L'uomo che uccise il suo carnefice

As the title would indicate the film makers chose to go the high minded, serious legal and moral issues route rather than the trashier steamy, lurid, small town murder trial route. Bad decision. What results is a fairly stiff, dull movie with a few good performances (i.e. Katy Jurado as a New Mexican aristocrat/feminista, Earl Holliman as the unjustly accused good ol boy and an early Gene Hackman turn as a none too bright, racist sheriff). Especially bad is George Maharis in the lead. It's not so much that you simply don't buy a Greek/American actor from Queens , sporting a very outer borough accent, as a a native New Mexican (leaving aside the obvious objection that 1967, when this film was made, is getting late in the day for Brownface) it's that Maharis cannot for the life of him shed his Buzz Murdock persona from "Route 66" with his constant moral outbursts, tendency to fisticuffs and advocacy of the natural as opposed to the "plastic" life. The hippy/dippy scene where he rejects Laura Devon as a wife because she won't curl and uncurl her toes and walk naked in a supermarket has to be a low point not only in Maharis' career but in that of director Lamont Johnson (who, you would have thought, had already plumbed the depths in "Kona Coast") and scenarists Larry Marcus and Saul Levitt. Solid C.

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.

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.

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.

Normally, I don't complain but the summary on IMDb for this film is pretty bad. First, it discloses a BIG plot twist. Second, it really doesn't explain what the movie really is all about as well. Sure, there is a murder and execution...but it's all through the eyes of a young Hispanic judge (George Maharis) and there's no mention of him or how he relates to all this.

The story actually is a bit dispassionate...or should I say the first portion. Ben (Maharis) observes what's going on but seems surprisingly impassive about it. Later, however, when the case is surprisingly dropped into his lap, he has to become involved and make a decision based not just on law but common sense as it's really hard at this point to find a precedent for what happens.

Aside from the poor decision to cast Maharis (he's a handsome guy but hardly seems Hispanic), the film is an interesting look at justice and kept my interest. Worth seeing.