franco-6
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.
rowhitakertoday
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.
Mal Walker
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.
avdvelden
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.
AD
