Benutzerrezensionen

I set out to watch this 6 hour British mini series for one reason: I'm a huge fan of Gerard Butler's. I came away amazed at how really good I thought it was. The mini-series deals with the trial of a Sikh student accused of brutally killing a fellow student (and compelling evidence both for and against). And while it does indeed explore the trial itself, the beauty of this series is the exploration of the jurors and their lives (something rarely done). It takes 7 of the 12 jurors and shows what is going on in their lives (and by proxy, what their lives the last several years must have been like). You have the alcoholic just out of rehab the first morning of the trial (Butler), the single mother with her own "mom" issues, the seminary student torn between his love of God and his love of a woman, the old Catholic woman who is clearly lonely, the man who had lost his fortune a while back and is no longer financially well-off, the woman who is controlled by her ex-military and semi-crippled husband and last the responsible citizen who is pleased and overwhelmed at the duty placed on him (and who has the most clueless in-laws). You have the not-so-nice prosecutor (played admirably by Antony Sher) and the decent defense barrister (played well as always by Derek Jacobi). Almost all the characters are to some degree stereotypes, but it is how the actors portray them and the way they are written--the way these stories unfold--that is so special. These performances are just truly wonderful (notably Butler and the actors portraying the abused wife, the single mom and the duty bound juror) The ultimate outcome of the trial, while important, takes second place to the jurors' outcome and the central question: how difficult is it to reach a decision on guilt or innocence when you can NEVER really know?

I'm American and have been watching British drama for the past couple of years. I now prefer the more realistic productions than all the glitz and glamour of newer American shows.

We usually have no insight before starting a a series which was the case with The Jury. To keep it short and sweet, the production, the characters and the story were all well done. Each character had a unique story line and the whole series was easy to follow.

But one of the strongest compliments I can give the show was how the ending wrapped things up nice and clean. No uncertain twists that make you question the outcome. WATCH IT.

Has anyone mentioned the music score for this? From the first shot of the courthouse dome, melancholy music perfectly sets the mood for what will come.

The Eastern (or Indian) theme and the drum at the beginning credits is haunting. During the seminary scenes, the mens choral is lovely.

Throughout a woman hums a beautiful, sad melody, through certain transition scenes and always at the opening of a new chapter. Whenever juror, Johnny Donne, is alone this theme emphasizes his loneliness and breaks your heart. A number of times we see Johnny arriving home and walking down a long corridor and opening his door, with this lonely theme playing. His AA prayer also has the music softly in the background.

During the Rose characters arrival back home each time, we see her getting off the elevator and walking into a blinding white light - to give us a jolt of the searing effort to walk back into that house of pain. The orchestra with an oboe(?) featured makes one want to cry.

During the foreman of the juries final scenes of frenzy in the tunnel the Indian song is just perfect - the wail and lament of a man driven to distraction.

And as the jurors all walk down the hill after the burial, the same woman humming the theme music makes for a melancholy finale.

For the performances, the great cinematography, and wonderful music themes, this a rare series from television that is as great as a movie. Gerald Butler as Johnny is a standout - so intense at times you quit breathing. I've forgotten the name of the actor who plays the Foreman of the jury, but he is also outstanding. The whole cast is superb.

A real jewel for anyones collection. 9/10

This was quite an ambitious undertaking; a six part exploration of not only the dynamics of the jury room but also the effects of the criminal trial on the lives of jurors, their families, the victim's family and the accused and his family.

The jury here is almost perversely diverse, with everyone from a young single black mother to a trainee priest. We follow seven of the jurors home during adjournments and realise that strains and stresses of the jury box and room aren't the half of it. One unlucky juror has a father-in law from hell who wants in on the case. Another is a recovering alcoholic who is finding it hard to stay on the straight and narrow, despite his invaluable `personal trainer' Juror Rose (Helen McCrory) is unlucky enough to be married to a control freak (she took on jury service to get away from him) and to then get friendly with the alcoholic. Juror Jeremy, a down and out businessman, is thrown by an accidental encounter with the man whose sure fire deal nearly ruined him. The trainee priest is having doubts about his vocation and the old lady he befriends finds out she is seriously ill.

The courtroom scenes on the other hand run pretty smoothly (though there is a surprise witness). We have top leading counsel of course, Anthony Sher for the prosecution and Derek Jacobi for the defence, but their performances are so glossy and professional as to be almost boring. The judge is almost invisible, despite a lot of noise from the gallery.

This brings me to two irritating aspects. This being a `racial' killing (Sikh boy accused of killing white schoolboy bully with ceremonial sword) there is a demonstration by both sides outside the Old Bailey every morning and afternoon. I can't believe the police would allow the jurors to be routinely intimidated in this way (though most of them did seem to have other things on their minds.) Surely there is a back door (or they could have bussed them out). Secondly, the practice here in Australia is to `sequester' the jury members ie cut them off from family and friends and anyone else who might try to nobble them after they retire to consider their verdict. We copied this practice from the English. Surely they still sequester the jury at the Old Bailey?

Technical grizzles aside this was a very watchable show with some nice acting. There are weaknesses in some of the plotlines and there's rather a ham-fisted attempt to leave things up in the air at the end, but the film reveals the value of the jury as an institution even if individual jurors might be pretty quirky. To some extent majority verdicts (which we don't have in NSW) iron out some of these, though the storyline here suggests such verdicts have problems of their own.

In the end the jurors do their job conscientiously to the best of their ability, despite all the distractions. Whether they are right or wrong is hardly the point; they represent humanity in the administration of justice, which would be mighty cold and austere without them.

A very compelling story about a young Seikh man who is charged with murdering a classmate. I enjoyed the relationships the characters formed with each other and how they were brought together for the conclusion of the story. I thoroughly enjoyed Gerry Butler's role as a young man fresh out of rehab struggling to make a new life for himself despite all his difficulties. The ensemble cast draws you into their own personal trials as well as their fight for the truth in the trial they sit for. The story keeps you guessing and even in the end, you still are not sure what is the actual truth. A great British version of the American-types of "Law and Order" and "The Practice" series.

Never have you seen such as Gerard Butler portraying Johnny in this film "The Jury". You feel a part of what the character is going through, his turmoil and struggle with being a recovering alcoholic. Gerards performance touched you in ways you could not imagine. Your heart felt for this man and his demons. Mr. Butler was captivating when he performed the scene in which he found out his love interest, Rose was married. You where so awe struck by his pain you could not help but cry for him. This was probably one of the best performances I have ever scene an actor do in any film. If this is what we seen what is there coming? I eagerly wait for Mr. Butler to dazzle us all. Butphan

I really enjoyed this offbeat drama about the inner workings of a jury. It didn't occur to me that it's really up to the jury members to conduct their deliberations in such a structured way. The general public is not aware of such things until you find yourself there.

The story line was controversial, which gave the deliberations a social aspect to consider beyond the straight facts and circumstances.

The acting was generally quite good. Gerard Butler seemed to over emote in his scenes, which made his character less believable -- especially the lack of chemistry with his "girlfriend" in the story. I read his IMDB profile. The guy sure likes to talk about himself.

Derek Jacobi was excellent as the defense council.

Good series.

The shame is that the first user comment anyone sees when reviewing The Jury is "Political Correctness (ya-aawwwn)", a review, if it can be called that, that more reflects someone with a beef taking a Political Science course and needing to use all the big words they learned to show how smart they are. While we all have the right to voice our opinion, I strongly feel this right should not prejudice the reader (or stop them, as it will some) before they see reviews that are more valuable. Any review that has one yes against multiple no's should be at the bottom of the review list.

Be that as it may, I have come to the Gerard Butler scene late (January, 2006) and because his acting ability struck me immediately and I'm interested in his progress (and why I hadn't heard of him until now), I've been watching his work. Doing that, I've come across some great movies (and a few that weren't so great). The Jury is in the great category.

I'm not going to describe the film, others have done so but I do want to note that the characters lives were well depicted. The frequent use of closeups made me feel like I was standing right next to each person, seeing what he or she saw, feeling what he or she felt. It was an awesome experience. I only buy a video/DVD if it has meaning and makes me feel something, hence I only have about 75 and this is over the past 20 years. I bought The Jury.

I really enjoyed this 5-part drama.

Not only is it an engrossing and well made drama, it also makes you think about the rights and wrongs of the British jury system.

The story is quite simple: it is about the retrial of a previously-convicted multiple murder, and focuses mainly on the people who have been selected to be the jury, offering up things about some of the jurors that seriously make you think about whether or not random selection from the general public is the best way to go about selecting a jury for such an important case.

The backdrop for the entire series is an ongoing political debate as to whether trial by jury is a good system or should be replaces.

Interesting stuff, and entertaining too.

I found this series brilliant. The sensitive acting and timing were unusually spectacular. Gerard Butler(Johnnie Donne) was exceptionally convincing as the recovering alcoholic.He has personal experience of this and it must have taken huge courage to play this character as he has admitted that it was a very dark period in his life. Well done Gerry. He gathers belief in himself as the trial progresses and is shown to be the strongest of the jurors and the most factual. He carries a lot of the weight of the series with his perceptive interaction with Derek Jacobi who is in prime form as the defending council. Rose(Helen McCory) is sympathetic and portrays real emotional energy in her delicate handling of the at first fragile Johnnie. All the other characters lent weight and credence to this series I have seldom seen better. Tim Healey lends charm and cheekiness with his practical advice and fatherly treatment of Johnnie. Overall this one could be an anytime any place series as this situation unfortunately still exists. It should be shown again as there is a lot to learn from the doubts and fears of racism and our present day attitudes need redress.

Having now seen parts of this twice, I think that what makes this really great, and gripping, is the character development and the acting. I especially liked the recovering alcoholic and Rose, but all the characters were well developed and real (except, perhaps, the judge, the lawyers, and the defendant - but this is about the JURY).

I am as much against political correctness as the next person, but I don't think that was what this was about. That was part of the background, but not the story. The story was about the people.

STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs

Kudos to ITV for the good idea of this six-parter series,which shows we can do it and that it's not just Hollywood that can make this kind of thing work.

In Britain (and certain other countries) it's considered every working citizens duty to perform 'jury service'.That is,twelve people (men and women usually these days) from completely different walks of life and with presumably no previous experience of the judicial system must come together to decide the fate of a defendant on trial for a crime.In this case,a 15/16 year old Pakistani student has been accused of hacking his classmate to death in a field.It is a very high profile case which has ignited racial hatred between the White/Asian community,and the series cleverly examines not only the opinions of the jurors,but also how this alien and stressful experience affects their lives outside work.

The acting is pretty good stuff.Veteran Derek Jackobi is lively,spirited and ingenuitive as the defence barrister.Plus Anthony Sher is suitably cold and uncompromising as the prosecution.The people on the jury impressively convey the uncertainty and fear that overrides them all.Jack Shepherd is a good character actor,here playing the murdered boy's father,but is given little to do except sit in the courtroom looking tense and agitated.Also,Tim Healy gets to spread his wings and fly in something that isn't another annoying Uno advert.

The ending is something of a cop-out ,with a few unexplained matters not being resolved.But it's all acted with such sincerity and dash,with engaging pace and dialogue to match,that you feel compelled to watch it to the end if only to support British big/small screen productions.***

Great characters, good storyline. A few plot holes but overall worth a binge.

More please. What a brilliantly written, acted, and produced series. Why are there not more...love the premise!

This jury drama seems to derive some of its inspiration from an American movie from the 1950's - Twelve Angry Men. This one however deals with the domestic lives of the jurors as well as the conflict over the guilt or innocence of the accused. I found some moving and powerful performances by Michael Maloney, Nicholas Farrell, Gerard Butler, Sylvia Syms etc. The background of racism against the young man from a Sikh family is played out on the streets outside the court. There are connections made among the jurors and heated differences of opinion in trying to establish the facts, a huge challenge in this particular case. Derek Jacobi was very impressive as the defence attorney. Gerard Butler was outstanding as a young man fighting addiction while falling for another juror. Michael Maloney rose to the occasion as the foreman. The outcome is not in the least predictable as they deal with conflicting evidence and struggle to find the truth. Worth watching all six episodes.

OK, I'm American, not a Brit. But would the judge really allow the yobbos in the gallery to continue to yell and harass the defendant? Certainly in this country, the initial offender would be banned from the courtroom, and if the disturbance continued, the gallery would be cleared.

And do jurors in a high-profile case really walk out of the courthouse in front of protesters? They go home at night rather than being sequestered, and they are allowed to read newspapers and listen to news reports about the trial?

The individual stories of the jurors are interesting, but the ridiculous portrayal of the courtroom ruins it for me.

Despite its fine acting 'The Jury' is just one more program/script driven by the twin Leftist (or Marxisant) orthodoxies of its time: political correctness and so-called "multiculturalism." In this film all the women and non-whites struggle valiantly, and all of them are depicted either as victims of "Eurocentric" white male culture, or as struggling valiantly to overcome their troubles (which, of course, devolve from their having been victimized by white men); and, conversely, all the white men (with the exception of the sensitive one who's working through his priestly vocation or lack thereof) are shown as neurotic, self-absorbed, inept (owing to their inability to see beyond their "whiteness" and maleness and the horrible, oppressive cultures flowing from those two characteristics) muddlers too insensible or witless to see their "issues," let alone to deal decisively or positively with them. Even the recovering alcoholic sod has to pay for the sins of his alcoholism which is, after all - as the Foucaults and gender feminists of the world tell us, a male affliction since men first concocted firewater and they're the ones who swill it and then abuse women while they're under its evil influence. The baleful mother-in-law archetype is absent herein, replaced by the male Jewish juror's veddy British, old school tie, overbearing father-in-law with whose prejudice, inveigling and meddling the muddled juror, of course - according to the PC/Leftist/feminist orthodoxy, cannot deal (his wife, of course, gets it right from the start and never wavers, pillar of feminist strength that she is).

The other men in the film are the father of the murdered schoolboy and his thuggish, vengeful male relatives - the lot of them, of course since they're men, being shown to be prejudiced, vindictive, reptilian, and contemptible. And then there are the lawyers, who are mere mouthpieces for orthodox inflammatory buzzwords, gaffes, and provocations: the sort of innuendo and screed which nowadays monotonously accompany wife-abuse and sexual harassment accusations which, quite often without a case's ever going to court, are often sufficient in themselves to ruin men's reputations and careers.

In sum: spare me, and the world, 'The Jury's' "postmodern" orthodox sort of preachiness. If I want to see and hear - and endure - this kind of Leftist re-education camp lecturing I can tune into BBC World - at least there, because the anchors and reporters haven't a script or the device of acting to hide behind, I can see the sneers on their permanently upturned lips.

Definitely worth watching.

Only 2 drawbacks:

1) Gerard Butler is only on the first season 😕 ; and

2) Somehow IMDB grabbed the second season and it is littered with stupid commercials. Interrupts the flow and is SO annoying. 😠

Just binge watched both series. Series 1 is far better when it comes to credible storyline of the jury members. There are some talented actors in both series. Julie Walters is the outstanding star and whose character kept me watching series 2. Part of the script recognises that the jury likes her character and are excited by her speech (she plays defence counsel) and that's true for viewers too. The cases that are the subject of both trials are very well thought out storylines and one really is on the edge of one's seat to hear what the verdict is. Highly recommend.

The idea is great and the acting is very good but this series drags along at a deadly pace. It's really a movie turned into a series.

This moves at the speed of a constipated glacier, especially the first episode. ITV decided to split it over five nights, but only had enough material for two or three, so it had to be spun out. I can't believe I watched it to the end. Memo to self: get a life.

It's difficult to write about the crazily unlikely plot, and its holes, without giving away spoilers, but I think I am safe in asking why no forensic or DNA evidence was ever mentioned in the courtroom. Surely this would have established whether the defendant had contact with the murdered women or not? Of course, any firm scientific evidence would have done away with most of the agonised discussions among the jury members and also ruined the contrived plot twist at the end.

Steven Mackintosh was good, as was Jodhi May. Roger Allam and Julie Walters as the barristers were very watchable but not really stretched. The series came to life a bit in their courtroom scenes.

The previous series (of ten years ago) was recently repeated as a curtain-raiser for this one. That's the one to see, if you can.