz, Lorne Stewart

Better put your brain on deadlock.

[Garry-10 · 3/10 · 20 September 2001]

Terrible. I watched this as a non-broken by advertisement movie on UK TV. The premise is shot to pieces (POSSIBLE SPOILER) as we are expected to believe that a man has been on trial, presumably with the long period of evidence gathering that invariably precedes a trial, yet Caruso heroically turns up (blatantly obvious!) new evidence (CCTV etc.) that overturns the verdict in 14 hours, AND saves his relationship with his own kid at the same time. OK, the dramatic premise is good - poor black guy v. the system, but a bit more time and care might have turned this into something watchable.

Plot is far too weak to work and the cracks show from the get go

[bob the moo · 30 November 2003]

Ned Stark is the Assistant DA on a clear case of murder. On the day of sentencing the father of the accused pleads with the jury to not give his son the death sentence. When he is removed from the stand he draws a gun and takes the jury hostage. Blaming his son's poor defence for the outcome of the trial, he demands to see Stark and gives him an ultimatum – 24 hours to build a defence for his son and prove his innocence or at least a reasonable doubt.

I wouldn't call myself a `fan' of Caruso, but I did like him in NYPD Blue and, since he has done the same performance in everything he's done since, I tend to watch things that he's in – which brings to this movie. I'm not a lover of courtroom thrillers with their last minute twists and shock endings, but I can get into them if they are exciting and pretty tight. However this film is anything but; built on the thinnest of plots with almost no logic to speak of it was doomed from less than 15 minutes in. An exciting and quite good final 10 minutes don't make up for anything and it isn't very good.

The plot relies heavily on Demond Doyle not standing up for himself and telling his lawyer about evidence that proves his whereabouts – the reason he keeps quiet are very poorly put forward and are clumsily put down to the `black man's lot is not a happy lot'! It moves past this as quickly as possible, hoping we'll just accept it as fact and not question it. The rest of the film is daft, as Stark makes easy work of the clues that somehow no one else had time to even consider.

The film also has a laughable scene that stood out so much that I much mention it. Caruso chases a suspect down alleys and over wasteland. When it is clearly Caruso himself you can see that he runs like a woman compared to the perp he is chasing! However he is replaced by a stunt double for much of the scene; a stunt double, may I add, who looks nothing like him and who's red wig is about twice the size of Caruso's own barnet!

Despite this, Caruso is alright if you like him – like I said, he's doing nothing new. Dutton is stronger and hams it up well when given the chance. The support cast are all pretty much TV quality at best and they just fill the gaps really. Only Jonz stands out as the accused – he does OK despite the totally unbelievable situation surrounding his character!

Overall, a poor film where the word `thriller' can only be ascribed to the final 10 minutes (and even then, only if you swallow the whole unlikely setup). Not really worth watching, the plot is just far too weak to do anything with and the cracks show from the very start.

Beyond Bad

[view_and_review · 1/10 · 31 December 2020]

This movie is built upon the worst premise. It is completely preposterous. The entire scenario, the entire movie was unreal. It should've been branded a fantasy. But let's pretend for a moment that we are in a parallel universe where the events of this movie can occur. Here we go.

Demond (Deh-mAHnd) Doyle (Jo D. Jonz) had already been tried and convicted for the rape and murder of Rachel Castlemore (Rachel Hayward). We begin at the sentencing hearing where the deputy DA Ned Stark (David Caruso and not Sean Bean from "Game of Thrones") was making the case for the death penalty. Demond's attorney brought in his father Jacob Doyle (Charles S. Dutton) as a character witness to try to fend off the death penalty. This is where the movie goes Twilight Zone.

Jacob, instead of touting his son's better qualities and how this was one big mistake, gets on the stand and starts railing on the justice system and insisting that his son was innocent.

Let's pause and analyze. Jacob was a former corrections officer at San Quentin, he had to know that what he was doing was not helping his son avoid the death penalty. The jury had already convicted him, so the time for protesting his innocence was over and done with. The last thing the jury or the court wants to hear at that time is a riot act about how money buys a better defense. That doesn't prove your son is innocent, it only proves you're broke.

Continuing with the plot. Jacob goes into such a frenzied state that eventually he grabs a bailiff's gun, rushes the entire jury into a room and holds them hostage. Irrational, yes, but not impossible or even improbable for a frazzled father. So even though I don't like the action and it was only going to make things worse, it was a desperate act from a desperate man so I'll roll with it.

Next, he tells the deputy DA, Ned, that he has 24 hours to undo the conviction or he starts killing jurors because he knows "his son is innocent."

Pausing again. What in tarnation does he hope to accomplish? This numbskull actually thinks that a singular deputy DA can overturn a conviction in a matter of 24 hours! Never mind that the prosecutor is the one who made the case against Demond; I wouldn't care if the real killer stepped into the courtroom with a truckload of accusatory evidence, no legal processes happens in America in a matter of 24 hours. The best this fool could hope for is that he's not dead in 24 hours because the ordeal just went from a courtroom trial to a hostage situation. Now it's all in the hands of S.W.A.T. Regardless of how much pleading and dealing Jacob did with Ned, Ned was powerless once Jacob took hostages. If he really believed in his son's innocence, then it could've all been fleshed out in the appeals process. It's not like a death sentence means a person gets killed that same day.

And his pronouncements of his son's innocence were so hollow. He hadn't seen his son in four years, yet he shows up at his sentencing hearing claiming that he "knows" his son is innocent. Where were you when your son was being tried? You could've been seeking the evidence to exonerate him then.

Then when Ned Starks told him that the evidence is squarely against his son, Jacob's response was, "I don't give a damn about evidence!"

Are you serious? How, exactly, do you think trials work? Are they supposed to ignore evidence and just ask the defendant's father? Jacob was clearly 5150 and should've been neutralized at the first opportunity, but because this is a dumb movie we had to follow this fantasy out to its predictably stupid conclusion.

As the movie goes on we find out more about the case. It seems our "innocent" defendant said nothing in his defense, he just submitted to the will of the justice system. You can conclude one of three things here:

A.) He was guilty, but guilty people even offer alibis no matter how flimsy.

B.) He was suicidal and wanted to be killed at the hands of the state.

C.) He was covering up for someone.

C seemed like the most likely scenario to me because what innocent man says nothing to defend himself. Well, the answer was D, none of the above. He was just plain stupid. He, inexplicably, hadn't said a word throughout his entire trial and all of a sudden he became a chatty Kathy once he was in the hostage situation with his dad. It was totally illogical. Due to the inane actions of his father we find out that Demond was having an affair with the victim and it was very easy to prove because he gave her a locket that she had in her house.

This information completely enraged me. First, I don't know how a Medical Examiner couldn't deduce she was not raped (yes, there are indicators of consensual sex as opposed to rape). Second, how could investigators not find out that the suspect and the victim were having an affair for A YEAR?

In the end, Jacob Doyle's suicidal move works. Ned Stark essentially reinvestigated the entire crime in less than 24 hours and was able to ascertain Demond's innocence. It was one last wholly fictional act, but at this point who cares because everything else up until now was the extreme of fictional so what's one more fantastical event? This movie was on shaky ground from the start and its foundation just kept eroding away. By the end the premise of this movie was being held up by magical spells because there was certainly nothing rooted in reality holding this movie up. After the final scene I was left flustered, frustrated, and furious wondering who possibly thought this was a good idea because this was beyond bad.

Excellent movie.

[carole · 10/10 · 22 June 2000]

Deadlocked was a fast-paced, up-to-date TV movie which gave a realistic view of our criminal justice system. David Caruso and Charles Dutton were excellent in their portrayals of this system. David Caruso, as always, gave a superb performance!

Excellent Movie!

[BreanneB · 10/10 · 10 January 2006]

This movie is excellent! I loved it! It has everything, great acting, costumes, production, script, photography, directing, and a great storyline. I definitely give kudos to the cast, crew, and filmmakers for this two thumbs way up movie. 10 out of 10 stars.

In this edge of your seat drama-thriller, a man whose son was convicted of first-degree murder and is now facing the death penalty, is convinced of his innocence. With that during the penalty phase of the trial he testifies for his son . But he loses his cool and gets out of control. He then takes the jury hostage in the deliberation room. He demands that the prosecuter, Ned Stark, (David Caruso), to find sufficient evidence to exonerate his son. If he finds it no one will die but if he doesn't then he will kill all of the jurors and anyone else who stands in his way.

The truth is extremely surprising. It turns out that the victim was having an affair with the convicted killer, who was an employee at the company she worked at. It turns out that the husband caught them in the act and killed her. The convicted killer is exonerated and the husband is charged with her murder. Justice Is Served!

Decent TV drama

[amire · 6 July 2000]

Sort of a cross between "The Negotiator" and "12 Angry Men," "Deadlocked" is a legal thriller that features an interesting premise, relevant to the current focus on the fairness of the American justice system. After his African-American son has just been convicted of the murder of a white female, a father (Charles S. Dutton) takes the jury hostage in an attempt to prove his son's innocence. With many lives at stake, the skeptical prosecutor (David Caruso) has 14 hours to re-examine the case and find evidence to exonerate the accused.

Dutton and Caruso give solid performances, as does the actor who plays Dutton's convict son. SPOILER ALERT The film's biggest fault (SPOILER AHEAD) is that Caruso is able to find the evidence that incriminates the real killer in so little time. It's completely unrealistic. Still, it's more the result of trying to fit a film into a 1 hour time-slot on TNT than anything else. It shows how time constraints can really limit the potential of TV films, especially when they are aired on Cable channels that constantly interrupt the movie for commercials.

Is Justice for sale?

[Frenchie-18 · 18 June 2000]

Excellent movie depicting our system's expediency to get a guilty verdict without examining all evidence. The story is compelling and allows us to stake a claim as we discover the question of justice especially when the verdict could be death for the defendant.