12 Angry Men...12 Individual Opinions...classic.

Rating: 9/10 (4 June 2006)

12 Angry Men; The simplicity of this film, I believe, prevents it from being named in lists of best ever movies. I was surprised but equally glad to see it ranks #17 here, but have also seen it unfairly omitted from several other polls of modern times.
What really strikes you about this film is that the entire sequence is shot in one room. The moment the court attendant locks the doors, you can feel the tension of twelve individuals merging under the surface. The film isn't about spending vast sums of money on creating a blockbuster, nor does it feel the need to explain every last detail about each of the characters portrayed. Perhaps these key differences are exactly the reasons "12 Angry Men" strikes one as so effortlessly brilliant.
One of only two shots outside of the room is at the beginning, with the exasperated judge calling for the adjourned verdict from the jury. You have a closing shot of the young boy on trial before the twelve men assemble themselves into the sticky, humid room to consider their decision.
The movie doesn't take a long time to get started. Questions are raised instantly and answers are given. Juror #8 (played by Henry Fonda) instead glares in a moments reflection onto the street below as the other eleven men give their first impressions willingly. It is clear from the conversation that the majority who have spoken are convinced of the boy's guilt, with many of them keen to come to a final verdict as soon as possible.
Instead, upon the first vote, Juror #8 goes against the grain of everyone else and decides to pitch his verdict of not guilty to the astonishment of his fellow jurors.
What happens next is 80 minutes of passion, pain, conflict, and conclusion.
What I find remarkable about the character of Henry Fonda is although he is not convinced of the boy's guilt, he is also equally not sure about his innocence. As he poses questions and figures out answers, it is clear that he is realising these facts at the same time as everyone else. In the depths of his mind, he has ideas surrounding why the boy might be innocent but needs to formulate them, and he is able to do that via the other jurors, even the ones that put up a fight. As he finds more reasons to doubt a guilty verdict, his reflection allows the other eleven men to do the same.
With each revelation, and the testimonies brought into question, you can feel the passion of twelve individual opinions. Whilst some of the jurors were not so outspoken, they still played a part in peeling apart the layers of badly constructed trial. Whether it was a personal experience (such as living by the El Track, or wearing glasses) or just an view of one man, they all fitted together in a jigsaw that eventually, couldn't be disputed. As the film reached the climax, so did the heat, finally erupting into a violent storm that reflected the tension in the verdict room. In particular, it was parallel with the clash between Juror #3 (played fantastically by Lee J. Cobb) and Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) - 8 being the stand alone verdict of Not Guilty to begin with, and by the end, 3 being alone in his verdict of Guilty, before breaking down.
The film was beautifully directed, shots of the intense weather, the cigarette smoke drifting away and the passion of the twelve men in deciding their verdict reflected in their perspiration collaborated effortlessly with the script. There was no need to delve any deeper into the characters, build exaggerated story lines or become unnecessarily violent. All it needed was twelve men, with different backgrounds, to explain themselves.