ThiefHott Too much of everything

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Jackson Booth-Millard I saw the advert for this series and thought it looked interesting, but I found out as well that it was a second series of the original 2002 version, but with the first series (with Hugh Jackman) unavailable I gave this a chance, and I stuck with it. Basically, the story is unconnected to the first series, Alan Lane (Sliding Doors' John Lynch) is going on retrial, convicted for the murder of three women five years ago, all of whom he met on an internet dating site. John Mallory Q.C. (Roger Allam) is acting as the prosecutor, and Emma Watts Q.C. (Julie Walters) is defending him, but the twelve people in the jury are the people who will ultimately decide whether he is still guilty or whether evidence can prove he is in fact innocent. The jurors include single man Paul Brierley (Steven Mackintosh) who looks after his mother June (EastEnders' Anne Reid), teacher Katherine Bulmore (Jodhi May) who had an affair with a seventeen year old pupil, Sudanese immigrant Tahir Takana (Ivanno Jeremiah) who is waiting to get a visa so he can go to America and join his brother, Lucy Cartwright (Natalie Press) who is the assistant to businesswoman Theresa Vestey (Sarah Alexander) taking her place, quiet young man Rashid Jarwar (Aqib Khan) who lives with his parents and with Aspergers Syndrome, lonely woman Kristina Bamford (Branka Katic), devout Christian woman Ann Skailes (Jo Hartley), likable pensioner Jeffrey Livingstone (Ronald Pickup) and tanning salon enjoying Derek Hatch (Rory McGann, Paul's brother). As each of them are summoned for jury duty and go through the process of going to court, hearing the evidence and accusations, and questioning the witnesses and involved people, they also have big changes in their personal lives. Also starring The Kumar at No. 42's Meera Syal as Head Teacher and Lisa Dillon as Tasha Williams. The cast all do their parts, especially Walters as the determined defence counsel and Lynch as the man pleading his innocence, obviously the trial unfolding with evidence and opinions does sort of grip, the story part with Jeremiah's character being friends with Pickup trying to get somewhere is okay, the other subplots aren't all the most interesting elements, and the ending is relatively alright, all in all the series is a not bad viewing drama serial. Good!

jane_concannon I really enjoyed this 5-part drama.Not only is it an engrossing and well made drama, it also makes you think about the rights and wrongs of the British jury system.The story is quite simple: it is about the retrial of a previously-convicted multiple murder, and focuses mainly on the people who have been selected to be the jury, offering up things about some of the jurors that seriously make you think about whether or not random selection from the general public is the best way to go about selecting a jury for such an important case.The backdrop for the entire series is an ongoing political debate as to whether trial by jury is a good system or should be replaces.Interesting stuff, and entertaining too.

Piafredux Despite its fine acting 'The Jury' is just one more program/script driven by the twin Leftist (or Marxisant) orthodoxies of its time: political correctness and so-called "multiculturalism." In this film all the women and non-whites struggle valiantly, and all of them are depicted either as victims of "Eurocentric" white male culture, or as struggling valiantly to overcome their troubles (which, of course, devolve from their having been victimized by white men); and, conversely, all the white men (with the exception of the sensitive one who's working through his priestly vocation or lack thereof) are shown as neurotic, self-absorbed, inept (owing to their inability to see beyond their "whiteness" and maleness and the horrible, oppressive cultures flowing from those two characteristics) muddlers too insensible or witless to see their "issues," let alone to deal decisively or positively with them. Even the recovering alcoholic sod has to pay for the sins of his alcoholism which is, after all - as the Foucaults and gender feminists of the world tell us, a male affliction since men first concocted firewater and they're the ones who swill it and then abuse women while they're under its evil influence. The baleful mother-in-law archetype is absent herein, replaced by the male Jewish juror's veddy British, old school tie, overbearing father-in-law with whose prejudice, inveigling and meddling the muddled juror, of course - according to the PC/Leftist/feminist orthodoxy, cannot deal (his wife, of course, gets it right from the start and never wavers, pillar of feminist strength that she is).The other men in the film are the father of the murdered schoolboy and his thuggish, vengeful male relatives - the lot of them, of course since they're men, being shown to be prejudiced, vindictive, reptilian, and contemptible. And then there are the lawyers, who are mere mouthpieces for orthodox inflammatory buzzwords, gaffes, and provocations: the sort of innuendo and screed which nowadays monotonously accompany wife-abuse and sexual harassment accusations which, quite often without a case's ever going to court, are often sufficient in themselves to ruin men's reputations and careers.In sum: spare me, and the world, 'The Jury's' "postmodern" orthodox sort of preachiness. If I want to see and hear - and endure - this kind of Leftist re-education camp lecturing I can tune into BBC World - at least there, because the anchors and reporters haven't a script or the device of acting to hide behind, I can see the sneers on their permanently upturned lips.

Philby-3 This was quite an ambitious undertaking; a six part exploration of not only the dynamics of the jury room but also the effects of the criminal trial on the lives of jurors, their families, the victim's family and the accused and his family. The jury here is almost perversely diverse, with everyone from a young single black mother to a trainee priest. We follow seven of the jurors home during adjournments and realise that strains and stresses of the jury box and room aren't the half of it. One unlucky juror has a father-in law from hell who wants in on the case. Another is a recovering alcoholic who is finding it hard to stay on the straight and narrow, despite his invaluable `personal trainer' Juror Rose (Helen McCrory) is unlucky enough to be married to a control freak (she took on jury service to get away from him) and to then get friendly with the alcoholic. Juror Jeremy, a down and out businessman, is thrown by an accidental encounter with the man whose sure fire deal nearly ruined him. The trainee priest is having doubts about his vocation and the old lady he befriends finds out she is seriously ill.The courtroom scenes on the other hand run pretty smoothly (though there is a surprise witness). We have top leading counsel of course, Anthony Sher for the prosecution and Derek Jacobi for the defence, but their performances are so glossy and professional as to be almost boring. The judge is almost invisible, despite a lot of noise from the gallery.This brings me to two irritating aspects. This being a `racial' killing (Sikh boy accused of killing white schoolboy bully with ceremonial sword) there is a demonstration by both sides outside the Old Bailey every morning and afternoon. I can't believe the police would allow the jurors to be routinely intimidated in this way (though most of them did seem to have other things on their minds.) Surely there is a back door (or they could have bussed them out). Secondly, the practice here in Australia is to `sequester' the jury members ie cut them off from family and friends and anyone else who might try to nobble them after they retire to consider their verdict. We copied this practice from the English. Surely they still sequester the jury at the Old Bailey?Technical grizzles aside this was a very watchable show with some nice acting. There are weaknesses in some of the plotlines and there's rather a ham-fisted attempt to leave things up in the air at the end, but the film reveals the value of the jury as an institution even if individual jurors might be pretty quirky. To some extent majority verdicts (which we don't have in NSW) iron out some of these, though the storyline here suggests such verdicts have problems of their own. In the end the jurors do their job conscientiously to the best of their ability, despite all the distractions. Whether they are right or wrong is hardly the point; they represent humanity in the administration of justice, which would be mighty cold and austere without them.