The presidencies of Kennedy and Johnson, the events of Vietnam, Watergate and other historical events unfold through the perspective of an Alabama man with an IQ of 75, whose only desire is to be reunited with his childhood sweetheart.
The defense and the prosecution have rested and the jury is filing into the jury room to decide if a young man is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. What begins as an open-and-shut case of murder soon becomes a detective story that presents a succession of clues creating doubt, and a mini-drama of each of the jurors' prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused, and each other. Based on the play, all of the action takes place on the stage of the jury room.Written by
Juror #1, The Foreman, is the only one who never explains why he considers the defendant guilty or, later, not guilty. Actually, there is a very interesting psychological metaphor on the meta-level of this film, and of course, particularly concerning this character. Like a "Foreman", he leads and is not asked why he does what he does and how he does it; one simply assumes that he knows what he's doing. Later on, when he changes his mind, he still does not explain his decision, although from then on he does not lead anymore but follows. This is expressed via facial expression when he raises his hand to conclude that he now considers the defendant not guilty. See more »
At 1:28:46 into the film, you can see the shadow of a camera on the back of Juror #3. See more »
Man in corridor:
You did a wonderful job, wonderful job!
To continue, you've listened to a long and complex case, murder in the first degree. Premeditated murder is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts. You've listened to the testimony, you've had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies in this case, it's now your duty to sit down and try to separate the facts from the fancy. One man is dead, another man's life is at stake, if there's a reasonable doubt in your minds as to ...
See more »
The credits only credit the jurors. All other actors in the film (judge, bailiff, accused, etc.) go uncredited. See more »
Good script, great dialogs and a set of actors who would be the envy of the world
This is one of those movies where everything could go wrong. The story is as simple as it can be: 12 men are jurors on a open and shut murder trial, but one man thinks that another persons life deserves at least some thought on the matter and votes not guilty. From this point on we have 12 actors and a closed room. This could be the most boring film ever made. Lumet however is a master of mise-en-scene and provides a tense movie that keeps you locked on from the word "go". The dialogs are great and supported by incredibly talented actors. Joel Schumacher in Phone Booth needed to see this movie and draw a few ideas on how to make a character built, dialog driven movie. A must see for everyone.
253 of 312 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this