Greatest movie ever made

Rating: 10/10 (28 May 2007)

Deceptively complex courtroom drama enthrals for the duration as one man opposes eleven others in a battle of argument, reason, and logic.
Starring Henry Fonda as Juror #8, 12 Angry Men is a very claustrophobic drama which conveys the deliberation room of a trial where the defendant is accused of first-degree murder. On the surface the case seems open and shut, with 11 of the 12 jurors entirely convinced by the prosecution's case. Only one dissenter remains, and that is Henry Fonda's Juror #8. Specifically he is not certain that the boy is definitely innocent, just that he doesn't know, and that for him is enough to qualify as reasonable doubt.
12 Angry Men certainly is a moralistic tale, of the right to a fair trial and trying to give someone every chance, but it has many more strings to its bow than just this. Indeed, above all else it prides itself in endeavouring to portray a true sense of reasoned and rational argument which tries to overcome steadfast beliefs as possessed by the seemingly unshakable. Initially it may seem that Fonda's Juror is simply playing devil's advocate, but it becomes clear that it is more about standing up for what you believe despite what the facts seem to tell you. The more you scrutinise so-called unshakable evidence, the more you find holes in it, and the more that logical analysis seems to provide the real answers.
Obviously, Juror #8 has to persuade those others who seem to have their own agenda, and pre-conceived notions of what truth equals, but nevertheless it is absolutely fascinating seeing how simply he probes the case and reveals the flaws.
The whole movie's pace is absolutely perfect, and given its almost exclusive setting of inside the deliberation room it is a testament to the genius of the script and the brilliance of the acting that the duration of the film seems so short. The cinematography is also surprisingly excellent given the lack of scope necessary, with sharp imagery and clever camera-work which gives the whole picture a real amount of life.
To detail the jurors themselves; Juror #1 reluctantly appoints himself foreman. He appears to lack esteem, and the chance to boss the table by being the 'leader' perversely appeals greatly to him as he lacks significant contribution to make about the case. He does not want to be useless, so is forced to take charge.
Juror #2 is a slight man who is clearly used to being wrapped in his own cocoon, never deviating, so when he ends up as a juror in a murder trial, he is actually thrilled at his fish out of water status. He does not really have much to say about the case, taking it at face value.
Juror #3 is the enduring Messenger Service owner. May have an ulterior motive for being so steadfastly sure the accused is guilty, given his first scene depicts ambivalence over the courtroom procedure given to him it is 'open and shut'. As time goes on, and evidence starts to suggest more than meets the eye, he begins to show emotional stress as his hardwired opinion looks flimsier. But he refuses to cave.
Juror #4 has more emotional attachment to the trial than most, as he shares the same kind of background to the defendant and takes criticism of 'that kind of person' extremely personally. Experiences inner conflict between head and heart.
Juror #5 is a cold and methodical thinker who has an elevated opinion of himself. Emerges more as the deliberations wear on, he is convinced by the evidence that the boy is guilty, and systematically sets about conveying this to the others.
Juror #6 is the common working man with very little input, and whose two significant moments are to defend another juror who is being harassed, and to suggest another juror is badly wrong about his opinion.
Juror #7 is more interested in the ball game at 8pm than the case. Doesn't want to be there, and while he details a little about the boy's background to start off with, his regular sarcastic quips throughout the story suggest he is simply desperate to be out of there as quickly as possible, with no care about the wheels of justice.
Juror #8 is the only juror who does not immediately join the others with their guilty verdict. He has a lot of thought about the case eating at him, and wishes to explore it. He meets much opposition.
Juror #9 is a wise, wiley old man who is sharper than anyone else and observed events in the courtroom closer than the others. Makes some smart observations which unearth vital truths.
Juror #10 is an old school racist whose opinion is based on prejudice and not facts. A vile and odious creature, he has no interest in 'people like that' roaming the streets, and is offended at having to live in the same city as them.
Juror #11 is an intelligent and interested spectator who listens to the facts and analyses them before reaching a conclusion. His European accent draws derision from some others, as does his general nationality, but he rises above it and provides some sensible comments, rarely saying anything which lacks thought.
Juror #12 is a good-natured man but not a terribly strong thinker. He does not have much of an independent opinion on the case, often following others, and is often more interested in playing naughts and crosses or boring fellow jurors about his job.
Overall, 12 Angry Men is simply as good as cinema can get. Incredible script, amazing performances, and captivating direction.
Highly recommended.