CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
6.1/10
613
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Ginger Rogers y Dennis Morgan, que forman parte de un jurado secuestrado durante un juicio por asesinato, se enamoran. Ella está divorciada, él casado.Ginger Rogers y Dennis Morgan, que forman parte de un jurado secuestrado durante un juicio por asesinato, se enamoran. Ella está divorciada, él casado.Ginger Rogers y Dennis Morgan, que forman parte de un jurado secuestrado durante un juicio por asesinato, se enamoran. Ella está divorciada, él casado.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 1 premio ganado en total
John Albright
- Reporter
- (sin créditos)
Richard Bartell
- Weatherman
- (sin créditos)
Whit Bissell
- Mr. Lister
- (sin créditos)
Opiniones destacadas
In Los Angeles, Terry Scott (Ginger Rogers) and David Campbell (Dennis Morgan) are selected to serve on the jury of Ernest Craig's murder trial. The jury gets sequestered and are forced to live in close quarters.
David comes off as dull. Terry is less so. Their chemistry is at best lukewarm. The trial is not that interesting. The rest of the jury is a motley crew of fun characters. It would be better to let the side characters stretch their legs. Almost every time, the side characters get a funny bit or a cute little moment or a poignant turn. On the other hand, the two leads have the most boring chemistry. The movie only takes off during the deliberations. It's a lesser "12 Angry Men" in that section but that's still pretty good. There is one tense scene with a cliffside re-enactment. It's very manufactured. There's no reason for that policewoman to be standing so close to the edge but that can be excused. This movie just needs to make the two leads into two of twelve.
David comes off as dull. Terry is less so. Their chemistry is at best lukewarm. The trial is not that interesting. The rest of the jury is a motley crew of fun characters. It would be better to let the side characters stretch their legs. Almost every time, the side characters get a funny bit or a cute little moment or a poignant turn. On the other hand, the two leads have the most boring chemistry. The movie only takes off during the deliberations. It's a lesser "12 Angry Men" in that section but that's still pretty good. There is one tense scene with a cliffside re-enactment. It's very manufactured. There's no reason for that policewoman to be standing so close to the edge but that can be excused. This movie just needs to make the two leads into two of twelve.
This film has two concurrent stories: a court case about a man accused of murdering his wife, and the two jurors who fall in love. It does neither justice.
Ginger Rogers and Dennis Morgan play the couple who find themselves on a sequestered jury, charged with determining the fate of an accused murderer. The film does little to convince the viewer that there is chemistry between the two or that these characters have much in common.
The court case is presented in "snapshots" of courtroom testimony that are unconnected and uncompelling. Most of it is just backdrop to the interactions between the jurors, who are a motley collection of emotional misfits. Unlike "12 Angry Men", there is little gravitas surrounding their interplay.
Blame the writing, which is disjointed and sometimes silly. Only at the very end does Ginger Rogers get a scene where she shows real emotion and depth of character. It is too late, and the ending is mostly unsatisfying.
Ginger Rogers and Dennis Morgan play the couple who find themselves on a sequestered jury, charged with determining the fate of an accused murderer. The film does little to convince the viewer that there is chemistry between the two or that these characters have much in common.
The court case is presented in "snapshots" of courtroom testimony that are unconnected and uncompelling. Most of it is just backdrop to the interactions between the jurors, who are a motley collection of emotional misfits. Unlike "12 Angry Men", there is little gravitas surrounding their interplay.
Blame the writing, which is disjointed and sometimes silly. Only at the very end does Ginger Rogers get a scene where she shows real emotion and depth of character. It is too late, and the ending is mostly unsatisfying.
THIS story of jury members falling in love originated with Hungarian playwright Ladislaw BirdFekete, titled 12 IN A BOX. Unclear how well the original did, but other writers kept reworking it. In 1939 Hart and MacArthur produced it on Broadway as LADIES and GENTLEMEn starring Helen Hayes. The critics loved her, but the play not so much. This third try is from 1950, and reeks of the 1950s moralism-if a man loves a woman not his wife and wants to divorce her, he is morally corrupt and capable of anything including murder. The mechanics of jury selection were somewhat interesting, but it drags on as the sequestered jury acts like a bunch of misbehaving schoolchildren. Harry Bellaver as the official having to manage them has the best part-mature non biased. The deliberations in the jury room were fairly decent. Overall it is easy to see why Reginald Rose chose to have an all male jury in his jury drama. Did enjoy seeing Sarah Selby, Whit Bissell ad Anson Rainey in bit parts. Ironically Anson Raining played a convicted killer on death row in The Last Mile.
This film is about a group of jurors who are sequestered during an important case. In the process, two of them (Dennis Morgan and Ginger Rogers) quickly fall in love--even though Morgan is still married! This illicit relationship is meant as a parallel to the murder trial, as the defendant was having an affair when his wife was murdered--making him the prime suspect. Aside from these two actors, Thelma Ritter and Alan Reed (the voice of Fred Flintstone) are on the jury. Also, one of the witnesses in the trial is a young Frank Cady ('Sam Drucker' from "Green Acres")--who is apparently alive and well even today.
Aside from the Morgan-Rogers angle, the film is essentially a less tense nor as well acted film in the vein of "12 Angry Men". For example, a lady in the jury is projecting her hatred of her ex-husband onto the defendant--much like Lee J. Cobb directed his anger at his son on the defendant in "12 Angry Men". Overall, it's good, but nothing like "12 Angry Men" in quality and the affair angle seems to get in the way and was rather unnecessary--as well as a bit sappy--especially at the end. A decent time-passer but it just doesn't hit the mark.
Aside from the Morgan-Rogers angle, the film is essentially a less tense nor as well acted film in the vein of "12 Angry Men". For example, a lady in the jury is projecting her hatred of her ex-husband onto the defendant--much like Lee J. Cobb directed his anger at his son on the defendant in "12 Angry Men". Overall, it's good, but nothing like "12 Angry Men" in quality and the affair angle seems to get in the way and was rather unnecessary--as well as a bit sappy--especially at the end. A decent time-passer but it just doesn't hit the mark.
The plot may be mundane but the writing is good and the motley cast is superb and very entertaining. This is much more than a typical courtroom drama. In face the trial is more of a subplot.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThis film marks a reunion between Rogers and Morgan who previously co-starred in the highly successful Kitty Foyle playing lovers, for which Ginger won the 1940 Academy Award as Best Actress. According to Rogers, she and Morgan had wanted to work together again ever since and Perfect Strangers provided them with the perfect opportunity. Since that pairing, Rogers had notably become a free agent in Hollywood. Ginger Rogers reportedly took the role after Lauren Bacall turned it down.
- ErroresIn the fourth day of trial, the district attorney produces a two-page letter written to the defendant which he intends to read to the jury. The defense attorney objects but does not state the grounds for his objection. The objection is overruled by the judge. The D.A. reads the letter and submits it as People's Exhibit #1. First, how could they go full three days in a murder trial without submitting any other evidence? Note that up until then the prosecutor had been questioning witnesses and this could be the first physical evidence presented. Second, such a letter should have been provided to the defense prior to trial and any issues briefed and decided before trial. Note that the defense could still object during the trial to specific evidence even if it was known and disclosed previously. Third, the judge overruled the objection without even looking at the letter and allowed it into evidence without even glancing at the signature page. Note again that the judge would have been aware of the evidence and therefore been quick to overrule the objection. Fourth, the letter was not verified by any witness prior to its introduction (a prerequisite, especially for "surprise" items). Note if this was new evidence it would have been presented as such and the judge would have reviewed it before allowing it to be read.
- Citas
Theresa (Terry) Scott: Now what happens?
Robert (Bob) Fisher: They start picking the jury. Twelve men - and women, I hope. By the way, my name's Fisher, Bobby.
Theresa (Terry) Scott: And my name is Scott, Mrs.
- ConexionesReferences The Front Page (1931)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Perfect Strangers
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productora
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
- Tiempo de ejecución
- 1h 28min(88 min)
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.37 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta