User reviews

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

....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.