A cheesy, predictable, classic.

Rating: 9/10 (3 March 2015)

12 Angry Men is an undeniably great film, whose simplistic directing and predictable plot ultimately take it away from a 10/10.
The story focuses on one man's struggle to convince a jury of 12, 11 of whom disagree with him on the verdict, to acquit a young man of his father's murder.
Instead of spending this review describing how important this movie is, how well-thought out the script is, or how impressive the individual acting of most jurors is, I shall attempt to pinpoint the movies very significant weaknesses.
First, and most importantly, the movie has some of the most disgustingly heavy-handed, and cheesy moments I have ever seen in a film of this caliber. 1. The scene where the German corrects the racists' English. 2. The scene where Juror 8 calls Juror 3 out on his exclamation of "I'm going to kill him!" 3. The scene where everybody gradually stands up to show their backs to the speaking Juror 10. Juror 10 then goes down to sit in the corner, like a naughty kid, never to speak again for the remaining duration of the movie. 4. The sweating Juror 4 as Juror 8 proves him wrong, despite him apparently "never sweating." 5. Juror 3 finally giving up after a long tirade at the end of the movie.
Secondly, the movie is extraordinarily caricatural in its portrayal of some of the characters (in order of submission to juror 8): Jurors 7, 10, and 3. They were all under developed and largely portrayed as either bigoted, stubborn beyond reasonable doubt (pun intended), or frivolously disinterested beyond belief.
Finally, the extraordinarily simplistic camera work was useful for setting the tone. However, the fact that no characters outside the shot in any specific scenes were allowed to butt in on conversations made the entire movie seem very preachy with only the characters being convinced to change their votes one by one involved in any one scene at a time, along with Juror 8, and occasionally Juror 9. Furthermore, the focus on certain characters led to unbearably long monologues that were hardly believably in a 12-man jury debate. (Renoir in "Rules of the Game," in 1939, had already innovated far beyond this type of constrictive and simplistic camera work and directing.) The anarchy that would have been undeniable in a similar situation therefore end up having to be portrayed through unbearably loud and plainly stupid caricatures listed above^.
In conclusion, the movie is a great one, but it has undeniable weaknesses that are so strong, they take it away from a 10/10.