Onlinewsma Absolutely Brilliant!

Dotbankey A lot of fun.

Claire Dunne One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Melanie Bouvet The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Boba_Fett1138 OK maybe it was a bit too harsh to cancel this show after only 1 season and no, perhaps it was never given a fair chance and this still could had turned into yet another great watchable series of Law & Order episodes but I can also really understand why they just pulled the plug out of it.Like most "Law & Order" watchers I always enjoyed most the second part, in which the prosecution of the crime in court took place. So having a "Law & Order" spin-off ENTIRELY focusing on the court part sounded like an awesome idea. It however never really worked out as it could had because of multiple reasons.When the regular "Law & Order" first started off in 1990 there were zero female characters in it. They slowly changed it by inserting more female roles, such as Lt. Anita Van Buren (S. Epatha Merkerson) and A.D.A. Claire Kincaid (Jill Hennessy), presumably because there was a demand for female characters. This "Law & Order" spin-off has 2 female characters as its main leads. Nothing wrong with having female leads but by watching this it becomes obvious that the "Law & Order" franchise just isn't ready yet to have female leads. The "Law & Order" universe always has been sort of a man's world, with strong tough male characters, as cops and prosecutors and everything around that. When a woman ever acts tough it's always the danger that she comes off as a bitchy type of character instead of tough. It then is also much harder to really care or sympathize ever for any of those characters. S. Epatha Merkerson still gets away with it in "Law & Order" and so does Mariska Hargitay in "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" but that's because they are great actresses. Unfortunately Bebe Neuwirth and Amy Carlson weren't really. It was also a bit too obvious that they were cast more because of their looks. Looks that by the way really didn't fitted the parts they were playing.But also the approach of storytelling made this show pretty poor to watch at times. We never got to see whatever really happened because the episodes obviously always started off with the prosecution part. It was often is if you had missed the first part and often it took a long time before you got an idea what crime had been committed. It made it painfully obvious that the "Law & Order" franchise shall always need the cop part of it.But it also must be said that "Law & Order: Trial by Jury" had the unfortunate faith that Jerry Orbach died after filming only 2 episodes. It was obvious that Orbach was supposed to carry the series, in at least its first season, since he was already an established and well known face in the "Law & Order" franchise. They knew they were taking a risk with it because I believe that he was already seriously ill when this show began production. In the second episode he was already that sick that he couldn't speak anymore and they changed the final scene of that episode so that he could whisper, simply because he couldn't speak louder anymore. That scene is still a real special one to watch, just because it makes you realize how sick he was at that time and because it was his last ever shot sequences within a Law & Order series and in anything else really. After his death, Kirk Acevedo had to carry things on his own but he and his character just weren't good enough. The series also still had Fred Dalton Thompson as an already established face within the Law & Order franchise but his part only was always 3 minutes long at most. He wasn't just as much as Steven Hill got always used in "Law & Order", which also seemed like a great missed opportunity to me.Also the way they wanted to show things from the 'presecuation' way was also quite poor at times. Basically the only thing that makes this thing differ from the prosecution sight shown in "Law & Order" is that we now always get to see the judge entering the courtroom from his/hers office and we often get a look into the jury room, while they are deliberating. Quite lame all if you ask me.But also the stories for the different episodes just weren't much good. They are definitely not among the best written ones for any Law & Order series. It made some of the episodes just bad and terribly uninvolved to watch. Basically the greatest episode was the crossover one with "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" called night/day, starring also Angela Lansbury and Alfred Molina.Obviously not the worst show that ever aired but I also won't exactly miss it either and you're basically still better of watching "Law & Order" or any of its other spin-offs.6/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

jacobm111 I am a huge fan of the all the different Law and Order shows. Of course, my favorite would have to be SVU.When Trial by Jury came out I thought I would give it a try and really fell in love with it. The main actress Bebe Neuwirth is amazing - I believe she has been in a few of the other Law and Orders for small parts. Over time, I actually found I began to like it better than even Criminal Intent.Without trying to sound too dramatic, I must admit I am a little frustrated they decided to cancel it. It didn't really have a fair chance I felt and especially for the time frame. Perhaps statistics show differently... I don't know, but to me... Friday night TV can't be good at 10pm - a lot of people are out on the town then.

canadianfreak_17 I have watched almost every episode of TBJ that has aired since it came on and I believe that has given me enough time to make a fair judgement on this show. I've liked it from the very first episode and one of the major reasons why I've liked it is because it focuses entirely on the order side of things. Now I know with a name Trial By Jury that is expected but it not only looks from the prosecutors point of view (which is all wee see on the other 3 L&O installments) but we also see it from the defence side of view too. Defence lawyers meeting with their clients, counseling them on their trials. It is very interesting. I give it 7/10 so far. It has held my interest and I look forward to seeing what else it can offer.

schappe1 The original Law & Order was 50-50 a cop/lawyer show. SVU is 90% cops. This one is 90% lawyers. The biggest innovation is that we get to be a fly on the wall as the defense attorney plots his/her defense, which has absolutely nothing to do with truth or guilt. It's all playing the system. Tony Bill, in the premiere, calmly describes how he killed the victim and the attorney, Annabella Sciorra simply listens as if this is background information that might come up in the trial and have to be dealt with.I'm a big Perry Mason fan, where the hero is obsessed with truth and guilt and all his clients are innocent, so this is quite a change. Mason represents what we'd like our justice system to be about. However Sciorra represents who we would want to hire if we committed a crime. She clearly sees her job as getting her clients off: that's what she's paid to do.Frankly, I think the accused has a right to an aggressive defense that forces the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. But if the lawyer knows the client is guilty, responsibility should shift to dealing with extenuating circumstances that might lead to a self-defense or insanity plea or a reduced sentence. That might be better for the client than insisting on a not guilty verdict. And what must the feeling be for a lawyer who knows he/she got a guilty man off. If it's one of satisfaction, there is something wrong.As to the show, it's promising. I'm hoping that not all defendants turn out to be guilty, (even though all of Perry's clients were innocent), as it kind of sends the wrong message. One of the things I liked about the original show is that they weren't always right and they didn't always win.