L'uomo che uccise il suo carnefice

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.

Thanks to Warner Archive for releasing this film on DVD this past September. It would appear that this film was an attempt to make a major film star out of TV actor George Maharis. His performance as the young, inexperienced judge was very well executed. Earl Holliman shines as the convicted suspect. This is film is noteworthy for an early performance by Gene Hackman as a police officer. His performances echos what would soon come later, in his role as Popye Doyle in "The French Connection," The romance portion of the film may be predictable, but overall the acting is well done, and the photography is great. The best selling novel "A Covenant with Death," by Stephen Becker is given fair treatment in this adaptation. I would defiantly recommend this film ***

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.

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.

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.