Incredibly Gripping

Rating: 9/10 (4 July 2011)

When the premise is that twelve men are presiding over a murder case during jury duty, anyone who has ever been required to attend jury themselves will agree that, this sounds like one hell of a boring plot. Nevertheless, 12 Angry Men has become an incredibly popular film over the years and for good reason. The plot is deceptively simple; twelve men in a jury engage in heated discussion with each other, over the innocence of a young man accused of murder. It appears to be a very open-and-shut case, yet the calm, enquiring and objective Henry Fonda's questionings cause the entire jury to turn on their head's as more and more perceptions start to come to light.
The situation this jury finds itself in is in itself, incredibly gripping. We, the audience, look in on people who seem as though their opinions on the matter are firmly set in stone. Characters who at first are so certain about the ultimate outcome, they'd rather joke, talk about sports, boast about their business, banter or play crossword puzzles, rather than take the matter at hand seriously. Watching Henry Fonda manage to convincingly break down each and every one of their uncaring barriers is something highly engaging as he seems to be breaking down your barrier as well. Something about the way in which the story is portrayed almost makes you yourself feel like one of the characters in the jury; the film is shot in real-time, the characters opinions change with each monologue, the room you are in while watching the film almost becomes just as hot, stuffy and restless as the room in which these jurors preside in.
Speaking of the jurors, another amazing thing about this film is what amazing characters they are. The twelve we are presented with are all unique and all of them have differing reactions to the situation they are in, the situation to be discussed and to each other and this is one of the most fascinating aspects about the film as a whole. First, there's Henry Fonda's protagonist, a man who despite being comparatively timid in contrast to the other characters at first, manages to show an admirable amount of unflinching will and integrity, without seeming to become annoyingly sanctimonious. Then there's Lee J. Cobb's excellent performance as our antagonist, Juror #3; a man who from the offset is more personally involved with this trial than he will willingly let on. My personal favourite character is the analytical stockbroker Juror #4 played by E.G. Marshall, as of all the characters in the room willing to vote guilty, he seemed to me as the most logical yet still open to reason.
Of course, although the film is very good, it isn't perfect. It is however, good enough to the point where I can only really make 'nitpicks' rather than criticisms. One such nitpick is the use of close- up shots during the film, particularly the one's involving the old man, Juror #9, which I felt looked quite out of place. The film seemed to flow in a very much naturalistic way, for the close-up shots to be in any way effective. I did also think that while some of the evidence discussed in the juror's room on the young man's behalf, was very convincing, some of it did really seem as though they were grasping at straws; the talk about the knife in particular I found quite circumstantial. Maybe more information at the very start of the film, about the case at hand would have been helpful as well. Like I mentioned earlier however, these are minor nitpicks.
12 Angry Men is an extremely interesting film; you have an interesting situation, a load of interesting characters and all of this is excellently executed. Considering the setting as well, these 96 minutes seem to fly-by as you never once find yourself bored. A very well justified, timeless classic.