Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

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.

mark.waltz 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.

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.

Robert-87 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.