Synopsis: Following the closing of the case about a trial where the apparent murder committed by a teenager is the main focus, the twelve members who make up the jury must carefully analyze the situation and agree on what the accused's verdict will be.
The drama that surrounds films involving legal problems they find in court, high-complexity investigations, battles between lawyers and complicated sentences (and the whole process involved in this way), their main tools for their development, are often loaded with very suspenseful and a high level of tension... This movie is a clear proof of this and even though it was made 62 years ago, it is more current and relevant than ever in its true argument and logic class.
Within the universe of justice, "everyone is innocent until proven guilty" is one of the oldest strands that still holds. However, while this is a highly misrepresented concept in today's society (after all, anywhere in the world, the cases where injustices occur are countlessly diverse... including many of them have become emblematic because they are so representative), it is still a "rule" that - at least on paper - is to try to avoid possibly misleading sentences, and the main function of this film is to place the viewer into this world.
By providing a real perspective on the facts, the script works hard and steadily so that the people watching this movie follow the entire conflicting process between a jury team and their divergent lines of thought on the same subject. In the midst of this journey of innocence and guilt, the story is memorable in every way, and the fact that it happens entirely in one place (a meeting room) reveals a level of wit, intelligence, and creativity on the part of the writers that is definitely not seen so often inside Hollywood cinema.
All the ideas that build on the narrative focus on establishing the difficult struggle of a single juror who, having the courage to disagree with the opinion of the other eleven colleagues (previously convinced of their own interpretations), tries - at all costs - to prove that his arguments should be minimally considered before the verdict was decided. His hope lies in the goal of getting the other jurors to re-analyze their concepts and possibly change their vows after rethinking the facts as they have new elements as questioning evidence.
During the film's exciting development, this jury acts as a tireless sort of "lone warrior" and spares no effort in presenting his very well-grounded theories always with enough determination and propriety. Soon, little by little, he succeeds in planting seeds that quickly germinate and begin to change the minds of others... So what was practically a certainty that would condemn the defendant to many years in prison becomes a big doubt that tends to to prolong the trial and give you a new chance to be cleared.
Once this conflict is established, the movie becomes a true roller coaster of feelings where emotions flare up whenever a surprising new way of interpreting the case is put on the table. The facts are too well explored and even in their moments that can be considered as "monotonous", the basis of each new theory is very solid (justifying the script brake on the narrative structure), generating not only in jurors - but also in viewers - a persistent and distressing unknown that throughout the scenes gets more and more strength and leaves the field open for many kinds of interpretations.
Henry Fonda leads a robust quality cast with immersive acting power. All of them bring to life characters with very different profiles (where some of them keep some secrets that are being revealed at certain times when there is a lot of pressure on them) this ends up being an extra conflict that they have to face. It is masterfully conducted by director Sidney Lumet, who deserves all the accolades for having done a work full of such well-explored argumentative minutiae in such a "claustrophobic" setting, proving how inspired he was in directing this movie with complete understanding about the impact and the dimension it could cause.
*12 Angry Men is a compelling report of how does a small part of the complex justice system works, which in the midst of its many ramifications is still highly debatable in its sense of veracity. It works as an exciting debate between morality and ethics and how highly these two strands are, but equally necessary for breaking paradigms that still govern the precepts of what is right and what is wrong in relation to behavioral standards. acceptable within a society with standardized norms.
MOVIE URL: 12 Angry Men
MY RATING: AAA (10/10)
※ The following part is needed to put filled in and added to your text, as otherwise it will not be included later on phase II on Triple A.
※ 리뷰 하단에 다음 두가지 항목 포함 필수 (미포함 시 차후 자체사이트에 반영 안됨)
- Movie URL: (Look at https://www.themoviedb.org/ for your title and put the URL here)
- Critic: (Choose between A, AA, AAA and input the Data)
- 영화 URL: (https://www.themoviedb.org/ 에서 리뷰하고싶은 영화 검색후 URL 이곳에 삽입)
- 별점: (A, AA, AAA 중 선택해서 이곳에 삽입)