A brilliant film that helped define a genre

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Jury Duty (1995) BOMB (out of 4)Pauly Shore plays Tommy Collins, a spoiled brat of a human who can't keep a job down. He lives with his mom (Shelley Winters) and thinks he's gotten the "job" of a lifetime when he's offered jury duty, which will provide him free room and bored as well as some fun.When you look back at the 1990's it seems that there were several comedies making some really awful movies. To most people Shore was the most boring and obnoxious of the group of comedies but I honestly enjoyed his act. I loved him in ENCINO MAN as well as SON IN LAW, which allowed him to have the lead spot but after that things started to go rather bad and JURY DUTY is the prime example.I don't know the production history of this movie but at the time the O.J. Simpson case was in the headlines and there's even a joke about it in the film. I'm going to guess that this movie was put into production to try and cash-in on that craze but this is without question one of the worst comedies of the decade.It honestly seems like the screenplay was never finished and they just let Shore loose in a courtroom to be his obnoxious self. Again, I think Shore is funny but it's clear that he has nothing to work with here and you get non-stop annoying jokes that make you want to turn the movie off. It's just not funny and the film just grows more and more aggrevating as it moves along. It's really too bad that more wasn't done with it and especially since there is a nice supporting cast.

This is a movie starring Pauly Shore while his finest hour (or accurately his 15 min of fame!). And it's not complicated to review.Good things : 1_Pauly Shore, doing his thing. And it wasn't a bad thing at all. 2_The script. It's kind of brilliant, being a nice far spoof of 12 Angry Men, giving us small world, nice plot, and hot climax. 3_Tia Carrere; back when she was smoking HOT. Despite how they didn't go and show well all of her capacities (Shore's fantasies are so lame !). 4_The last 10 minutes. They were close to perfect. 5_The innocent feel of it. I mean look at the gags, there is No bad tasting, toilet humor,..etc. It's all plain fun. 6_Moments like messing with the accused in the court, the way how the lead approved his point about guiltlessness, playing the original "S.W.A.T" music while running to Carrere, or Shore's Chihuahua watching TV. 7_The minor parts were played by lovely actors. 8_The song by the end of the movie. 9_I was about putting this in the "bad things" section : Portraying the ones who love and care about environment as lunatic serial killers. The reason I didn't is that I'm one of these people, though I laughed my heart out with Stanley Tucci going bananas over Asbestos! 10_The fact that TV is airing it a lot. I watched 3 times till now.Bad things : 1_Pauly Shore dressed as a whore. Just Yuck !! 2_ Shore's striptease. Just NOOOO! 3_Shore spoofing coldly Al Pacino in (And Justice for All). Wasn't a good move-ito pal-ito. 4_The weakness of the lead's main goal. I couldn't wholly buy how all what he wanted was the petty paycheck and living in a good room ! 5_I don't think that the hotel we watched needed desperately this publicity from the lead. There must have been more powerful reason for giving this deluxe room for him.So 5 bad vs. 10 good. Namely for every bad thing there are 2 good things to keep the sweetness up. Accordingly this is a good movie. Rather an average low budget comedy (to be sadistically objective !). Nothing wrong with light time, and this one provides that for harmless 88 minutes. Though the thing that I hated, wanting to put it in the "very bad things" section, is the way Pauly Shore and his movies were BANNED! I do not know at all how he wasn't forgiven for being himself in 5 movies he made, that's his all cinematic career to date by the way, while for instance Jim Carrey was for horrible disgusting trash he did one after another at his start, at the mid-90s too, such as (Dumb & Dumber), (Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls), (The Cable Guy) and (How the Grinch Stole Christmas) ??? Simply the major studios gave (Carrey) millions, while not giving Shore even a second chance.In the same time Adam Sandler acted as nothing but the same idiot fool for his first 10 movies and he got a career out of it. While Chris Tucker is known as unbearable, he had the opportunity to make Rush Hour 1,2, and 3 ?!! Steve Martin became not funny anymore, nevertheless they made him the new Pink Panther in not one but 2 movies ?!! In fact the list is long, yet with no (Shore) in it ?! If you think "unfair" already then you haven't heard Gene Siskel saying, in 1995, that (Shore) is annoying but not strategically annoying like Jim Carrey (HUH ??!!), or Roger Ebert saying that watching Jury Duty is like hearing long fingernails scratching a piece of glass for long time. Well, Roger, that's exactly what I feel while watching 2001 Space Odyssey, not Jury Duty !The deduction : Not everyone loves Pauly Shore. However, he didn't have much time to develop, be different, or assure that he has good things, as the time some other actors apparently had to do the same. In any case still (Jury Duty) is : A Pauly Shore Classic. Cute unpretentious fun. "Bad" or "so Bad" are only what I call many of its reviews. Plus it's somehow a rare chance to watch a work of a comedian who his career by now has gone with the wind, and what a strange wind that was! Finally, don't feel guilty if you found yourself singing : "Judge-ito have a bite of my burrito, Ato have some of my tomato".

i saw this movie on a DVD last night and the movie reminded me of a Bollywood film named "EK RUKA HUA FAISLA" which means A PENDING VERDICT. jury duty is a total rip off from this movie. but the Hindi flick was far better scripted and it was brilliantly acted by some of the most talented actors Indian film industry has. if you ppl don't believe wat has been written then check out this link.. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0157571/.the Hindi movie was released in 1986 whereas jury duty in 1995. so at last we have a Hollywood film ripping ideas from a bollywood(i prefer to call it the Hindi film industry). and it was done way back in the eighties!!!! so guys please for one time spare the poor bollywood film makers guilty of lifting off ideas from Hollywood .

JURY DUTY is exactly what you would expect from Pauly Shore: obnoxious, silly and ridiculous. Here, Shore plays a jobless boy who decides he can get himself a free hotel room by posing as a juror for a murder trial. Usually, I give movies what they deserve, but since Shore never made a good movie, I have to give him credit. I mean, here is another guy whose movies were successful at the box office, but had little or nothing to show for it. If you are a fan of Pauly, I doubt you will be disappointed. Others beware, for JURY DUTY will be a real trial to sit through.1 out of 5