A juror on a murder case begins to believe that the man on trial is innocent of the crime - and then discovers that the real killer is her own husband.A juror on a murder case begins to believe that the man on trial is innocent of the crime - and then discovers that the real killer is her own husband.A juror on a murder case begins to believe that the man on trial is innocent of the crime - and then discovers that the real killer is her own husband.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaDuring the trial, before the jury has even begun to deliberate, Mrs. Davies refers to Mr. Bracken as the foreman, but they are normally not voted in as such until both the prosecution and defence have rested. It could be, however, that in some cases, the foreman or forewoman is chosen right from the start, or appointed by the judge.
- GoofsIn the courtroom scene during Mrs. Boylan's examination, masking tape can be seen on the floor of the set to mark where the actors should stand. The tape is not there in any other scenes.
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- After the Trial
- Filming locations
- South Pasadena Public Library - 1100 Oxley St, South Pasadena, California, USA(El Centro St entrance, as courthouse)
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content