Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Mabel Munoz Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

MartinHafer Like many other B-movies, "The Missing Juror" really shows that it was rushed into production. After all, despite a very nice plot, the script is so littered with holes that it's a wonder the thing isn't mistaken for a piece of Swiss cheese! And I am talking about HUGE holes. It's a shame, really, as the idea was great and the film, despite its problems, was a lot of fun.George Macready plays an innocent man mistakenly sent to death row. Fortunately (perhaps), a reporter (Jim Bannon) is able to discover the real perpetrator and Macready is set free. However, his time in the death house apparently has destroyed his mind and he's sent to a sanitarium. Some time later, he apparently killed himself--though the body is so charred that identification is impossible. No one at all questions whether or not it was him--even though it's obvious that it might not be him (huge plot hole #1). Later, one-by-one, the members of the jury that convicted him begin to die. At this point you'd think someone would suggest that the dead man isn't dead and is killing the jurors...but not in this silly film. They only consider this towards the end of the film! Another huge plot problem is that Macready's body was apparently actually the foreman of this jury....and this man just happens to look almost exactly like Macready!!! So, when Macready walks around in a disguise as clever as Clark Kent's, no one is able to determine who he really is! Was this perhaps filmed on some planet other than ours where people are all blind or stupid?! Despite these HUGE problems, the idea of an innocent man snapping and exacting revenge is great. And, the way he kills them is also very good. In many ways, this plot was reminiscent of the much later film "The Abominible Doctor Phibes"--a cheesy but very enjoyable Vincent Price film. Plus, Macready and Bannon were very good actors stuck in a film that was beneath their talents. But, in spite of everything, I still kept watching as the film was entertaining throughout--even if EVERYONE in the audience was smarted than the folks in the film!!

small45-670-264771 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.

dougdoepke 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.

tkasle ....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.