A masterpiece

Rating: 10/10 (1 September 2008)

The script of this movie was nominated for an Academy award. Why it didn't win it I don't know. Why it didn't win 10, or 100, or 1000 Academy Awards for the writing I don't know either. It is the most gripping script I have ever seen, and I have seen it several times.
Even the best script needs good actors and a good director to have its potential realized. In this case, there were no impediments to that realization. There is not a weak link in the 12 actors chosen to play the jurors. Every one of them is perfect, every one of them gives a masterful performance.
And they work together to create a masterpiece because the director did a masterful job of making this movie build to an unforgettable but completely motivated climax.
Never in the history of Hollywood has a movie that cost so little to make been so great.
=========================================
Added 2 February, 2014:
There are few movies I will watch more than once. There are even fewer movies that I will not interrupt when my stomach tells me it is time for dinner. This is one of those few. TCM ran it again this evening, and once I saw it on, I couldn't stop watching until the end.
There is more great acting in this movie, and more great direction, than in a dozen other "great" movies. It's all great performances and brilliant camera angles to drive them home. A masterpiece.
My question at the end, however: what happened in the life of the character played by Lee J. Cobb (spectacular performance) that caused him to hate the accused so?
=========================================
Added 21 July, 2019:
I watched this movie again last night, and again was held riveted to my chair. Since I only see it once every few years, when I catch it on TCM, I forget the small but crucial details and so rediscover them again with the characters as the drama unfolds.
This time, as I watched Fonda's and some of the other characters start to raise questions about the testimony of the old man and the woman across the street, I kept thinking: "But why didn't the public defender raise those issues?" And then I thought: but I didn't think of them the first time around, so why should he have? Among many other things, this movie shows that even without malice aforethought, a trial may not always defend those who cannot pay for a high-priced attorney to defend them.
It also reminds us of an era not so long ago when men could speak truly hateful lines about minorities, or seniors, or ..., without any real fear of public shaming. It is not until the very end that Ed Begley's character, who seems to harbor every terrible prejudice about those different from him, is finally ostracized by most of the others for his you-name-it-phobic language. His character is the worst of the lot in that respect, but some of the others are bad as well.
And there is the terrible indifference of some of the characters to the outcome of the trial, even though that outcome could be the death of a young man. At first, at least, they don't want to be bothered. Because he is different his life doesn't matter.
Each of the eleven characters' road to doubt is fascinating. One I particularly noticed last night was E. G. Marshall's. His character is convinced by the facts that the young man is guilty, until finally one fact he knows from his own experience changes everything for him. He suddenly realizes he has been wrong. It is clearly painful for him to change, but change he must to be true to his image of himself.
There are already over 1000 reviews of this movie here, so the chances of your seeing this one are slight. But let that number impress on you the importance of seeing this movie. Not just once, but more than once, so that you, like the characters, can start to see what lies in the little, not at first apparent details.