We the Jury (1996) Online

I so enjoyed her in this as a "sharp but understated" character. Kelly Mcgillis, Lauren Hutton, Christopher Plummer....why is this thing not available on DVD and VIDEO? Anyway, a really compelling storyline, well-written, well-acted, well-directed. I loved the characterizations and the way the Jurors' relationships enmeshed and intensified. Did I say I loved it? Can you tell?

I have to add four more lines to submit this comment, actually never before have I been asked to lengthen an email! Oh well, sure. My favorite line from the movie is "She's a STONE KEELER!". This would be a great movie for COURT TV--maybe they could even do a sequel!

But definitely this movie needs to be OUT THERE more--I think I saw it on LIFETIME NETWORK once but thats about it recently.

Marvelous acting and superb camera work of the emotion on the faces of the actors. George Jenesky is especially outstanding in this film. All around one of the finest movies I've seen in years. Gripping and exciting throughout. Oh how I wish they would put this on video tape. I've told my friends to watch for it but sadly, to my knowledge, it has never played again.

(Mild Spoilers) Tension packed made for TV courtroom drama thats refreshingly lacking, in it's non-politically-correct script, the usual and predictable ending that were so used to seeing in these kinds of justice films.

Famous Emmy Awarding winning talk show host Waynne Atwood follows her cheating husband Gregory Toland to his lovers Jane Carlisle's apartment and then catching him with his paths down blows him away with a bullet in his head. There's no doubt that Waynne shot and killed her husband since she immediately called the police and turned herself in. What the trial is all about is the mental state that she was in at the time of the shooting.

At the trial Waynn's lawyer Wilfred Francicus makes the case that his client was driven to the brink of insanity by the abuse, both physically and mentally, that she suffered at the hands of her husband Greg and was not in control of her actions at the time of the shooting.

The prosecution brought out the fact that Waynne was cold and calculating in her action to the point where she calmly told her rival, Jane Carlisle, for her husband's Greg's affection not to worry about being killed she thought of killing her at first but now changed her mind. This set the stage for the last half of of movie that exploded with both rage and fury in the jury room and divided the jurors, for the most part, on gender lines. The are men for conviction feeling that Waynne was totally in control of her faculties when she killed Greg. The women on the jury feel that she was driven to the point where she didn't know right from wrong and was not responsible for what she did thus she was innocent by reason of insanity.

The evidence is skillfully presented and analyzed by the jurors and it later turns out that one of them, the foreman Karl Weber, is more interested in making a buck on the case, after it's over by writing a book about it, then in finding out if Waynne is innocent or guilty.The final ending doesn't come as a shock at all because we the audience see the evidence, like the jury did, and realize that the conclusion the jurors came up with was the only fair and just verdict in the Waynne Atwood/Gregopry Toland case.

Kelly McGillis is wonderful as the forewoman of the jury and it was touching ,as well as painful, to watch how she didn't allow her emotions to take over her logic and also how she kept the rest of the jurors from almost resorting to violence during the emotionally packed deliberations.

Both Conrad Dunne & Nicky Guadagni as jurors Rafael Ramos & Beryl Granger were outstanding as the two jurors with totally different views about the case and who were involved in the most explosive scenes in the movie. Even they as divided as they were on Waynne's guilt or innocence came to the same conclusion when the evidence, that was right there in front of their noses but what they didn't at first notice, presented itself to them.

Outstanding courtroom drama that's every bit as good as the 1957 Henry Fonda courtroom classic "12 Angry Men" where in this movie it was seven women and five men who came to the very startling and righteous verdict at the end of the film.

I'm biased. I like good courtroom dramas. This is a good one. But it also gives a tremendous insight into what really goes on in the jury room. Fully half the film covers the jury deliberations yet it does not drag for a moment. I have one large complaint and that is the fact that Toronto again has allowed itself to be prostituted as the setting for an American city. Toronto's pretensions of being a "world class city" are worthless so long as this sort of cinematic pimping continues. Is there any other major city in the world (outside Canada) that demeans itself in this manner. London is always London. New York is New York. But Toronto invariably is Cincinatti or Boston. It's especially upsetting since CTV was one of the backers of this movie. It's especially obscene to see the US flag flying in front of the Canadian Government offices on Front Street. Having said that, it's still a compelling movie, well scripted and well produced with some excellent performances

Quite an entertaining little film as long as you don't look too closely at the facts. The cast all did their best to keep the story flowing. Several interesting characters involved, though, in my opinion, most bigoted people are not prepared to change their minds as easily as these seem to do. DOWNSIDE: If this is typical of the American Jury system the only comment I can make is "Good Luck". The trial seemed a farce, no-one even asked who the gun actually belonged to, the jury had to guess whether it was his or hers. The post-trial jurists publicity with interviews etc. I found abhorrent and open to misuse and retaliation.

I saw this movie a couple of times when it first came out. Very intense, very entertaining, yet realistic. Shows you how each individual juror has his/her own opinions and differences and how they Clash. Is not so easy to get everyone on one Accord which is understandable because people look at evidence differently. You also learn in this movie that a jury is just 12 regular people that have different views and opinions. Not 12 perfect angels swinging in the right direction.

Really entertaining.... extremely well directed and acted drama - definitely in the style of not only 12 Angry Men but many 50's and 60's dramas. I can't say that it was as good though but I thought it really worth watching and refreshing considering the majority of movies that are produced these days, with their focus on effects and shock. I appreciated the how the filmmakers allowed the drama to breathe; not to clutter up the energy with a lot of quick cuts to create a false sense of drama. All the drama here is created with situation, great words, good acting. I have to agree in part with the other comment about Toronto acting as an American City. Why bother? Have to say though - isn't it a bit cliché to have the Latino guy as the macho jerk? I had a few problems with the stereotyping and tokenism: ie: one Black man, one hip talking black woman, one of oriental background, another obvious female lib type, and even the clean cut businessman type who has affairs behind his wife's back. This might have worked in the 50's or 60's but no more.

What I liked about the movie was seeing the jury process in motion. Having never served on a jury, it was good to see the process portrayed as being "by the law", and the fact that there are twelve people there - each keeping the other in line. But the commercial breaks on the Lifetime Channel are distracting and the ending never gave you what I call a conclusion. It did keep my husband awake though, and he said if I was going to watch Lifetime, he was going to take a nap. :-)

This is like watching the great classic "12 angry men" but then quite the opposite way.Possible SPOILER: In "12 angry men" 11 jury-members are convinced a man is guilty, but one man manages to prove the others of their wrong. In "We the jury" we see a suspect who seems to be quite innocent, but one jury-member doesn't think so. She has got the task to convince the others that she is guilty.It's all done less gripping than in "12 angry men" but there are some quite wonderful roles here, like McGillis and the Latino who was the one who votes for "guilty" from the beginning and is the one to persuade the others to change their verdict.I don't find some of these characters very believable.Weird jury-system you've got in America is this is how it goes. Well worth watching, especially if you know "12 angry men" and can compare these two.