Great, but not without shortfalls

Rating: 6/10 (31 October 2003)

Superb camera work, dialogue, and acting. Cinematically, the film is top notch. Certainly a film that would not or could not be duplicated today. A sweat-shop of emotions, ideas and interactions and a personal favorite of mine (I purchased the DVD). All the positive points have been covered here so I won't repeat them.
But the film does have a problem or two, which have become more evident to me with each subsequent viewing. Firstly, it is awash with political correctness and character stereo-typing. The `hold-outs' for a guilty verdict are depicted as bigots, authoritarians or dumb sports nuts (E.G. Marshall is the lone exception). The film, bordering on greatness, cannot seem to shake the `liberal' (good) vs. `conservative' (bad) overtones, which is truly unfortunate. As a result, the movie becomes more `preachy' than introspective or instructive. It is also predictable.
A second problem is the actual arguments made that sway the Jury. Real juries do not (hopefully) reason in such a manner. For example, Fonda takes testimony from an eyewitness to the killing and calls it into question because of some vague assumptions: 1) The witness (a woman) had marks on her nose that resemble those made by eyeglasses - so the assumption is she wore glasses. 2) People normally don't wear glasses to bed - the assumption is she mustn't have either, therefore 3) She couldn't have identified the killer as she rose from her bed and looked out the window! As Lee J. Cobb CORRECTLY pointed out, perhaps the marks were made from sun glasses or reading glasses..who knows, she may have had her glasses ON when she saw the killing (of course none of this is brought up in court). But because of this convoluted logic, another 2 or 3 jurors are swayed to the `not guilty' side. There are other examples equally as egregious.
Finally, the scene where Ed Begley spouts his bigoted nonsense and the jurors leave the table one by one is absolutely horrific and non-believable. It is these `chinks in the armor' that again, hold the movie back from it's full potential.

Criticisms aside, the acting is wonderful. Lee J. Cobb should have won an Oscar. E.G. Marshall is excellent. Jack Klugman and Martin Balsam are also very good. Fonda is adequate, but not at his best. Jack Warden and John Fielder play their `character roles' well as one would expect. (One down-note - I thought Joseph Sweeney as `Mr. McCardle' was terrible).
All in all, a great movie, even with it's blemishes.