Jerry McKibbon is a tough, no nonsense reporter, mentoring special prosecutor John Conroy in routing out corrupt officials in the city, which may even include Conroy's own police detective father as a suspect.
A well-known judge has become a fugitive from the police, with a large reward on his head. A reporter believes that the judge is hiding in a private sanitarium, so she seeks out a private ... See full summary »
It was Joe who dug up all the evidence that saved Harry Wharton.
Yes, I know. I've been reading Mr. Keats' recent articles with considerable interest. In fact, I've been wondering why the police haven't arranged some sort of protection for him.
It merely occurred to me the mysterious killer might decide to hold you responsible for making his task more difficult.
Oh, that's where you're wrong. The man's obviously a maniac with one fixed idea. He wants to do away with the jury because ...
[...] See more »
I watched this based on "Povertyrowpictures'" review....
....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.
5 of 25 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this