Simple but effective

Rating: 9/10 (2 March 2004)

This classic film will need no introduction to most film fans but somehow it had managed to pass me by. I was aware of its reputation and so was expecting something very special. I was slightly disappointed, but not excessively so. The acting is sublime, but pointed. The camerawork is perfect, getting progressively closer to individuals as the story unfolds. The script is paced to perfection. The plot is convincing. However, it's all a little too contrived; obviously this has to be the case. The film can only support one scene for so long, and we have to reach the opposite conclusion within that time. Still, you have to wonder exactly how poor the defence attorney must have been to miss all these important doubts on the prosecution case. Maybe that's the point - all over the democratic world, people are getting screwed over by disinterested attorneys because there is no juror #8 in every jury. I prefer to think that this is, of course, symbolic, or even didactic. A reminder to everyone of the meaning of 'reasonable doubt' and 'guilty', and a lesson in how juries should reach verdicts. In this respect it's very important. And to remain gripping and entertaining to the end is a testament to the justified acclaim Lumet's magnus opus receives.