12 Angry Men Movie Review

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.

Email This Story

A couple of nights ago, I was blessed with the opportunity to watch one of the greatest movies of all time: 12 Angry Angry Men. I had always heard that this was a great film, a Hollywood masterpiece, but I had never gotten around to watching it.

As my girlfriend and I were perusing around Amazon Prime in search for a late night movie, I stumbled across this gem. The film is set in the room of a courthouse where 12 jurors sit in and decide on the fate of young boy that was on trial for the murder of his father. At first, 11 of the 12 jurors believe the kid is guilty. However, juror number 8 isn’t positive without a doubt that he’s guilty. All of the jurors get annoyed by his resilience, and most just want to get out of the room and go home. However, juror 8 explains his opinions and, as the movie progresses, more and more evidence unfolds as to how ambiguous the case may actually be. Eventually, the jury unanimously agrees that there is enough doubt in the case not to sentence the boy to death.

So what makes this movie so good any way? It wouldn’t seem all too peculiar to expect a movie set entirely in one room to be kind of boring. But, 12 Angry Men effectively captures the audience’s attention for the full hour and a half. The characters are diverse, and each bring a different opinion about the case to the table. Some have their prejudices and past experiences that influence their decision making, all of which furthers the plot of the story.

Something else different about this movie is that we never get to hear the case first hand. All we know about what happened is what the jurors talk about in the room. To me, the only movie that I’ve seen to follow this line is Reservoir Dogs, in which we, the audience, never get to experience the heist for ourselves.

But what I enjoyed most about this movie was the message and expert storytelling involved to convey that message. Not once in the film did juror number 8 blatantly state that he believed the kid was not guilty. He stood by the notion that he believed it’s a possibility that he may not be guilty. They storyline certainly exemplified both good and bad rhetoric. It showed, through its characters, how a civil argument can be disputed and resolved, as well as how an argument can go wrong with some of its antagonistic characters.

In order to fully understand the majesty of this film, you need to watch it for yourself. I highly recommend watching this movie for anyone that hasn’t seen it before. In fact, this movie has made my top 5 favorites.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email