A Covenant with Death

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.

At one point George Maharis removes his outer shirt to expose the undershirt beneath after finding his bed is occupied in his absence, this shirt with a pocket sewn into it on his chest.

Minutes later we see a letter written with the date '1923', six years before a pocket was designed/invented on shirts at all.

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.

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.

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.