Death in Small Doses

After reading the horrible reviews I expected this movie to be unbearable, but for me, this was not the case. I watched the entire movie and don't understand what all the negativity In form of reviews is about. It's basically a movie about a man accused of poisoning his wife that contained many up and down twists that kept it interesting for me. Some reviewers claim the ending had no climax. I'm really curious to know what the they were expecting? Some kind of Perry Mason witness stand confession? To me the acting was adequate. Richard Thomas was exceptional. I think this movie is well worth the watch. But then again, I am a Richard Thomas fan. If you're not a fan of his, then maybe this movie is not for you.

Although supposedly based on actual incidents, this film "depicts an authentic case" in the same way that "Police Squad" depicts authentic investigative techniques. If this film at all accurately conveys the trial of Richard Lyons, then everyone involved should be disbarred.

It's hard to shine an accusatory spotlight on any one member of this cast, but Tess Harper, as Assistant D.A. Jerri Sims, looks particularly lost during the entire film. Not that she's given much to work with, mind you.

Sondra Locke's direction lacks focus. She hits every plotpoint with such heavy-handedness, that the viewer literally hears a "bum - bum - BAH" in their head as each one is revealed. This, coupled with the fact that she can't seem to decide just what this story is about, suggests she should apprentice a bit more at her craft.

Why leave a review on such an old film with a small spattering of reviews - like, who cares? Well, I, too, am old and I know at this time in history people were obsessed with court dramas. It's what made me go into the field of law as a young woman. And with the majority of reviews here being highly negative, I feel like adding a different opinion. On YouTube where I watched this (for the second time) there's dozens of accolades but mainly for Richard. But people here are reviewing it for it's entertainment value. The thing is, this is not intended to be entertaining but rather to feed the hunger of a public who devoured court drama like an addiction. From that standpoint, the director did a great job of hitting all the main points of the actual case as well as how the defense tried to use an inconsequential fact - the brother's abuse - to try and create reasonable doubt. It's very superficial here, for the most part, but the intent is just to point out the main details, which it does successfully. The audience shouldn't expect to have all the facts in order to decide if the jury got it right since the film leaves out most of the actual trial and only expounds on the two main arguments. If you read the entire trial you'll understand they got the right person.

Predictable the Writing, directing, acting, and Camera work was all disappointing. I like true crime stories but was not suspenseful at all. I love Tess but not in this !! Characters were all one note.

I was expecting much better than this ! This one just plods along with minimal interest for the spectator and the end is a total wash-out. There's not enough spice in this plot to make even a mild curry, it's supposed to be based on a true story, I have no idea as to whether this is true, but whatever the case, there is nothing in the plot to grip the spectator's attention. The guilty party could have been one of several people, nothing enables one to opt for one or other possibility. The final decision is an arbitrary and emotionless one ! When you get to the end of this film, your only comment is " so THAT'S how it ends ! So what ?