I Wear Glasses For Reading, but can otherwise see a pimple on your face from across the room

Rating: 4/10 (16 June 2013)

What could have been a great film exploring the personal prejudices and other troubling peculiarities of jurors during their deliberation of a murder trial, is for me ruined by the ridiculousness of a single juror eventually (and with considerable difficulty) convincing all eleven other jurors to completely dismiss the eyewitness testimony of a woman, in addition to dismissing the "ear-witness" testimony of a man.
The woman who testified that she saw the boy stab his father, as far as we know from the film, did not have her testimony challenged in court, or if we assume it was, then it certainly wasn't disqualified or damaged enough, not enough to influence the eleven jurors who initially believed it.
But a juror proposes that she could not have seen the boy stab his father, because she had these little marks on either side her nose. I find it ridiculous that a juror would bring up the marks on the nose, then conjecture the wearing of glasses, and follow that up with proposing the woman could not have seen what she said she saw (and again, despite her testimony going unchallenged or otherwise not refuted in court), and then the other jurors one by one agree, until they have all decided to completely dismiss eyewitness testimony!
Likewise the "ear-witness" testimony, where a man who, apparently from what we know from the film, knew the boy and recognized his voice as arguing with his father upstairs, and upon hearing what sounded like a crash of a body on the floor, went out in the hall, saw the boy fleeing downstairs and outside, and then went upstairs to discover the stabbed father.
His testimony was dismissed because he wears shabby clothes and is old and is probably just seeking attention!
I like Henry Fonda too, but not that much.