12 Angry Men is a 1957 American courtroom drama film directed by Sidney Lument, adapted from a teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose. The film tells the story of a jury of 12 men as they debate on the conviction or acquittal of an 18 year old defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt, forcing the jurors to question their own values and principles.
This film is almost completely filmed in the jury room, with the jurors debating, getting angry, bickering, pounding table, yelling, pacing and getting in each other’s faces. They take breaks, then go back to deliberating. The acting is great. Some may find the it boring that the film is filmed in one room and the jurors just get mad and debate for an hour and thirty-six minutes. They may also find the plot not very unique or gripping. Younger people especially, may not appreciate this movie much, if at all and will probably find it very boring.
This film isn’t exactly exciting. It’s a bit boring at times. There are moments when the movie is getting very slow, then suddenly it gets interesting when a juror yells or pounds his fist on the table. This film would have been more compelling if it had been filmed in more than one room, wasn’t just about the jurors but the other people in the court during this case. But then again, it wouldn’t be called 12 Angry Men.
This isn’t the most boring movie, but it isn’t the most moving either. Hearing the men debate and their take on the conviction is the most intriguing thing about this film. This is a simple film with a deep storyline, that just needs to be simple, but not so lackluster set.
The men get angry from being cooped up for hours at a time in one room together having one big debacle over whether the defendant is guilty or not of stabbing his father. If the boy is found guilty, he will receive a death penalty. Many jurors argue against whether that is ethical or not.
I can’t say this movie is well done, because it’s so basic the way it was filmed, but it’s not awful. Good, not great is all I can say about it. If had been filmed more detailed, as in sets, not just a set, maybe seen the actual trial going on, then it would have probably been outstanding. Just because the acting is great, doesn’t always mean the film is excellent too. You have to have a balance of everything being really good and this motion picture maybe an oldie, but it’s definitely not a goldie. 17+ 3.5/5
In high school we’d have “film days” that were relevant to the subject studied. So, nuclear energy: The China Syndrome. WWII: Bridge on the River Kwai, etc. In history class we held a mock jury, and a courthouse field trip . . . and we watched this . . . three times in 4 years of high school. I never, ever want to see it again.