The best Court-Drama movie.

Rating: 10/10 (9 July 2013)

There aren't many films that can illustrate the power of a strong script and superlative acting better than Sidney Lumet's 1957 classic, 12 Angry Men. There are no startling visuals, no bravura camera angles, and no special effects. Just twelve men - all jurors - on a hot, stuffy afternoon, in a single room, debating the guilt, or otherwise, of an 18-year-old boy from the wrong side of the tracks. That it kept me riveted for its entire length is a tribute to Reginald Rose's dynamite script (adapted from his own play), the superb acting that fleshes out each character (remember there are twelve here, and each one is more vivid than those in a slew of modern blockbusters), and the sure but restrained direction from Lumet.
The story is simple but no less relevant even now. A young, disadvantaged boy is charged with the stabbing murder of his father after an apparent heated argument. The case against him seems overwhelming, and the twelve jurors assigned to his trial retire to their chamber to decide on his fate. All are convinced of his guilt - all, that is, except juror #8 (Henry Fonda). He is not sure if the accused is guilty or not, but he wants to discuss the case a bit further. In the face of some stern resistance, especially from jurors like #3 (Lee J. Cobb), a spiteful man who has a personal reason to see the boy behind bars, #7 (Jack Warden), who just wants to record a quick verdict so he can catch a baseball game that he has tickets for, and #10 (Ed Begley), who is convinced that everyone in the boy's socio-economic group is a criminal, he starts to argue some of the prosecution's points. He points out some inconsistencies, and slowly some of the jurors come around to his point of view. Will he convince all of them there's enough doubt for a "Not Guilty" decision?