From the very beginning 'Trial by jury' carries a tenor familiar to anyone who has watched a courtroom drama from the '90s through the early 2000s. Mobsters, prosecutors, jurors, drama and suspense - add some big names to the cast for extra flavor. Save for one integral factor it's mostly unremarkable, but enjoyable.
Narrative, characters, camerawork, set decoration, music, supporting cast - every component element is suitable as it builds the whole. It feels a little bit like a movie by the numbers. There's precious little here that's truly exceptional or unexpected. That doesn't mean it's bad, or doesn't hold our attention well enough, but unless one has a specific reason to watch this one movie, it's generally not particularly distinguishable from any similar title.
That specific reason is the cast, and I say that both in regards to my own purpose in seeking out 'Trial by jury,' and the readily apparent core of the film. I've been a fan of Joanne Whalley since her appearance as fierce Sorsha in the 1988 fantasy 'Willow.' Here she's placed on a pedestal as protagonist Valerie. She bears an intensity and determination that recalls warrior Sorsha, though this role is geared more towards a sense of fear and desperation - yet also, gratifyingly, keen manipulation. Whalley is a fine actress, with great range and poise, and she sells the part with all its nuance; it's fun to go back and watch her in a starring role. So heavily does this film rely on her, in fact, that costume design, hair, and makeup - and many scenes broadly - would be mostly forgettable aspects of the movie if not for the great measures taken to highlight Whalley. Make no mistake - she looks wonderful, and handles the center stage quite capably.
The rest of the cast includes some very recognizable names I was interested to see share scenes together. However, they're subject to how their roles are written, and for much of the film, those characterizations are treated as little more than scenery. It's only in the moments of the greatest passion that supporting characters are allowed to flourish, and their actors to shine, such as a growing argument between jurors. For the most part it's only the quiet menace exhibited by William Hurt and Armand Assante as Tommy and Rusty, respectively, that equals the treatment given to Valerie, and the favor shown to Whalley. Above all, a scene mid-film between Whalley and Assante, filled with muted yet disquieting terror, is possibly the real highlight of 'Trial by jury.'
It's worth noting that dialogue, as written, is a bit more of a mixed bag. It largely echoes the same slant as the characters, more adequate than noteworthy. On the other hand, some sour flavors also greet our senses, including distasteful casual homophobia and sexism - and an early line of fantastical nonsense ("Cops don't make mistakes, mom!") that didn't sit well in 1994, and even less so in 2021.
Only within the last half hour or so does the intended tension and suspense truly escalate and meet the desired effect, building scenes that are genuinely thrilling. Outside of Whalley, the worth of 'Trial by jury' waits until the last third of the runtime to manifest. Even still, one is left to wonder what could have been, as there's a key scene between Whalley and Hurt, after the trial, that suggests a very different, less conventional, and more intriguing direction the feature could have taken with these characters. Valerie states that the experience has changed her, and the suggested personal transformation is an angle that could have been explored much more, to great success.
When all is said and done, overall 'Trial by jury' is satisfactory, even if it's not truly grabbing. In almost every way, the most energy of the film-makers was poured into spotlighting Joanne Whalley, and thankfully she's up to the task. It's just unfortunate that the rest of the movie somewhat suffers as a result of that singular focus. This is a picture, a drama made "well enough," that's worth watching if you come across it - though unless one is pointedly enamored of Whalley, it's not one to go out of your way to see.
Narrative, characters, camerawork, set decoration, music, supporting cast - every component element is suitable as it builds the whole. It feels a little bit like a movie by the numbers. There's precious little here that's truly exceptional or unexpected. That doesn't mean it's bad, or doesn't hold our attention well enough, but unless one has a specific reason to watch this one movie, it's generally not particularly distinguishable from any similar title.
That specific reason is the cast, and I say that both in regards to my own purpose in seeking out 'Trial by jury,' and the readily apparent core of the film. I've been a fan of Joanne Whalley since her appearance as fierce Sorsha in the 1988 fantasy 'Willow.' Here she's placed on a pedestal as protagonist Valerie. She bears an intensity and determination that recalls warrior Sorsha, though this role is geared more towards a sense of fear and desperation - yet also, gratifyingly, keen manipulation. Whalley is a fine actress, with great range and poise, and she sells the part with all its nuance; it's fun to go back and watch her in a starring role. So heavily does this film rely on her, in fact, that costume design, hair, and makeup - and many scenes broadly - would be mostly forgettable aspects of the movie if not for the great measures taken to highlight Whalley. Make no mistake - she looks wonderful, and handles the center stage quite capably.
The rest of the cast includes some very recognizable names I was interested to see share scenes together. However, they're subject to how their roles are written, and for much of the film, those characterizations are treated as little more than scenery. It's only in the moments of the greatest passion that supporting characters are allowed to flourish, and their actors to shine, such as a growing argument between jurors. For the most part it's only the quiet menace exhibited by William Hurt and Armand Assante as Tommy and Rusty, respectively, that equals the treatment given to Valerie, and the favor shown to Whalley. Above all, a scene mid-film between Whalley and Assante, filled with muted yet disquieting terror, is possibly the real highlight of 'Trial by jury.'
It's worth noting that dialogue, as written, is a bit more of a mixed bag. It largely echoes the same slant as the characters, more adequate than noteworthy. On the other hand, some sour flavors also greet our senses, including distasteful casual homophobia and sexism - and an early line of fantastical nonsense ("Cops don't make mistakes, mom!") that didn't sit well in 1994, and even less so in 2021.
Only within the last half hour or so does the intended tension and suspense truly escalate and meet the desired effect, building scenes that are genuinely thrilling. Outside of Whalley, the worth of 'Trial by jury' waits until the last third of the runtime to manifest. Even still, one is left to wonder what could have been, as there's a key scene between Whalley and Hurt, after the trial, that suggests a very different, less conventional, and more intriguing direction the feature could have taken with these characters. Valerie states that the experience has changed her, and the suggested personal transformation is an angle that could have been explored much more, to great success.
When all is said and done, overall 'Trial by jury' is satisfactory, even if it's not truly grabbing. In almost every way, the most energy of the film-makers was poured into spotlighting Joanne Whalley, and thankfully she's up to the task. It's just unfortunate that the rest of the movie somewhat suffers as a result of that singular focus. This is a picture, a drama made "well enough," that's worth watching if you come across it - though unless one is pointedly enamored of Whalley, it's not one to go out of your way to see.