true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good

Rating: 8/10 (2 January 2008)

Overall I loved this movie. It shows the group-dynamics of 12 people, the jury, trying to decide if there is "reasonable doubt" concerning whether a young boy killed his father. The discussions are tense and little by little we learn from these what supposedly happened on that night the kids father died. We are therefore also drawn into the question of whether the boy did it or not ourselves and what at first seems like a clear cut case along the way becomes all of a sudden much more complicated. It is a film that dares to handle nuances and ambiguities (we are never certain of whether the boy did it or not) in a way we rarely see. Its also a movie that lets us watch these 12 angry men discuss in the same room for a full 96 minutes without it ever getting boring, which I have to respect; you really have to thrust your material to let a whole movie consist of a discussion.
The movie also tries to show how personal issues can cloud the judgments of the jurors. I am thinking about one specific juror, and although the idea, of showing us how his own personal story interferes with sound judgment, is splendid, I frankly didn't like the way it unfolded in the movie. That's why I only give this movie 8/10.
If this movie in any way is supposed to represent how the legal system work I pray to god that I will never be put in a situation where a jury have to decide my guilt in any matter.
Regards Simon
Ps. When you read reviews that gives max score check to see if the user has made more than one review. If not consider the possibility of a lobbyist. If you agree consider putting this post scriptum at the bottom at your own reviews.