I have followed most of the movies that this lousy and not ambitious at all director made for the big screen. As Lesley Selander for most of his films and Harry Keller or RG Springsteen at their beginning, Thomas Carr started his career with Grade Z westerns and almost stayed in the genre till the end; except a couple of features in the late fifties. It is obvious that this film director worked only to fill up the fridge and pay the bills, he had no soul at all on the screen. But I guess the tiny budgets he had to deal with did not help much either. So, if you watch his filmography very closely, you'll notice and also admit that this little film THREE FOR JAMIE DAWN, is pretty surprising and interesting. Any film buff would recognize here some TWELVE ANGRY MEN lines. But of course on a lesser scale. I would have never bet that Carr would make such a movie. That proves deep film library digging is sometimes rewarding.
6 Reviews
Meanwhile, back in the jury room...
mark.waltz4 January 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Several years ago, TCM ran a marathon of films dealing with juries. I don't recall this film as being one of them, but fortunately, I had saved this from a late show airing from years before when syndicated TV channels showed very rare classics after midnight. Getting to it just now, I found myself treated to a film that combined melodrama, noir, tragedy and camp, and in spite of a mediocre script found myself having a really good time.
The film opens with the titled lady (an unbilled Marilyn Simms) pumping her gentleman friend with bullets. Sleazy lawyer Richard Carlson decides he wants to win the case and while selecting the jury hones in on three particular jurors he decides to bribe. There's alcoholic actress June Havoc, the unemployed Ricardo Montalban and Eduard Franz as a father whose son was lost in Czechoslovakia after the war, desperate to find him. Both Montalban and Franz have spouses who are troubled as well which plays into their willingness to be bribed.
Quite enjoyable and intriguing with several familiar character actors in smaller roles, particularly Scotty Beckett as a theater usher, Regis Toomey as Carlson's very gifted actor cohort who can change looks and personalities easily (he even fooled me into not recognizing him when he appeared to Montalban's wife, Laraine Day) and Herb Vigran as an angry juror whom Havoc actually slaps!
Dorothy Adams should be singled out in her brief performance as Simms' social secretary. I'm presuming that Ms. Simms was a model because her only other onscreen credit was as a red headed girl in "Gigi" and she doesn't say a word here. Anyone who's ever been on a jury where the verdict seems to be heading to unanimously guilty or not guilty and all of a sudden changed by one juror can relate to the frustrations seen in the last 15 minutes. This film certainly was a lot better than expected.
The film opens with the titled lady (an unbilled Marilyn Simms) pumping her gentleman friend with bullets. Sleazy lawyer Richard Carlson decides he wants to win the case and while selecting the jury hones in on three particular jurors he decides to bribe. There's alcoholic actress June Havoc, the unemployed Ricardo Montalban and Eduard Franz as a father whose son was lost in Czechoslovakia after the war, desperate to find him. Both Montalban and Franz have spouses who are troubled as well which plays into their willingness to be bribed.
Quite enjoyable and intriguing with several familiar character actors in smaller roles, particularly Scotty Beckett as a theater usher, Regis Toomey as Carlson's very gifted actor cohort who can change looks and personalities easily (he even fooled me into not recognizing him when he appeared to Montalban's wife, Laraine Day) and Herb Vigran as an angry juror whom Havoc actually slaps!
Dorothy Adams should be singled out in her brief performance as Simms' social secretary. I'm presuming that Ms. Simms was a model because her only other onscreen credit was as a red headed girl in "Gigi" and she doesn't say a word here. Anyone who's ever been on a jury where the verdict seems to be heading to unanimously guilty or not guilty and all of a sudden changed by one juror can relate to the frustrations seen in the last 15 minutes. This film certainly was a lot better than expected.
Nine angry jurors
ulicknormanowen29 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
It will fatally remind the viewer of Sidney Lumet's masterful "twelve angry men" ,but it was made one year before ,and it's a good film on its own .
Often ,in this kind of movie,the baddies try to threaten the juror or the witness , and even sometimes they go as far as to do away with the latter.
Nothing of these film noir clichés here;the bribery is sweet , and exploits the misfortunes of the jurors : a couple,escaping from a country behind the Iron Curtain who left their only child behind and are ready to do anything to find him again ; the couple with a sick child who finds it hard to make both ends meet ;and the has-been actress,eager to make her come-back ;all are ripe for bribery ; the corrupt lawman and his confederate's methods are smart and attractive .
The jurors' debate is a great moment,as three of them,although consumed with remorse , persist in voting "not guilty " and the film continues to build in intensity and drama,suspense is sustained till the very end.
Often ,in this kind of movie,the baddies try to threaten the juror or the witness , and even sometimes they go as far as to do away with the latter.
Nothing of these film noir clichés here;the bribery is sweet , and exploits the misfortunes of the jurors : a couple,escaping from a country behind the Iron Curtain who left their only child behind and are ready to do anything to find him again ; the couple with a sick child who finds it hard to make both ends meet ;and the has-been actress,eager to make her come-back ;all are ripe for bribery ; the corrupt lawman and his confederate's methods are smart and attractive .
The jurors' debate is a great moment,as three of them,although consumed with remorse , persist in voting "not guilty " and the film continues to build in intensity and drama,suspense is sustained till the very end.
Great Film
romero_vincent9 November 2013
Pretty decent Grade-B movie that is hard to find. I saw this on late night television in new york in the 1990s and surprised to find out that I recorded it on my VCR. I enjoyed this movie more than 12 angry men and it was a delight to see a young Ricardo Montalban. Finding this movie could be almost next to impossible to find and one could only hope it shows up on Netflix because they do have quite a few of Grade-B movies. You won't find this movie on Turner Classic Movies because it doesn't classify as being a classic movie, but Ted Turner or someone else should start a cable channel showing Grade-B movies that star many actors and actresses early in their careers.
An engaging court drama for everyone to learn something from
clanciai8 November 2021
Richard Carlson did not make too many films, but instead all his films are outstanding although generally odd. Here he is the lawyer who is cocksure of being able to get any client out of any trouble, but here he gets a hard nut to crack. The film begins straight with the murder, a beautiful woman shoots down a man as he is serving himself a drink in a fashionable home, he is shot dead with two bullets, and there can be no question about it. She has to stand trial for murder, but Richard Carlson is certain to get her acquitted by his own roundabout means, using her client's limitless millions for manipulation. But the actual story of the film is about the jurors.
Richard Carlson finds three of them suitable for manipulation, an actress dreaming about a come-back, a poor family man short of money (Ricardo Montalban) and a refugee couple from Czechoslovakia who have been obliged to leave their son back behind the iron curtain, never giving up on trying to get him out.
The real drama of the jury occupies only the last 20 minutes of the film, unlike "Twelve Angry Men" two years later, where this session takes the whole film. Here instead you have the entire background of the three vulnerable jurors, who reach their final decision after arduous conscience ordeals.
We never learn all the facts. We never learn why the millionaires shot her old man, nothing is told of her background, the lawyer and the actress use their conjecture which we don't know if it's true, so the motivation issue is extremely vague here, while the interesting thing is the cases of the three jurors.
Thomas Carr's direction is excellent enough, and this should be his best film. He almost only made westerns and TV-series during his long life and career, so this one is standing out indeed - almost good for ten points.
Richard Carlson finds three of them suitable for manipulation, an actress dreaming about a come-back, a poor family man short of money (Ricardo Montalban) and a refugee couple from Czechoslovakia who have been obliged to leave their son back behind the iron curtain, never giving up on trying to get him out.
The real drama of the jury occupies only the last 20 minutes of the film, unlike "Twelve Angry Men" two years later, where this session takes the whole film. Here instead you have the entire background of the three vulnerable jurors, who reach their final decision after arduous conscience ordeals.
We never learn all the facts. We never learn why the millionaires shot her old man, nothing is told of her background, the lawyer and the actress use their conjecture which we don't know if it's true, so the motivation issue is extremely vague here, while the interesting thing is the cases of the three jurors.
Thomas Carr's direction is excellent enough, and this should be his best film. He almost only made westerns and TV-series during his long life and career, so this one is standing out indeed - almost good for ten points.
A rare treat
tony-70-6679201 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Searchanddestroy says Thomas Carr was a lousy director, and made Grade Z westerns for almost his whole career. Neither assertion is correct. It's true that for his first ten years Carr's film and TV work was cheapo stuff, mainly "Superman" and westerns with such "stars" as Sunset Carson and Whip Wilson (never heard of them? Join the club.) However, for the rest of his career he proved that given decent material and actors he would always do a very competent job. He worked prolifically on some of the best TV series of the late 50s and early 60s (I've seen a good many of his episodes), and the films got better too.
His material here was pretty good. John Kempner's script is clever and intriguing (three seems to have been his lucky number: he wrote the novel on which Joe Mankiewicz based "A Letter to Three Wives.") The titular lady is a spoiled rich girl, who's hardly seen once she's shot her older lover at the beginning. During jury selection for her trial sleazebag lawyer Richard Carlson identifies three jurors he thinks he can con into voting not guilty, using Murph, presumably an actor and played by Regis Toomey. To Maria Palmer, as the wife of Karek (Eduard Franz), a refugee from Communist Czechoslovakia, he asserts that The Jamie Dawn Foundation can arrange the escape of the son they left behind. With June Havoc, as a rather fading actress, he's a Texas oilman eager to bankroll a revival of her biggest hit, and he offers Ricardo Montalban, a man struggling to provide for his wife (Laraine Day) and kids, $5,000 to write articles on "How I Acquitted Jamie Dawn." Carlson is more interesting than usual, and Toomey is a very plausible con artist. The flaw in Carlson scheme is that the three he suborns will never do a Henry Fonda and bring the other nine jurors round to voting not guilty, and indeed none of them tries. This would mean a hung jury and a mistrial, so he'd have to start all over again. Still, that doesn't spoil the enjoyment and I felt it was 81 minutes well spent on a film I'd never heard of until it popped up on YouTube.
If you can find it, check out David Niven in a 30 minute Goodyear Theatre episode called "Decision By Terror." He plays a jury foreman desperately trying to get his fellow jurors to declare an obviously guilty gangster not guilty, because hoods are holding his wife and son.
His material here was pretty good. John Kempner's script is clever and intriguing (three seems to have been his lucky number: he wrote the novel on which Joe Mankiewicz based "A Letter to Three Wives.") The titular lady is a spoiled rich girl, who's hardly seen once she's shot her older lover at the beginning. During jury selection for her trial sleazebag lawyer Richard Carlson identifies three jurors he thinks he can con into voting not guilty, using Murph, presumably an actor and played by Regis Toomey. To Maria Palmer, as the wife of Karek (Eduard Franz), a refugee from Communist Czechoslovakia, he asserts that The Jamie Dawn Foundation can arrange the escape of the son they left behind. With June Havoc, as a rather fading actress, he's a Texas oilman eager to bankroll a revival of her biggest hit, and he offers Ricardo Montalban, a man struggling to provide for his wife (Laraine Day) and kids, $5,000 to write articles on "How I Acquitted Jamie Dawn." Carlson is more interesting than usual, and Toomey is a very plausible con artist. The flaw in Carlson scheme is that the three he suborns will never do a Henry Fonda and bring the other nine jurors round to voting not guilty, and indeed none of them tries. This would mean a hung jury and a mistrial, so he'd have to start all over again. Still, that doesn't spoil the enjoyment and I felt it was 81 minutes well spent on a film I'd never heard of until it popped up on YouTube.
If you can find it, check out David Niven in a 30 minute Goodyear Theatre episode called "Decision By Terror." He plays a jury foreman desperately trying to get his fellow jurors to declare an obviously guilty gangster not guilty, because hoods are holding his wife and son.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
