Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

Trey Roberson The Jury is just like Homicide, Life On the Street and OZ in one aspect, it is fast paced and never drags on. Except for one two parter the show is over and adecision has been made by the jury in one sitting for the TV audience. To goone step further , after you find out the jury's decision, you then are shown what really happened and whether the jury was correct in its decision, which in my opinion is the best way to leave your audience satisfied and not wonderingwhether or not the jury's decision was correct. Another aspect of this show that is different from other one hour dramas is that the main focus of the show is the jury and their deliberation, not the detectives or the district attorneys. Therefore there is no main star of the show, which makes sense, the name of the show is The Jury. Each week you will have 12 different actors which allows for different jury personalities and personality conflicts, in my opinion keeping the show fresh and free. OZ was a hit, Homicide was a hit and if any network gives The Jury a chance , it too will be a hit.

norafromktown The show is somewhat hard to follow and made worse when some actors are awful. In the "Memories" episode aired Friday, July 9, the jurors were pretty captivating. But, the woman attempting to play the mother seemed like someone who had won bid on ebay] a guest spot on a TV show. [I don't want to say much because I don't want to spoil this for someone who has not seen the episode] Having large casts every week shouldn't be a good excuse for not finding good talent. There are a lot of good actors looking for work. This week's episode has a guest judge, which will be a welcome change. Kind of stretches the imagination to think one judge would have all these tough cases.

afunkystar Thanks to law shows today, like the many Law and Order spin-offs and the god-awful CSI franchises, people want cop/court shows to be over the top, contain lots of fights, have twists and turns in the evidence and be in your face. This show builds slowly and focuses on the fact that average people are deciding someone else's fate. I don't usually like court shows (I can only watch L&O up until when the case goes to trial, because the trials are so boring), but I like this show. The problem is that I wouldn't have bothered to notice this show if it wasn't a Fontana/Levinson project. Because I loved Homicide so much, I can appreciate what they're trying to do here. There's only been three episodes so far, but I like that the cases have been "average." TV shows always have to have a case that's been "ripped from the headlines," and is so sensational that it's impossible to believe. Instead, The Jury had an episode about an inmate who killed a priest during a riot. One juror wondered what the point was of trying him, because either way the man was going back to jail to finish his sentence from a previous crime. Yet the writers (including James Yoshimura, who wrote Homicide's much-celebrated "Subway" episode) still use that "back-page" subject matter. It is their willingness to go into typical crimes that makes this show interesting. Instead of going for the shocking like CSI does, they find shocking things in everyday life.Yeah I remember The Beat too. ;)

kcla I missed the first couple of episodes but was nevertheless immediately caught up in this series. While other shows focus on the cops and crime scene investigators who solve the cases and the district attorneys prosecuting the criminals, it's refreshing to see one that focuses on the jury; after all justice isn't served when the lab results come back and they are basically the final arbitrators of justice. Each episode starts with the jury starting deliberations with flashbacks employed to show us the trial; the actual events of what happened, whether or not the defendants are guilty are shown to the viewers at the end of the episode. Although I was intrigued by the concept, I was initially hesitant about this show because the "jury" changes each week; I like watching "Law & Order" or "CSI", but the quality of the guest stars are sometimes atrocious and can really affect the dramatic impact of an episode. Luckily, "The Jury" has so far seemed to avoid that sand trap. The actors playing the jury for the most part are very good- not great- but their not bad(and surprisingly recognizable from guest-starring roles on other shows). The actors playing the attorneys and court staff don't fare so well, though. Adam Busch is the comic relief and is quite adorable and funny, but his character seems out of place in a serious courtroom drama and I have no idea what his character's job is; the flirtation between him and Cote de Pablo's character is awkward (intentionally?). The judge (I can't remember his name) is okay but you can why he's not an actor. Anna Friel, a British actress, and Jeff Hephner take some getting used to but they become more likable each week. There are several more actors playing lawyers but the episodes showcasing them have not aired yet. The acting of the may not be the greatest. But watching the jury deliberate is riveting as they and the viewer try to weave through the evidence, trying to determine the truth of the case. The dialogue is realistic abounding with the lame jokes, bad grammar, and banter of average folks stuck together for hours. The jurors always disagree about something and that's when the show gets really exciting, when two or more jurors give us their different perspectives of what they think happened, showing how "evidence" can always be interpreted in myriad ways and how difficult it is for real juries to come to a decision given that fact. Some may argue that showing what really happens at the end of the show ruins the naturalness of it, since real juries never know the guilt or non-guilt of the defendants neither should the viewers. While that's true, I still feel it's a good idea, after going through the roller-coaster ride of emotions and ideas of a jury deliberation, finding out the true guilt or innocence of a defendant brings a certain sense of closure and emotional catharsis of relief or sadness when the viewer sees what really happened compared to the defendant's ultimate fate. Sometimes the defendants get away with murder and sometimes an innocent man is imprisoned; the show reenforces the fact that the court system isn't always right and that justice is a truly human creation.