I saw this movie when it came out in 1967 when I was 22 and in the Army. I remember it as being an excellent example of a philosophical question used to good effect in a popular movie. I went on to get a degree in Philosophy, so I must have learned something. The plot concerns the rights of a man legally convicted of murder and sentenced to death. What rights, if any, does someone in such a situation have?
I just ordered an used DVD of the movie and am looking forward to watching it again after almost 50 years. I plan to enjoy it as much as I did the first time I saw it.
Maharis was fine as a young, inexperienced judge coping with a highly unusual situation. I still remember Katy Juardo, Whit Bissel, Earl Holliman, and John Anderson for their distinctive performances. Gene Hackman I don't remember at all, although he is now one of my favorite actors. Times change it seems.
I just ordered an used DVD of the movie and am looking forward to watching it again after almost 50 years. I plan to enjoy it as much as I did the first time I saw it.
Maharis was fine as a young, inexperienced judge coping with a highly unusual situation. I still remember Katy Juardo, Whit Bissel, Earl Holliman, and John Anderson for their distinctive performances. Gene Hackman I don't remember at all, although he is now one of my favorite actors. Times change it seems.