Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA convicted murderer kills his hangman. Then it is discovered that he actually didn't commit the murder he was convicted for.A convicted murderer kills his hangman. Then it is discovered that he actually didn't commit the murder he was convicted for.A convicted murderer kills his hangman. Then it is discovered that he actually didn't commit the murder he was convicted for.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Emilio Fernández
- Ignacio
- (as Emilio Fernandez)
Walter Bacon
- Trial Spectator
- (non crédité)
Al Bain
- Trial Spectator
- (non crédité)
Avis à la une
Earl Holliman is really good in this movie. Often in films he came off as being rather stiff but if you fast forward to his moments in the film you are seeing the only virtues it's got.
Sold as a thriller it has very little thrills or courtroom drama either, it spends most of it's time with the young judge splitting his time in the sack with a white Blonde of a Mexican black haired girl, guess which one his mother prefers. There is a bit of frank talk but not much heat to these romanic elements and one long travelogue day in Mexico seuqence that tries to convince us we aren't just on the Universal Backlot the whole time.
Lamont Johnson had a long career doing good television work, but all his features feel like bad tv movies and this is no exception, even though it's shot by Robert Burks who shot many Hitchcock films this feels overlit and small scale, though it's supposed to be a period film all the costumes look like costumes freshly cleaned in between every shot.
Even Gene Hackman doesn't make any impression here. Really for the most part this tries to be a kind of light weight romance with the young judge bantering with his Mexican mom. Then once in awhile we cut abruptly to something related to the supposed race against the clock to save a man's life.
The film could have sordid elements but probably the censors at the time forbid this so there is nothing much to shake you out of waiting for the next commercial, which doesn't happen as it's not really the television movie it feels like.
Bafflingly happy to lucky Leonard Roseman score, as if told, hey let's push the romance.
The thriller plot is pretty goofy really but perhaps the few twists there might work if the movie was at all interested in being about the murder of the law. It might have had something to say. Who knows maybe they tried to keep too much in from the novel so everything feels undeveloped except the judge's romance and that hardly is about a Covenant with Death--something a rushed speech near the end mentions very briefly because, why should a movie with that title have anything to do with that subject matter.
A dud.
Sold as a thriller it has very little thrills or courtroom drama either, it spends most of it's time with the young judge splitting his time in the sack with a white Blonde of a Mexican black haired girl, guess which one his mother prefers. There is a bit of frank talk but not much heat to these romanic elements and one long travelogue day in Mexico seuqence that tries to convince us we aren't just on the Universal Backlot the whole time.
Lamont Johnson had a long career doing good television work, but all his features feel like bad tv movies and this is no exception, even though it's shot by Robert Burks who shot many Hitchcock films this feels overlit and small scale, though it's supposed to be a period film all the costumes look like costumes freshly cleaned in between every shot.
Even Gene Hackman doesn't make any impression here. Really for the most part this tries to be a kind of light weight romance with the young judge bantering with his Mexican mom. Then once in awhile we cut abruptly to something related to the supposed race against the clock to save a man's life.
The film could have sordid elements but probably the censors at the time forbid this so there is nothing much to shake you out of waiting for the next commercial, which doesn't happen as it's not really the television movie it feels like.
Bafflingly happy to lucky Leonard Roseman score, as if told, hey let's push the romance.
The thriller plot is pretty goofy really but perhaps the few twists there might work if the movie was at all interested in being about the murder of the law. It might have had something to say. Who knows maybe they tried to keep too much in from the novel so everything feels undeveloped except the judge's romance and that hardly is about a Covenant with Death--something a rushed speech near the end mentions very briefly because, why should a movie with that title have anything to do with that subject matter.
A dud.
I DVR'd this film off of TCM's lineup, frankly because I was intrigued by the title. The only cast members' names I recognized were Gene Hackman, Kent Smith, and Earl Holliman. I'm glad I took a chance on this film.
First, if given the chance, I'd like to shake the hand of Mr. George Maharis. What a wonderful performance he delivers. The rest of the cast is fine, too; and there's no doubt in my mind that they cared about this project and wanted to give it their all. The production is slick, although I concede it feels more like a network movie of the week more than it does a full fledged theatrical release.
One of the aspects of the film that really surprises and pleases me is the representation of a then minority group/characters as forerunners of the plotline. The story centers around a Mexican-American, and while the usual stereotypes and cultural appropriation are present here, the fact that the producers took a chance on making it the focus is worthy of praise. Considering it was released in 1967, it deserves recognition for that fact alone.
If you're cool with melodramas from the late 1960s, you'll like this.
First, if given the chance, I'd like to shake the hand of Mr. George Maharis. What a wonderful performance he delivers. The rest of the cast is fine, too; and there's no doubt in my mind that they cared about this project and wanted to give it their all. The production is slick, although I concede it feels more like a network movie of the week more than it does a full fledged theatrical release.
One of the aspects of the film that really surprises and pleases me is the representation of a then minority group/characters as forerunners of the plotline. The story centers around a Mexican-American, and while the usual stereotypes and cultural appropriation are present here, the fact that the producers took a chance on making it the focus is worthy of praise. Considering it was released in 1967, it deserves recognition for that fact alone.
If you're cool with melodramas from the late 1960s, you'll like this.
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.
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.
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.
If it weren't for the fact that the idea behind this story is interesting, I would have rated it even lower. I haven't read the book, but it gets good reviews. The first several pages of the book in the free preview on Amazon did not feel like it described the same place or people as I saw in this film. The book also doesn't have any music like that in the movie. I think that's a good thing. Much of the music in the movie is forgettable at best, annoying at times.
In this movie there are too many excursions from the main theme, and Maharis isn't good enough to make those non-essential scenes believable or interesting. His scenes with his mother (Katy Jurado), as well as with Rosemary (Laura Devon), seem like mostly filler for a 1 hour 37 minute movie that could/should have been shorter. Katy Jurado was much better in "High Noon". Here she is okay, maybe trying at times a bit too hard to save scenes where Maharis isn't good enough. Devon's scenes -- both in number and length -- feel stretched to keep the movie long enough.
In other words, if you take just the legal and philosophical issues and work them into a television screenplay, this might have worked better as a 1 hour television episode of ... pick your favorite old legal show -- Perry Mason?. It also might have worked as a science fiction story on "Twilight Zone", where often difficult moral issues are faced head on -- such as the one about the robot that is accused of murder.
This movie does feature a couple of attractive actresses (Laura Devon and Wende Wagner), as well as an early-career performance by Gene Hackman and a good effort by Earl Holliman. As I said the main subject matter is interesting too. But don't be surprised if most of this movie doesn't keep your interest.
In this movie there are too many excursions from the main theme, and Maharis isn't good enough to make those non-essential scenes believable or interesting. His scenes with his mother (Katy Jurado), as well as with Rosemary (Laura Devon), seem like mostly filler for a 1 hour 37 minute movie that could/should have been shorter. Katy Jurado was much better in "High Noon". Here she is okay, maybe trying at times a bit too hard to save scenes where Maharis isn't good enough. Devon's scenes -- both in number and length -- feel stretched to keep the movie long enough.
In other words, if you take just the legal and philosophical issues and work them into a television screenplay, this might have worked better as a 1 hour television episode of ... pick your favorite old legal show -- Perry Mason?. It also might have worked as a science fiction story on "Twilight Zone", where often difficult moral issues are faced head on -- such as the one about the robot that is accused of murder.
This movie does feature a couple of attractive actresses (Laura Devon and Wende Wagner), as well as an early-career performance by Gene Hackman and a good effort by Earl Holliman. As I said the main subject matter is interesting too. But don't be surprised if most of this movie doesn't keep your interest.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesDirector Lamont Johnson had started as an actor, in 1951, and began directing for television in 1957. Pacte avec la mort (1967) was his feature-film directorial debut. He would continue to work in both mediums more or less equally, racking up 11 Emmy nominations and winning the award twice. His best-known works are probably Dialogue de feu (1971), Last American Hero (1973), and the TV movie Exécuté pour désertion (1974).
- GaffesNew Mexico was admitted as a state of the union in 1912. At one point, Ben Lewis notes that New Mexico became a state "a dozen years ago," indicating the movie is set in 1924. But later in the film, we see a letter being written that bears the date, "July 8, 1923."
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is A Covenant with Death?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Durée
- 1h 37min(97 min)
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant