Simply engrossing.

Rating: 9/10 (9 September 2008)

12 Angry Men is the tailor-made type of movie that was common in the 1950s but has become non-existent today. It is all dialog, relies heavily on acting, and is short but sweet in its running time. All this adds up to one of the most satisfying watching experiences available in the movies. Henry Fonda plays a juror who has a "reasonable doubt" that the boy they are trying might not be guilty. From beginning to end, no matter who is standing against him, he continues to vote not guilty.
Slowly, but surely, Juror #8 begins to raise questions and doubts about the validity of the witnesses boy being and the evidence against the boy being accused of his father. Soon, more than just one juror thinks he may not be guilty, and this leads to some fantastic drama.
For this type of movie, the two most important issues were handled very well. The acting is top-notch all around, especially Fonda as the quiet, gentle man who sees something wrong with how most of the jury takes the evidence blindly. Lee J. Cobb also sticks out as Juror #3, a man with severe personal problems that tend to influence his decision. The script is tight but very good at exploring all areas of the judicial system and the stereotypes many of us have about it. All in all, this movie very openly discusses the importance of life and how when it hangs in the balance of a group of men's hands, it should not be rushed into but rather thought out and analyzed.
Sidney Lumet does an excellent job of pacing the movie and keeping the suspense all throughout right to the final shot. It isn't a movie everyone will enjoy, but for those who want something more out of their movies, 12 Angry Men says something and then some. One of the best court-room dramas ever made.