Btexxamar I like Black Panther, but I didn't like this movie.

Aedonerre I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

MartinHafer 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.

dglink 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.

sol (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

raypaquin 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.