Geraldine
The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.
Steve Pulaski
Jury Duty not only stalls the fictional trial it's based around, but it too seems like it stalls the flow and speed of the film. It's like we have to wait so the movie can catch up. If you've seen detective, mystery, criminal, or investigations shows this shouldn't be very difficult to piece together. I was able to point out the suspicious one, and come to a consensus on the trial in about forty minutes. Not a very complex film.Once more, we have Pauly Shore, who's fine in this film. I didn't adore him in this film, and it does not come close to the humor brought to us in Bio-Dome. I think In the Army Now is better than this as well. Jury Duty doesn't exceed the average/below average qualities it should to be unique or special. It does exactly what it's expected to do. Like a little kid on his way to the market because his parents said so. He walks straight to the market, and straight back. Doesn't stop and chat, doesn't smell the daisies, and doesn't lollygag. Nothing out of his expectations.Pauly Shore is lovable loser Tommy Collins who is in desperate need of money and a job. He is stuck at his parent's house with his dog Peanut, and his dignity deteriorating day by day. Tommy is called on jury duty, and like everything else in his life, he's hesitate on following through with it. Until he learns that the duty pays $5 a day, and there's a hotel in it for him as well. A few hours of sitting and listening to go back to a hotel, all for $5 a day? Why not? As you would imagine, Tommy doesn't want to give this up. He meets a sexy juror (Tia Carrere) who he is friendly too, but she wants nothing to do with him. Tommy gets the idea that if he continues to stall the trial, by voting "not guilty" every time, he can pretty much get $5 a day for doing nothing but expressing his false opinion. Ingenious! The film has taking a good beating by Gene Siskel, Roger Ebert, and Leonard Maltin. I enjoy Pauly Shore, but didn't find this film too funny. Some parts I smiled or laughed, but as a comedy, it greatly fails at it's job - to make the audience laugh. If a comedy doesn't make the audience laugh, it's practically as lifeless as a soap opera drama. Just characters with no purpose.To date, this is the worst Pauly Shore film I've seen. Too bad. This could've been a very enjoyable film, but the film just doesn't feel like trying to be original. It just thinks that it can get by by being the simplest it can possibly be without failing. If only the film would experience a little, and realize it's a comedy film where possibilities are endless, it's critical and audience reception wouldn't be so sour.Starring: Pauly Shore, Tia Carrere, Stanley Tucci, Brian Doyle-Murray, Shelley Winters, Abe Vigoda, and Billie Bird. Directed by: John Fortenberry.
lonelymanav
i saw this movie on a DVD last night and the movie reminded me of a Bollywood film named "EK RUKA HUA FAISLA" which means A PENDING VERDICT. jury duty is a total rip off from this movie. but the Hindi flick was far better scripted and it was brilliantly acted by some of the most talented actors Indian film industry has. if you ppl don't believe wat has been written then check out this link.. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0157571/.the Hindi movie was released in 1986 whereas jury duty in 1995. so at last we have a Hollywood film ripping ideas from a bollywood(i prefer to call it the Hindi film industry). and it was done way back in the eighties!!!! so guys please for one time spare the poor bollywood film makers guilty of lifting off ideas from Hollywood .
For the Love of Good Cinema
It is a bad movie that gives wrong idea out to the public. There is no way that wasting taxpayer's money can be made to look funny. The guy is healthy educated guy and living on his parents money. And then he decides to live off tax payers' money like a parasite. That certainly does not count as funny. Being a jury is a serious business. Making a comedy is a serious business. Unfortunately, the movie maker seems to care for neither. I would not recommend this movie to anyone. It is a waste of time.The actors did a fairly fine job in the given scope. Story and direction failed the movie.
Meredith-7
In my opinion, a film starring Pauly Shore is going to be bad, however, while some of his films are good/bad (Encino Man), this is not one of them. This is Shore at his most gratingly annoying, throw in a tired storyline & terrible jokes & you have jury duty. Nothing can save this film, it's bad from start to finish. I expected better from some of the cast - they must have really needed the money. The strange thing is the premise of the story could really work - if it had different actors, an appealing lead & a much better script. Unless you are a die hard Pauly Shore fan I suggest you stay away from this one. There are thousands of better films to watch.
