Though it wasn't part of the "I Love a Mystery" series (that wouldn't start at Columbia until the next year) "The Missing Juror" has the same writer, Charles "Blackie" O'Neal (Ryan O'Neal's father), and the same star, Jim Bannon. It also has the same breezy unconcern with plot credibility; like his script for the first "I Love a Mystery" movie, O'Neal's screenplay literally makes no sense, as well as being structured around one man impersonating another (I know I'm treading on the thin edge of "spoiler" here but IMDb's cast list actually gives the game away anyway) and supposedly not being recognized by two leads who know both people well. What saves this movie is George Macready's malevolent performance and, above all, Budd Boetticher's direction: Boetticher and cinematographer L. W. O'Connell take the film noir look to such extremes that some scenes are played out in almost pitch-black darkness and only flashes of light, along with the voices on the soundtrack, clue us in as to what's supposed to be going on. It's a pity Boetticher later specialized in Westerns and didn't make many more noirs — he was damned good at them!
16 Reviews
A good Columbia crime drama from the 40's
AlsExGal3 February 2010
With a largely anonymous cast and a plot that is nothing to write home about, this little film from the 40's is still worth watching mainly for its noirish atmosphere and George MacReady's wonderful over-the-top performance as a wrongfully condemned man gone mad.
MacReady plays Harry Wharton, a man who is wrongfully convicted of killing his sweetheart and sentenced to hang. He sits on death row for months while reporter Joe Keats, who senses Wharton is innocent, tries to track down the real killer. Hours before the execution, Keats comes up with the evidence that points to another and Wharton is pardoned. However, no pardon will fix the fact that Wharton's mind has snapped. He is admitted to a mental hospital, but nothing eases his misery and he ultimately sets fire to his room before hanging himself. His body is burned beyond recognition. Now, months later, reporter Joe Keats is refocused on the Wharton case. This time because half a dozen of the Wharton jurors have died mysterious accidental deaths in a short period of time. Keats believes someone is avenging Wharton's wrongful conviction and subsequent suicide, but he can't prove it. Along the way he falls for a beautiful female juror who doesn't care to cooperate with his investigation.
If you watch it, you're going to know what's going on immediately. There is really no mystery here. However, it is amazing to watch what Columbia could do in the field of drama/noir/mystery during the 40's and 50's without nearly the resources of the other major studios or the star power. All the stuff you expect in such a film is here - the all night diner where reporters seem to congregate and the proprietor who's always handing out sage advice, the know-it-all reporter 40's style and his antagonistic relationship with a boss that still appreciates the reporter's craft and insight, the classy girl that the reporter sets his sights on and somehow winds up the center of the drama, and the mystery criminal that runs circles around multiple police departments and is only tripped up by one blood-hound of a journalist.
Recommended for fans of post-war and almost post-war fare.
MacReady plays Harry Wharton, a man who is wrongfully convicted of killing his sweetheart and sentenced to hang. He sits on death row for months while reporter Joe Keats, who senses Wharton is innocent, tries to track down the real killer. Hours before the execution, Keats comes up with the evidence that points to another and Wharton is pardoned. However, no pardon will fix the fact that Wharton's mind has snapped. He is admitted to a mental hospital, but nothing eases his misery and he ultimately sets fire to his room before hanging himself. His body is burned beyond recognition. Now, months later, reporter Joe Keats is refocused on the Wharton case. This time because half a dozen of the Wharton jurors have died mysterious accidental deaths in a short period of time. Keats believes someone is avenging Wharton's wrongful conviction and subsequent suicide, but he can't prove it. Along the way he falls for a beautiful female juror who doesn't care to cooperate with his investigation.
If you watch it, you're going to know what's going on immediately. There is really no mystery here. However, it is amazing to watch what Columbia could do in the field of drama/noir/mystery during the 40's and 50's without nearly the resources of the other major studios or the star power. All the stuff you expect in such a film is here - the all night diner where reporters seem to congregate and the proprietor who's always handing out sage advice, the know-it-all reporter 40's style and his antagonistic relationship with a boss that still appreciates the reporter's craft and insight, the classy girl that the reporter sets his sights on and somehow winds up the center of the drama, and the mystery criminal that runs circles around multiple police departments and is only tripped up by one blood-hound of a journalist.
Recommended for fans of post-war and almost post-war fare.
major casting problem
blanche-24 May 2020
"The Missing Juror" is worth seeing since it's an early directorial film of Budd Boetticher, so it has some of his great camerawork. The film stars noir actress Janis Carter, Jim Bannon, George Macready, and Mike Mazurki.
A man is tried and found guilty of murder, and then the jurors start dying. A reporter (Bannon) becomes interested in the case - and in one of the jurors (Carter).
The problem is, if you're old enough and enough of a film fan, you'll have this plot figured out fairly quickly.
My favorite part of this film, I have to admit, were the dictation belts which, thirty-plus years after this movie, I was using.
A man is tried and found guilty of murder, and then the jurors start dying. A reporter (Bannon) becomes interested in the case - and in one of the jurors (Carter).
The problem is, if you're old enough and enough of a film fan, you'll have this plot figured out fairly quickly.
My favorite part of this film, I have to admit, were the dictation belts which, thirty-plus years after this movie, I was using.
How Do You Spell "Rewrite"
dougdoepke20 October 2009
The story may have more holes than Grandma's sieve, but it's still worth catching up with. For one, it's got cult actress Janis Carter who always shows more eyeball than ought to be legally allowed, along with the high-class George Macready just then perfecting his mad cackle-- and whoever in production thought his cultured voice was not a dead give-a-way. It's also one of director Buddy Boetticher's first outings, and already he's a camera master—catch those graceful dolly moves across the cut-a-way rooms. Then there's literary muscleman and masseuse Mike Mazurki throttling Macready's face blue while on a flight of poetic abandon. I just wish some of that imagination had carried over to repairing the story holes, like how crank-confessor Trevor Bardette knows so many details of the killings. Speaking of Bardette, his highly enthused performance suggests A-grade pay for a B-grade movie, making his mad lather a movie high point. Clearly, the 50-dollar budget didn't go into lighting since some scenes resemble a bat's cave and require the eyes of one to make out what's happening. Nonetheless, the film has almost as many promising noirish elements as the classic Stranger on the Third Floor (1940)—as another reviewer aptly compares. Too bad someone didn't send the script down to Rewrite for some hole-plugging plaster.
"I love a morgue."
utgard149 April 2020
Breezy B detective movie from Columbia, who made some of the best B movies of the 1940s. Jim Bannon stars as a reporter investigating the murders of jurors from a high profile case. The mystery here is not very compelling. The identity of the killer is obvious from the start. So obvious that I have to wonder if it was even expected to fool the audience. Maybe it was supposed to be a Vertigo type of thing. At any rate, the movie is a fun watch despite the weak mystery. The cast is likable and director Budd Boetticher keeps things moving along quickly. The following year Bannon would rejoin co-star George Macready in the first of Bannon's short-lived I Love a Mystery series.
Keep an eye on the number twelve. It may save your sanity, or destroy it.
mark.waltz14 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Having spent years on death row for a crime he didn't commit, mild mannered sophisticate George MacReady is freed when new evidence appears but can't handle the memory of those years behind bars. Thanks to reporter Jim Bannon, his story is told, but even the saving of his reputation can't save him from committing a desperate act to escape from his torture of the mind. One by one, jurors from the trial die under mysterious circumstances. Evidence that Bannon comes up with suggests that these are murders, and with a seemingly false confession, the fingers point towards one of the jurors who bears an ironic resemblance to the dead victim of injustice.
Cleverly written but occasionally convoluted script defeats an interesting B thriller that gets creepy here and there to sustain interest from the unbelievable twists. Lola Albright adds some spark as one of the jurors whom Bannon arranges protection for, setting up a showdown with the possible killer. Jean Stevens is very funny as her secretary, "Texas", getting some good one liners. Tough guy Mike Mazurki is memorable as a masseur in a local gym, utilized excellently in a tense scene where Bannon finds himself in jeopardy. MacReady proves himself to be a master of disguises, but I found it ridiculous that nobody would recognize his voice. Technically, this is excellent, with shadowy (and in one segment steamy) photography, perfectly edited.
Cleverly written but occasionally convoluted script defeats an interesting B thriller that gets creepy here and there to sustain interest from the unbelievable twists. Lola Albright adds some spark as one of the jurors whom Bannon arranges protection for, setting up a showdown with the possible killer. Jean Stevens is very funny as her secretary, "Texas", getting some good one liners. Tough guy Mike Mazurki is memorable as a masseur in a local gym, utilized excellently in a tense scene where Bannon finds himself in jeopardy. MacReady proves himself to be a master of disguises, but I found it ridiculous that nobody would recognize his voice. Technically, this is excellent, with shadowy (and in one segment steamy) photography, perfectly edited.
Over-Looked Film Noir
povertyrowpictures15 September 2002
This film, rarely seen on TV, is one of the great over-looked film noirs of the 1940's. Similar in tone to such noirs as the "Stranger On The Third Floor", the movie plays out as a noir-twist on the film "And Then There Was None" with George Macready at his nasty best.
I wanted to like it - but ...
small45-670-26477122 July 2010
NOTE: Don't read the cast credit on IMDb or this movie won't even be a mystery for the first 15 minutes.
For the first 15 minutes I thought this movie was not bad (not good, but at least a reasonable example of the B mystery movie genre). The problem occurs in minute 16, or thereabout, when the movie starts to telegraph it's punch so clearly that only an idiot wouldn't see who the killer really is, and what the wrap up is going to be. After that you can turn the movie off, except that stopping is like ceasing to watch a bad accident that you know you shouldn't be looking at. Actually, a bad accident is a lot more interesting than this movie.
I won't give away the "surprise". Instead I'll let you participate in the contest to see if you can guess what I was able to figure out by the time of the fire in the mental hospital. It was so obvious that you would have be from Mars to not figure it out.
I like a good bad movie, but this isn't one of those. Try some other movie with "Juror" in the title - any other movie with "Juror" in the title.
For the first 15 minutes I thought this movie was not bad (not good, but at least a reasonable example of the B mystery movie genre). The problem occurs in minute 16, or thereabout, when the movie starts to telegraph it's punch so clearly that only an idiot wouldn't see who the killer really is, and what the wrap up is going to be. After that you can turn the movie off, except that stopping is like ceasing to watch a bad accident that you know you shouldn't be looking at. Actually, a bad accident is a lot more interesting than this movie.
I won't give away the "surprise". Instead I'll let you participate in the contest to see if you can guess what I was able to figure out by the time of the fire in the mental hospital. It was so obvious that you would have be from Mars to not figure it out.
I like a good bad movie, but this isn't one of those. Try some other movie with "Juror" in the title - any other movie with "Juror" in the title.
Nice Thriller Even If You Catch the Twist
Michael_Elliott23 July 2010
Missing Juror, The (1944)
** 1/2 (out of 4)
Interesting thriller from Columbia has a jury wrongly convicting a man to death. Soon after wards members of the jury begin dying in weird ways so it's up to a reporter (Jim Bannon) to try and figure out if it's a ghost or someone simply seeking revenge. Even though this film isn't a complete success it still has enough going for it to make it worth viewing and especially if you're a fan of the genre. I think Boetticher does a very good job with the material and he handles everything quite nicely and that includes the, at times, dark subject matter. There's one major flaw in the film and that's an early flashback sequence, which tells us about the trial, the evidence and the man sent to death. This is a nice little sequence but there is one brief segment that pretty much gives away who the killer is. I'm not sure how many will pick up on it but it was rather obvious when this scene in question first came up. It turned out that my guess was correct but this actually didn't kill too much of the fun. I still thought the film moved at a very good pace and that director Boetticher made for some very interesting scenes including some dark death sequences and a very good scene inside a steam room. This scene also features an actor who very much looks like Anthony Quinn but the IMDb doesn't list him nor does any other movie guide but to my eyes and ears it was him. The performances are a mixed bag but Bannon does a pretty good job in the lead even if it isn't the strongest actor in the world. The main role isn't written overly well but he handles everything nicely. Janis Carter plays the juror who the reporter falls for and she too is nice, if nothing too special. George Macready, Jean Stevens and Joseph Crehan all add nice support. While the film isn't any type of masterpiece, I must admit that I'm a little surprised it hasn't gotten more attention over the years. This might be due to it never getting an official release but fans of mysteries should really enjoy this thing. There are also a few early touches of what would become film noir so I think the film offers up enough that most people will find it pleasantly entertaining.
** 1/2 (out of 4)
Interesting thriller from Columbia has a jury wrongly convicting a man to death. Soon after wards members of the jury begin dying in weird ways so it's up to a reporter (Jim Bannon) to try and figure out if it's a ghost or someone simply seeking revenge. Even though this film isn't a complete success it still has enough going for it to make it worth viewing and especially if you're a fan of the genre. I think Boetticher does a very good job with the material and he handles everything quite nicely and that includes the, at times, dark subject matter. There's one major flaw in the film and that's an early flashback sequence, which tells us about the trial, the evidence and the man sent to death. This is a nice little sequence but there is one brief segment that pretty much gives away who the killer is. I'm not sure how many will pick up on it but it was rather obvious when this scene in question first came up. It turned out that my guess was correct but this actually didn't kill too much of the fun. I still thought the film moved at a very good pace and that director Boetticher made for some very interesting scenes including some dark death sequences and a very good scene inside a steam room. This scene also features an actor who very much looks like Anthony Quinn but the IMDb doesn't list him nor does any other movie guide but to my eyes and ears it was him. The performances are a mixed bag but Bannon does a pretty good job in the lead even if it isn't the strongest actor in the world. The main role isn't written overly well but he handles everything nicely. Janis Carter plays the juror who the reporter falls for and she too is nice, if nothing too special. George Macready, Jean Stevens and Joseph Crehan all add nice support. While the film isn't any type of masterpiece, I must admit that I'm a little surprised it hasn't gotten more attention over the years. This might be due to it never getting an official release but fans of mysteries should really enjoy this thing. There are also a few early touches of what would become film noir so I think the film offers up enough that most people will find it pleasantly entertaining.
A nice plot...yet riddled with more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese!
planktonrules28 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Like many other B-movies, "The Missing Juror" really shows that it was rushed into production. After all, despite a very nice plot, the script is so littered with holes that it's a wonder the thing isn't mistaken for a piece of Swiss cheese! And I am talking about HUGE holes. It's a shame, really, as the idea was great and the film, despite its problems, was a lot of fun.
George Macready plays an innocent man mistakenly sent to death row. Fortunately (perhaps), a reporter (Jim Bannon) is able to discover the real perpetrator and Macready is set free. However, his time in the death house apparently has destroyed his mind and he's sent to a sanitarium. Some time later, he apparently killed himself--though the body is so charred that identification is impossible. No one at all questions whether or not it was him--even though it's obvious that it might not be him (huge plot hole #1). Later, one-by-one, the members of the jury that convicted him begin to die. At this point you'd think someone would suggest that the dead man isn't dead and is killing the jurors...but not in this silly film. They only consider this towards the end of the film! Another huge plot problem is that Macready's body was apparently actually the foreman of this jury....and this man just happens to look almost exactly like Macready!!! So, when Macready walks around in a disguise as clever as Clark Kent's, no one is able to determine who he really is! Was this perhaps filmed on some planet other than ours where people are all blind or stupid?! Despite these HUGE problems, the idea of an innocent man snapping and exacting revenge is great. And, the way he kills them is also very good. In many ways, this plot was reminiscent of the much later film "The Abominible Doctor Phibes"--a cheesy but very enjoyable Vincent Price film. Plus, Macready and Bannon were very good actors stuck in a film that was beneath their talents. But, in spite of everything, I still kept watching as the film was entertaining throughout--even if EVERYONE in the audience was smarted than the folks in the film!!
George Macready plays an innocent man mistakenly sent to death row. Fortunately (perhaps), a reporter (Jim Bannon) is able to discover the real perpetrator and Macready is set free. However, his time in the death house apparently has destroyed his mind and he's sent to a sanitarium. Some time later, he apparently killed himself--though the body is so charred that identification is impossible. No one at all questions whether or not it was him--even though it's obvious that it might not be him (huge plot hole #1). Later, one-by-one, the members of the jury that convicted him begin to die. At this point you'd think someone would suggest that the dead man isn't dead and is killing the jurors...but not in this silly film. They only consider this towards the end of the film! Another huge plot problem is that Macready's body was apparently actually the foreman of this jury....and this man just happens to look almost exactly like Macready!!! So, when Macready walks around in a disguise as clever as Clark Kent's, no one is able to determine who he really is! Was this perhaps filmed on some planet other than ours where people are all blind or stupid?! Despite these HUGE problems, the idea of an innocent man snapping and exacting revenge is great. And, the way he kills them is also very good. In many ways, this plot was reminiscent of the much later film "The Abominible Doctor Phibes"--a cheesy but very enjoyable Vincent Price film. Plus, Macready and Bannon were very good actors stuck in a film that was beneath their talents. But, in spite of everything, I still kept watching as the film was entertaining throughout--even if EVERYONE in the audience was smarted than the folks in the film!!
"It's Terrorific" - that's what the Poster says!!!
kidboots2 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
"The Missing Juror" was one of Columbia's "filler" movies, usually made in about 12 days for around $100,000 and designed to fill out a double bill. Budd Boetticher, the director, gave the film flair and individuality. It was only his second directorial credit (his first was a Boston Blackie mystery "One Mysterious Night") and he had fond memories of the movie and it's stars. He thought Janis Carter was wonderful and could have been a top star if only she had learned to "play the game". It also really advanced the career of George MacCready along the ranks of memorable movie villains.
At a suburban railway crossing, a shadowy figure props the body of a man behind the wheel of a car as a train hurtles into it!! The murdered man is the fifth person to die from a jury that condemned an innocent man to death. Newspaper man, Joe Keats (Jim Bannon) has always been convinced of his innocence but even though there are appeals and submissions, Harry Wharton (MacCready) is found guilty. When the first juryman is shot, he confesses to Keats that Wharton has been framed and as a result of new evidence he is released. But Harry is a changed man, imprisonment has sent him insane and while incarcerated in the State Mental Hospital, he sets fire to the ward and hangs himself - or does he???
Keats is still investigating the juror's deaths and comes to know one of them, Alice (Janis Carter). She is not at all interested in him but is interested in Mr. Jerome K. Bentley, the mysterious jury foreman, who has a strange fetish for the number 12!!! Unlike a lot of the reviewers I thought it was a pretty good thriller - not Noir but definitely not mediocre!! Of course Keats takes an immediate dislike to Bentley but still takes up his invitation of a visit to the steam baths - Big Mistake!!! They are met by Colly (Mike Mazurki), the proprietor who proceeds to give Bentley his nightly neck massage while reciting Oscar Wilde's "The Ballad of Reading Gaol" - as if that isn't enough to make Keats suspicious, he almost comes to a steamy end in the actual baths.
Meanwhile Bentley has lured Alice to his home on the pretense of pretending to hire her to redecorate it - Keats can't go running to the rescue as he has been mistakenly jailed so it is up to Alice's faithful room-mate Tex (Jean Stevens) - who is smarter than the two leads and should have been on the case from the start. She makes a few phone calls which lead to a happy ending. Jim Bannon, after starting out in thrillers ("The Soul of a Monster", "I Love a Mystery") quickly found a home in the West, particularly TV, with shows like "The Range Rider" and "The Adventures of Champion".
At a suburban railway crossing, a shadowy figure props the body of a man behind the wheel of a car as a train hurtles into it!! The murdered man is the fifth person to die from a jury that condemned an innocent man to death. Newspaper man, Joe Keats (Jim Bannon) has always been convinced of his innocence but even though there are appeals and submissions, Harry Wharton (MacCready) is found guilty. When the first juryman is shot, he confesses to Keats that Wharton has been framed and as a result of new evidence he is released. But Harry is a changed man, imprisonment has sent him insane and while incarcerated in the State Mental Hospital, he sets fire to the ward and hangs himself - or does he???
Keats is still investigating the juror's deaths and comes to know one of them, Alice (Janis Carter). She is not at all interested in him but is interested in Mr. Jerome K. Bentley, the mysterious jury foreman, who has a strange fetish for the number 12!!! Unlike a lot of the reviewers I thought it was a pretty good thriller - not Noir but definitely not mediocre!! Of course Keats takes an immediate dislike to Bentley but still takes up his invitation of a visit to the steam baths - Big Mistake!!! They are met by Colly (Mike Mazurki), the proprietor who proceeds to give Bentley his nightly neck massage while reciting Oscar Wilde's "The Ballad of Reading Gaol" - as if that isn't enough to make Keats suspicious, he almost comes to a steamy end in the actual baths.
Meanwhile Bentley has lured Alice to his home on the pretense of pretending to hire her to redecorate it - Keats can't go running to the rescue as he has been mistakenly jailed so it is up to Alice's faithful room-mate Tex (Jean Stevens) - who is smarter than the two leads and should have been on the case from the start. She makes a few phone calls which lead to a happy ending. Jim Bannon, after starting out in thrillers ("The Soul of a Monster", "I Love a Mystery") quickly found a home in the West, particularly TV, with shows like "The Range Rider" and "The Adventures of Champion".
Hanged Jury
sol-kay10 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
**SPOILERS** You get lost watching"The Missing Juror" within the first ten minutes in that we already see that the convicted murderer Harry Warton was exonerated of his crime just minutes before he was supposed to be hung for it! This all came out when the star witness against Wharton private dick George Szabo gave a "death Bed" confession, after he was gunned down by an unknown assailant, that he set poor Wharton up by the person who's really responsible for what he was convicted of!
Instead of finding out, and having arrested, just who the actual killer was we instead have the jurors who convicted Wharton of murder being murdered themselves. Wharton who had since gone mad after his release was put into a lunatic asylum where in a short period of time he ended up killing himself by both hanging and arson. Wharton seemed to have flipped out and killed himself because he just couldn't stand the shame of being incarcerated in the asylum as well as the torture he suffered, that drove him insane, of being put on death row for the last six months of his life.
In the movie we have hot shot reporter Joe Keats the man who's investigated reporting got Wharton freed trying to find out just who's responsible for murdering those jurors who had unjustly convicted him. Again no one, the police the courts and even Joe Keats, were not at all interested in finding out who was the man who actually murdered the person whom Wharton was convicted of murdering! Even though with his last dying breath George Szabo identified him which resulted in the court, and prosecuting D.A, overturning Wharton's original death sentence!
As we watch, mostly off camera, most of the jurors in the Wharton murder trial get knocked off it doesn't take a genius to figure out just who's doing the knocking. The killer is so obvious to everyone, with his flimsy and unconvincing disguise, that by the time he finally reveals himself to juror, and reporter Keats' girlfriend, Alice Hill you felt like screaming at him, on the TV screen, "What the hell took you so long"!
Hard to stay awake throughout the entire film because you can see right from the start that it's not at all interested in who the killer who framed Wharton really is. All we get to see is ace crime reported Joe Keats run around in circles making a complete fool of himself and almost getting killed, in an overheated steam room no less, chasing the elusive killer! Who's about as elusive, to everyone but Keats and his girlfriend Alice, as an 800 pound gorilla stuffing himself with stacks of bananas in an outdoor or open air fruit market!
Instead of finding out, and having arrested, just who the actual killer was we instead have the jurors who convicted Wharton of murder being murdered themselves. Wharton who had since gone mad after his release was put into a lunatic asylum where in a short period of time he ended up killing himself by both hanging and arson. Wharton seemed to have flipped out and killed himself because he just couldn't stand the shame of being incarcerated in the asylum as well as the torture he suffered, that drove him insane, of being put on death row for the last six months of his life.
In the movie we have hot shot reporter Joe Keats the man who's investigated reporting got Wharton freed trying to find out just who's responsible for murdering those jurors who had unjustly convicted him. Again no one, the police the courts and even Joe Keats, were not at all interested in finding out who was the man who actually murdered the person whom Wharton was convicted of murdering! Even though with his last dying breath George Szabo identified him which resulted in the court, and prosecuting D.A, overturning Wharton's original death sentence!
As we watch, mostly off camera, most of the jurors in the Wharton murder trial get knocked off it doesn't take a genius to figure out just who's doing the knocking. The killer is so obvious to everyone, with his flimsy and unconvincing disguise, that by the time he finally reveals himself to juror, and reporter Keats' girlfriend, Alice Hill you felt like screaming at him, on the TV screen, "What the hell took you so long"!
Hard to stay awake throughout the entire film because you can see right from the start that it's not at all interested in who the killer who framed Wharton really is. All we get to see is ace crime reported Joe Keats run around in circles making a complete fool of himself and almost getting killed, in an overheated steam room no less, chasing the elusive killer! Who's about as elusive, to everyone but Keats and his girlfriend Alice, as an 800 pound gorilla stuffing himself with stacks of bananas in an outdoor or open air fruit market!
Tense suspense
searchanddestroy-18 March 2023
It looks like an early Richard Fleischer's movie for RKO, or also Bob Wise's for the same studio. But Columbia did the very same for the likes of Budd Boetticher, Edward Dmytryk, William Castle, hirig them for short and fast paced thrillers. This one is excellent as another from Boetticher: BEHIND LOCKED DOORS, that I will comment tomorrow. This topic looks much like the thirties mystery yarns, but here it moves up a gear. Boetticher was a real gifted good director, it also reminds me early Anthony Mann's films, for RKO if my memory is good. Nothing here let us guess this film maker will be a provider of awesome little westerns, starring Randolph Scott.
Obvious and lacking in tension
dbborroughs9 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Unremarkable story of a newspaper man investigating the death of the jurors who wrongly corrected an innocent man who was eventually freed, but who committed suicide in a mental hospital by hanging himself and burning himself.
If you can't instantly guess who the killer is really and who he is in the cast upon seeing him you're not paying attention.
Okay story seems to be going nowhere for much of its running time. WHile never bad, there really is no tension because the plotting is so bad. We know way to much for it to ever work.
Not bad, but not really worth losing 66 minutes to it either.
If you can't instantly guess who the killer is really and who he is in the cast upon seeing him you're not paying attention.
Okay story seems to be going nowhere for much of its running time. WHile never bad, there really is no tension because the plotting is so bad. We know way to much for it to ever work.
Not bad, but not really worth losing 66 minutes to it either.
Dead man's revenge on jurors who sentenced him to death
clanciai26 October 2022
There is not one juror going missing here, but they are all gradually being disposed of one by one, until only five remain. We never learn what ever happened to those last five.
Jim Bannon plays the reporter who starts paying attention to the case, investigating it and digging it up, while the murders just go on. The case is the problem of a murderer convicted of a murder he did not commit, he is sentenced to be hanged, and not until in the last moments before his hanging he is pardoned, as the case is solved. But he is already destroyed, distraught by the hardships in the prison with the terrible psychological torture of daily having to witness other convicts being brought out to be hanged, and he has to be confined to a mental asylum. There he hangs himself and destroys all traces of himself by setting fire to the cell. The case is closed, but that's how it opens.
You will immediately grasp the plot if you are not stupid, but although it's all self-evident, it keeps developing and getting more complicated, as another is caught for the murders who confesses to all of them in detail. So where does this labyrinth lead?
It is one of Budd Boetticher's early films, and already here he excels with his special tricks, number one being an excellent camera work, supported by exquisite photo. In spite of all its B-superficiality, the film is worth watching - and enjoying. It is also graced by Janis Carter's enchanting appearance.
Jim Bannon plays the reporter who starts paying attention to the case, investigating it and digging it up, while the murders just go on. The case is the problem of a murderer convicted of a murder he did not commit, he is sentenced to be hanged, and not until in the last moments before his hanging he is pardoned, as the case is solved. But he is already destroyed, distraught by the hardships in the prison with the terrible psychological torture of daily having to witness other convicts being brought out to be hanged, and he has to be confined to a mental asylum. There he hangs himself and destroys all traces of himself by setting fire to the cell. The case is closed, but that's how it opens.
You will immediately grasp the plot if you are not stupid, but although it's all self-evident, it keeps developing and getting more complicated, as another is caught for the murders who confesses to all of them in detail. So where does this labyrinth lead?
It is one of Budd Boetticher's early films, and already here he excels with his special tricks, number one being an excellent camera work, supported by exquisite photo. In spite of all its B-superficiality, the film is worth watching - and enjoying. It is also graced by Janis Carter's enchanting appearance.
I watched this based on "Povertyrowpictures'" review....
tkasle11 October 2009
....which is so opposite reality as to be intentionally misleading.
"Juror" is NOT noir.
It IS a poorly-written B "mystery", with little of that, but plenty of under- and over-acting.
You can't even call it a pot-boiler because it never catches fire.
The only reason it's "rarely seen" on TV these days is that only TCM would show it. (But you'll never see Osborne or Mankiewicz introducing it.)
With the exception of classics like "The Wizard of Oz", "Gone With the Wind" and "It's a Wonderful Life", no network today will broadcast movies over 30 years old in order to attract that all-important 18-35 demographic.
This clunker has nothing in common with "Stranger On The Third Floor" and it's an insult to say it's a twist on "And Then There Were None."
"Juror" was just a paycheck for Budd Boetticher, who moved on to direct and team with Randolph Scott for some truly great 1950s westerns.
Watch them, not this.
"Juror" is NOT noir.
It IS a poorly-written B "mystery", with little of that, but plenty of under- and over-acting.
You can't even call it a pot-boiler because it never catches fire.
The only reason it's "rarely seen" on TV these days is that only TCM would show it. (But you'll never see Osborne or Mankiewicz introducing it.)
With the exception of classics like "The Wizard of Oz", "Gone With the Wind" and "It's a Wonderful Life", no network today will broadcast movies over 30 years old in order to attract that all-important 18-35 demographic.
This clunker has nothing in common with "Stranger On The Third Floor" and it's an insult to say it's a twist on "And Then There Were None."
"Juror" was just a paycheck for Budd Boetticher, who moved on to direct and team with Randolph Scott for some truly great 1950s westerns.
Watch them, not this.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
