12 Angry Men doesn't made me angry. It makes me think. It's one good movie.

Rating: 9/10 (19 November 2013)

12 Angry Men is one of the best plays turn into movies films ever. 12 Angry Men was adapted from a teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose by director Sidney Lumet. There is no music score, no action scenes, no sex appeal, but this movie is one of the best, due to two reasons: great writing, and great acting. One thing that I love about this movie is how little locations there are in this film. Beside the opening scene, most of the film takes place in a room made up of 12 men jury as they deliberate the guilt or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt. They must stay there, until they can be make a unanimous decision. To add to the pressure, the room goes from hot and humid to warm, and cold, making each character go through a chain full of emotions. The way, the film is filmed is amazing. It shot in a way that makes the room feel a bit claustrophobia. Since there is a lack of locations, the character of the film had to be very interesting people, and they were. Like the title says, 96 minutes of the movie is pure intense arguments between a group of men whose personalities ranges from quiet and good-hearted to outright anger and hate. None of the jury members have their real names mention, as most are refers to each other by a number given to them beforehand. When you think about it, nobody name was used in the film; the defendant is referred to as "the boy" and the witnesses as the "old man" and "the lady across the street". The film use anonymity as a way to make the film more a general representation of America. These are everyday people that could very well be on your jury. This sense of anonymity raises the stakes of the play as a social drama, in that is a more general commentary of our society. Who were these men is still a mystery? We only get a glimpse of what they do in their real life. They soon become acquainted with the personalities of each other and want to vote. Some of these men believe that the young teen killed his father in a fit of rage but only one juror, Juror Number 8 (Henry Fonda) is not certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the young boy did it and felt they should talk more about it. The jury soon came head to head with clashing of arguments and questioning of the evidence. Without spoiling too much about it, I have to say the heated discussion of evidences is the best part of the film as find out more about the true personalities of the jury members. All the actors did a great job. Henry Fonda does a great job as Juror 8, as the lone man wanting to convince his peers to evaluate the matter beyond their initial, largely emotion-based judgments to determine what the kid really did do. He does this, by explaining the murder weapon and the faults of the two witnesses. Still, I doubt, even in 1950's standards, a jury member can carry a knife in a jury room. Ed Begley as Juror Number 10 is chilling as the loudmouth racist whom based on the locality where the accused lived. Lee Cobb as Juror #3 is painted as a father who allows his poor relationship with his own son to influence his judgment of the case gives one hell of a performance. Last, worth noting is Jack Warden as Number 7, a sport fan who cares more about a baseball game than the case that he is given. While the others jurors members, are interesting characters, none of them were as great as these 4 men who brings the best out of this play. Throughout the play, we see two opposing views of justice which I love. The two-sided nature of justice create tension and contrast the characters. Each character wants "justice," but what justice becomes unclear and fluid throughout the course of the play. If I can find one fault in the film is how the movie makes Henry Fonda seem like the protagonist and everybody else the antagonist. We don't know if Juror 8 is right and yet, his actions are framed as an act of bravery, standing up against the group to do what's right. In the end, of the film in a chilling reverse of roles, Juror 3 is view as a stubborn man, refusing to come over to the side of reason. What's really interesting about the case within 12 Angry Men is that we never ultimately find out for sure whether the accused is guilty or innocent. It's up to question. People even today, still have open debate about if the boy did the crime or not. In modern terms, most likely the results would happen, is a mistrial assuming, of course, that applicable law permitted the content of jury deliberations to be revealed. It's one of the few movies that make you think. The film should be view by anybody going to Law, but not only that, but regular people in general. Yes, the film is a bit outdated, and younger people might not want to see a black and white film with old men yelling at each other, but I think once they mature enough, they would find this movie great as well. If not, this movie. They can watch the 1997's remake of 12 Angry Men. That version is also pretty well done. There is a lot of things that people can learn from this film, like issuing dealing with class, racism, family relationships, psychology and communications. It's really hard to hate this film. The more years pass by, the more praise it gets.