Not even bad in a good way

Excellent, smart action film.

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

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.

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.

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.

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.