all it took is 1 room and 12 people to create one of the best movies I ever watched in my life

Rating: 9/10 (19 March 2013)

For a film that takes place almost entirely in one room and is mostly made up of dialogues, I must say it was a blast. Although the premise may sound completely boring for most people, the context in it surpasses most of everything out there. In a way it is a detective story that takes place in a confined room and where all evidence are based solely on speculations and thin reasoning. Through means of possibilities, deduction, and doubt, 12 men are supposed to decide the fate of a young man accused of killing his own father. Although the case seems crystal clear at first, as all the evidence prove his guilt, a single shred of doubt is more than enough to begin a long line of second thoughts and complicating debates. Anyone who loves intelligent disputes and exposed lines of thought behind anything will definitely be mesmerized by its attention to detail.
What makes the movie even more enjoyable is how its characters are not emotionless orthologists or cynical businessmen. Each one of them has a very distinctive personality and his judgment is usually affected by his life experiences and personal bias towards certain social issues. You will see hints of racism, hatred for youngsters, snobing of the poor, even some who don't care and just want to get over with it soon so they can go watch a baseball match.
An extra element that adds to its magnificence is how it is using its laws of that time as well as various details of the society it takes place in. You are constantly given various information regarding law specifics, and cultural events, so you are really made to believe the story takes place in an American state of the 50's. Something which is very important when it comes to any story regarding trials or detective work, since without them one would wonder why wouldn't they just use some fancy CSI method to determine if he really did it (which was impossible at that time) or why are thy even using common people to determine if a man is guilty or not (which happens in very few parts in the world).
The interesting thing is that we are never actually told if the accused man really did the crime or not; that is not the objective of the movie. It is more about following the logic behind the use of a jury to determine the lives of others, as well as how reasonable doubt is more than enough to let someone go free if you are not certain he did it. This would of course mean that lots of people are found not-guilty even when they really did it, but that is not what the movie is all about. It has more to do with upholding the laws of a state in their fullest and in this case they really were.
There are still a few things that annoyed me in the movie, even if they are completely excused for their time and era. The whole film is made up of only white males. Not a single woman or member of a different race. Although the 60's were indeed like that, in a sense it feels kinda racist. That is why I like the 90's remake even more in overall. Although it does not have superstars protagonist in it, it is with color, the characters are behaving in a more natural way (not that wooden feeling of the old movies), there are black members in the jury, the accused is a latino, and the judge is a woman. And despite the 30 year gap, the laws are still used in almost the same way (with only a few minor details presented differently just to adjust to the era) and thus the plot is presented in exactly the same way.
Not that it's feels like much of a problem; it s still an amazing piece of cinema and worthy to be part of most top 10 movie lists with similar categories.