The Twelve

Loved some of the actors in this story. About two episodes too long. Really enjoyed the jurors stories but the weakness, for me, was the crime itself. They spent so long building it up that it felt quite flat when it finally reached its conclusion. Thought the impact of the trial on the jurors is a relevant and interesting angle that they could have focused on more and less about whodunnit.

Great chemistry between Marta and Sam. And overall enjoyable but not perfect viewing. Quality Australian drama.

And whoever styled the art dealer should be shot - such a cliche. Those scarves were ridiculous.

Sam Neil is excellent in this and appears to do the heavy lifting carrying the show with Frances O'Connor but it is not really the truth. While I would be very sad if he left the show honestly I would still watch and enjoy the show without him or Frances O'Connor. The jury and accused's cast and plots are more interesting in season 1 then season 2 but I think this show could run for many years and there will some great seasons and some not so great but the format is excellent and I love it. I hope it gets renewed over and over and the audience can grow.

I just wish they wouldn't drip feed the episodes so I can finish season 2 already!

I don't know if this show has taken on too much. I like the snapshot of modern Australia but the episodes are too long and drawn out and achieve nothing to build on the character arcs or carry the plot. At the moment they're exploring about six story lines featuring trouble women who battle BPD, complex trauma, PTSD, DV & alcoholism. On the other side they're tackling misogynists, addiction, racism and abusive / over protective fathers. This is all centred around a murder trial contrast against a historic murder by a guy that was maybe wrongly accused? Despite being so plot heavy the show makes absolutely no comment on Australia's the justice system, the entire centre of the show - Crazy right? I think this would have been better off as a two hour movie we are seven episodes in and have achieved absolutely nothing in terms of character development or wherever the hell this story is going.

After watching the first season of the show you would be remised if all you got from the first season was confusion and 'ah what just happened?'. Well the first season was poorly written and it does show in the side plots and the confusing murder trial narrative, in a case that should of had it's jurors kicked off the jury for many reasons.. I thought "oh this can't get much worse.." and it did. I wanted someone to apologise to Sam Neill for the first season.

When I heard it had been renewed for a second season, I wasn't too thrilled after all Foxtel was heading into life without a leader in Brian Walsh, but when I seen the cast list and the fact the show had been moved from one state to another it gave me hope again.

I will say the second season is much better then the first, with one episode in particular with a very surprising twist I don't think anyone saw coming..

So.. If you want, skip season one, season two is way better then one. Enjoy!

This 10 part miniseries about a murder trial where there is no body and a suppressed backstory is really more about the lives of the jurors, how the trial (and other jurors) impact them and how it informs their thoughts about the case.

There are many characters with concurrent and intersecting stories on each, as well as the trial itself. Some are more convincing than others and especially in the first 4-5 episodes, it was a little slow going at times and I wondered if some of the scenes were even relevant. Perhaps it needed a bit of trimming to maybe 8 episodes to tighten it up a little.

The script is decent and occasionally brilliant, especially in the second half of the series. The acting is variable - Brooke Satchwell shines as juror Georgina, who portrays wrestling with her personal circumstances perfectly - although generally the standard is at least competent. Sam Neil is his usual urbane excellent self as the defence attorney although interestingly there is no personal story attached to either prosecutor or defence.

The ultimate trial outcomes may be the epitome of injustice when taken on face value, but on reflection maybe the right results were achieved, even if the methods to get there were highly flawed. If this was intentional, then it's worth an extra star!

One thing though - if all juries are like these people, best not to come before one!