Very Cool!!!

Excellent, a Must See

Don't Believe the Hype

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

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.

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.

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.

Though it wasn't part of the "I Love a Mystery" series (that wouldn't start at Columbia until the next year) "The Missing Juror" has the same writer, Charles "Blackie" O'Neal (Ryan O'Neal's father), and the same star, Jim Bannon. It also has the same breezy unconcern with plot credibility; like his script for the first "I Love a Mystery" movie, O'Neal's screenplay literally makes no sense, as well as being structured around one man impersonating another (I know I'm treading on the thin edge of "spoiler" here but IMDb's cast list actually gives the game away anyway) and supposedly not being recognized by two leads who know both people well. What saves this movie is George Macready's malevolent performance and, above all, Budd Boetticher's direction: Boetticher and cinematographer L. W. O'Connell take the film noir look to such extremes that some scenes are played out in almost pitch-black darkness and only flashes of light, along with the voices on the soundtrack, clue us in as to what's supposed to be going on. It's a pity Boetticher later specialized in Westerns and didn't make many more noirs — he was damned good at them!