The Alfred Hitchcock Hour (TV Series) The Star Juror (1963) User Reviews

great idea frustratingly mediocre delivery

[HEFILM · 6/10 · 17 September 2013]

The tone for one thing seems to start with comedy. The murder that opens the show is a strangling--very poorly staged--and several scenes in a row after that have people making references to "stiking your neck out" and about any other strangling/choking pun you can imagine. Almost none of which seem natural or are funny.

But then it gets better, it seems to proceed fairly seriously, then it gets a little hard to believe as during the trial a juror is repeatedly allowed to question various witnesses--perhaps the novel, this is based on, was set many years earlier when this was allowed--but it strains belief in a contemporary setting. Eventually there is another poorly staged fights scene and then a pretty good ending.

Dean Jagger was always a unique type as an actor and always good in his own way and that's true here too. But he's limited by the material--his wife is written and acted as a total shrew and that's a real problem--though her part, thankfully, isn't that large.

Writer/adapter James Bridges does uneven work--and I can't say which good or bad ideas are his and which are from the source material--though I think the country-fried aspects come from him. There are a few scattered powerful statements about guilt and crime which seem almost thrown away.

So I don't know, it has a few moody shots from underrated DP William Magueles, but it's not very well directed and seems like a missed opportunity as a whole, still those good ideas make it almost a much watch, if not a must enjoy.

Not the best version

[tony-70-667920 · 7/10 · 29 January 2017]

This is pretty good. Others have outlined the story, so I just want to mention that there is a superior version of the original French novel, and it was released a year before this episode aired. It's a French movie, directed by Georges Lautner and starring Bernard Blier, who like Dean Jagger was an excellent(and bald!) character actor.

Lautner's movie is, if anything, even more scathing about small town small-mindedness. The two versions develop the story differently, and not having read the novel I've no idea which is more faithful to it. Suffice to say I saw the French movie on DVD, and it's well worth seeing, assuming you can watch a film and read its subtitles at the same time (I pity those who can't; they miss an awful lot of great stuff.)

Much better than other reviewers think.

[alexanderdavies-99382 · 7/10 · 30 January 2022]

I'm slightly surprised at the less than positive reviews of this particular episode. While the plot isn't exactly original, it rattles along quite agreeably and Dean Jagger is brilliant in the leading role. The setting is - yet again - that of a small town but that's better than a big city.

I like the way the plot shows Jagger struggling with his own conscience, given the crime he commits and that an innocent suspect is on trial... After the said innocent suspect is exonerated, the local townsfolk resort to bigotry and prejudice by making the man's a misery. Dean Jagger is equally vilified, for wanting to do the right thing - if only to avoid being caught!

The ending is quite ridiculous but that's the idea. Jagger makes a full confession of the murder and of allowing an innocent man to be charged. Unfortunately, the rather dumb sheriff dismisses all of this, on the grounds that Jagger's character wouldn't harm a flea!

I recommend this episode.

Good Thing There's Jagger

[dougdoepke · 17 July 2015]

A small town druggist kills a wanton woman in a moment of weakness, and remains silent while a town hooligan takes the rap. But bad conscience goads him into trying to get the hooligan off the hook while keeping his own secret. So how will things turn out.

There's some irony in the end as George (Jagger) appears thrust into punishing himself. However, the screenplay seems unsure at times where it's headed. Also, I have to agree with reviewer HEFILM that the strangling scene is very poorly staged and clouds the remainder. Plus, movie vet Betty Field goes over the top as George's shrewish wife. Note how that first scene sets up George's moment of weakness by making his wife a snoring lump. No wonder he's tempted by the seductive Lola (? —I had trouble keeping the cuties' names straight). Also, old pro Jagger does a fine job in a difficult role, as he keeps the twists and turns from flying off into the land of the over-stretched. All in all, the 60-minutes remains an uneven entry, one that also exploits familiar stereotypes. Again the American South is portrayed as a locus of bad grammar, wanton behavior, and violent small towns.

"If we still had hangin', we could do it ourselves."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 20 September 2022]

I wonder if something like this ever happened. A man who actually committed a crime is selected to serve on a jury for another man who's suspected of committing that same crime. It seems within the realm of probability, but who knows? Once George Davies (Dean Jagger) accidentally strangled victim Lola (Cathie Merchant), he goes into a panic. His guilt overwhelms him, especially after the woman's boyfriend is arrested for her murder, with the only evidence being circumstantial. I've never seen or even heard of a case where a jury member, in this case George, is allowed to question a suspect on the witness stand from the jury box. His line of questioning eventually leads to a not guilty verdict for J. J. Fenton (Will Hutchins), which ratchets up resentment among the town's folks where they live. Bad enough that George's guilt consumes his day-to-day existence, but when he's compelled to confess his crime to J. J., he winds up accidentally killing him too! The mere laws of probability suggest that the odds of something like this happening is in the realm of the stratosphere and highly unlikely, but for the sake of the story you have to go along with it. J. J.'s death is ruled a suicide, and once again Davies escapes responsibility within the parameters of the story, but if you've seen enough of these Hitchcock episodes, you'll know the esteemed director would spill the beans on the outcome after the program was over. I credit that to the Production Code which was still in effect, although waning in its impact. Even so, Hitch must have felt it necessary to see that justice was done, even if the viewer couldn't.

Interesting Premise/Hitchcock Again Kills the Mood

[Hitchcoc · 7/10 · 11 May 2023]

Will Hutchins, a cowboy actor, is arrested and charged with the strangulation of a pretty, young (sort of loose) woman. But he did not do it. The local druggist played by Dean Jagger is the one. But he can't bring himself to admit it. He ends up on the jury and because of his interruptions, Hutchins is exonerated. Sort of. He is victimized by the townspeople. His guilt is assumed despite the verdict and some really solid speculation by George (Jagger's character). He has avoided the electric chair but life is horrible for him. George finally confesses, but no one believes him. Everyone thinks he is becoming demented. The story ends in a sad way. But Hitchcock again ruins everything during his little final segment. I would assume it made him sick to have to do these things.

Dean Jagger and Will Hutchins

[kevinolzak · 4/10 · 8 March 2012]

"The Star Juror" stars Dean Jagger as mild mannered George Davies, out on a lakeside picnic with his sleeping wife Jenny (Betty Field), who comes upon the flirtatious Lola (Cathie Merchant, "The Haunted Palace"), and unwittingly strangles her when she spurns his advances. Luckily for George, the sheriff (Crahan Denton) arrests Lola's boyfriend, J. J. Fenton (Will Hutchins), who spent that afternoon in a rowboat, thinking his girl was asleep. Wracked with guilt, George decides to phone an anonymous tip to the sheriff about the real killer, but cannot bring himself to actually confess to his crime. The innocent J. J. ends up on trial for murder, with the guilty George a member of the jury! Interesting to see Will Hutchins cast against type, best remembered for his starring role in the recently cancelled TV Western SUGARFOOT.

...and while it's not a great episode, Hitchcock's epilogue completely ruined this one.

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 9 May 2021]

According to IMDB, the UK was shown a different introduction to this episode...and that's exactly the one I saw that was posted on the Roku Channel...with a creepy animated start to the show.

George (Dean Jagger) is on a picnic with his wife. While the wife was sleeping, he wanders off and meets a pretty young lady who is quite friendly. They got to talking and middle-aged George attacks her and tries to kiss her. Well, she starts screaming and to quiet her, he strangles her! This is awful...but made even worse when her boyfriend is arrested and put on trial for the murder. George cannot live with himself and he makes anonymous calls and sends anonymous letters saying the accused in innocent.

Now here is where the show goes off the rails a bit. George is chosen to be on the jury for the case and this seems incredibly improbable for several reasons. First, he was seen by the police in the area after the crime...so you'd think he wouldn't be chosen. Second, he was a witness to the accused running amok in his jail cell...and brought drugs (since he is a pharmacist) for the sheriff to sedate the man. Again, seeing this outburst and being called in by the sheriff would sure seem to preclude him being on the jury. Third, folks start leaving very threatening notes for George when he's on the jury, as he seems to be very favorably disposed towards the accused. You'd think that the judge would be told and this would result in a hung jury.

In addition to how silly it seemed to have George on the jury, there were some other odd mistakes about the trial. There did not seem to be a defense attorney! After all, most of the testimony against the accused man was completely inadmissible....and it wouldn't take Perry Mason to figure this out!! Most consisted of people who hadn't witnessed the murder but talked about how much they hated the accused or how they KNEW he had to be the one who killed her. Even a hedgehog would have objected to this sort of 'testimony'!

I could say more but it would ruin any suspense about the show. Suffice to say that it had an interesting basic concept but just wasn't handled well due to so many plot problems...problems which took me out of the episode. Well acted by Jagger but an episode that could have been so much better. It did, by the way, have an excellent twist at the end...which was, frustratingly, undone by Hitchcock in his closing monologue. I think sponsors or the network pushed for this sort of resolution...and it completely what could have been a wonderful ending to an otherwise mediocre episode.

Quite Possibly The Worst Episode Of Television Ever

[film_poster_fan · 1/10 · 11 January 2022]

The acting is over the top, the writing mocks rural Americans, and the direction is nonexistent. It is inconceivable that a murderer would serve on the jury of a trial for another man accused of that same murder. Nothing about this episode is believable.

Awful supporting cast

[Ripshin · 25 December 2023]

This is a particularly poor entry, aside from Jagger's performance.

The horrible fake accents, the stereotypes, a hammy script.

I'll use the phrase "cringe-worthy," as I have with many "Hour" episodes. When you depend on B-list performers, you will inevitably get a result such as this.

As usual, the Universal backlot can be seen for a few scenes. The same houses, and the famous town square.

Let me go back to the supporting cast. It was all I could do, NOT to fast-forward through a few of the scenes. "Jess" is truly unwatchable. The director is ultimately responsible when such clownish emoting makes it to the final cut.

This isn't "The Andy Griffith Show," for god's sake.

And, yes, Hitchcock's epilogue, as usual, dumbs down the whole episode. I've always found his schtick somewhat annoying.