In a major murder case an innocent man is convicted. Though he is saved at the last moment his sanity is gone and he kills himself. Soon the jurors on his case began to be killed. Newspaperm... Read allIn a major murder case an innocent man is convicted. Though he is saved at the last moment his sanity is gone and he kills himself. Soon the jurors on his case began to be killed. Newspaperman Joe Keats investigates.In a major murder case an innocent man is convicted. Though he is saved at the last moment his sanity is gone and he kills himself. Soon the jurors on his case began to be killed. Newspaperman Joe Keats investigates.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
Photos
George Anderson
- Wharton Attorney
- (uncredited)
Walter Baldwin
- Town Sheriff
- (uncredited)
Trevor Bardette
- Tom Pierson
- (uncredited)
Brandon Beach
- Detective
- (uncredited)
Al Bridge
- Deputy Sheriff Ben
- (uncredited)
Nancy Brinckman
- Nurse
- (uncredited)
Cliff Clark
- Police Inspector Davis
- (uncredited)
Edmund Cobb
- Police Detective Cahan
- (uncredited)
Danny Desmond
- Newsboy
- (uncredited)
Jack Gardner
- Reporter at Trial
- (uncredited)
Jesse Graves
- Train Porter
- (uncredited)
William Hall
- Officer Garrett
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
....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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- Trivia'Harry Wharton' was the name of a fictional English schoolboy created by 'Frank Richards' in his 'Greyfriars' stories which starred 'Billy Bunter'.
- Quotes
Harry Wharton: Why don't they hang me? What are they waiting for? Hang me! Hang me!
[He sobs]
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Mañana morirás
- Filming locations
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime
- 1h 6m(66 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.37 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content