The Missing Juror

....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.

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.

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.

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.

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.