Unique

Rating: 9/10 (14 October 2017)

''12 Angry Men'' is one of the oldest movies I've watched, and whilst not being the most avid movie watcher myself I do appreciate a lot of the details. *The rest of the review will contain spoilers so I suggest watching the movie first and coming back to this review later*
PLOT:
''12 Angry Men'' takes place in court where an 18 year old boy has been accused of murdering his father, the judge leaves the trial of the boys life in the hands of 12 jurors. If the boy is deemed guilty he shall be executed, If not the boy shall be set free, but there is one condition : All 12 jurors must vote unanimously. The 12 jurors are then escorted into a room where they are locked in until they finish voting, they are allowed to ask for anything they like (evidence, murder details etc.) whilst in the room. The jurors sat down in order (1-12) and they began the judgment with a vote all of the jurors but one (juror 8) voted on guilty, and since the vote had to be unanimous they had to debate until they reached an agreement.
INTERESTING FACTS:
1. The movie almost entirely takes place in a single room. 2. None of the cast members are alive today. 3. Juror #10 never utters a single word after he is told to shut up and listen 4. Juror #1 never spoke his opinion on the guilt of the boy most likely due to him playing the role of an observer rather than being an active participant himself.
REVIEW:
I loved the movie to no end but that does not mean I'm going to be biased, in fact some of the flaws this movie has really do bug me. I'll start off with the good. The movie is very thought provoking and it shows how taking a bit of time and thinking through everything can lead to a different result rather than recklessly deciding on an answer in mere seconds. The movie itself is really engaging because it takes time between arguments so the audience can think on whose side they are at all times. All of the jurors have moments where they develop themselves as a character, revealing their past, life, job which develops them as a character and lets the viewer connect with them. Even though juror #8 said that he is neutral multiple times, I can't bring myself to believe that as he went to great lengths to vindicate the boy's name which was shown in the scene where he went to the slumps and got the exact knife that was in the murder scene. I believe that he truly wished for the boy to be saved and in the end he did so. My biggest gripe with the film was how some evidence and things the jurors said seemed way too convenient e.g. They saw marks from glasses on the nose of one witness or when juror #3 said that he will kill juror #8. I'm not saying it can't happen it's just that it's highly unlikely. I also disliked that some jurors where quite unprofessional, granted I do understand that they are only human, but their job requires that emotions do not get in the way and cloud the facts.
All in all the movie was good even with its flaws it was a great watch. I loved how as juror #8 convinced others of the boy not being guilty they came in with their own knowledge on certain subjects and didn't regurgitate what #8 had said. I give this movie a solid 9/10 and I recommend it to anyone who wants a high tension movie that will have you on the edge of your seat. Also keep in mind that this movie slightly differs from regular detective movies but that's exactly what makes it so entertaining.