12 Angry Men (1957) by Sidney Lumet

12 Angry Men, to me, is one of the most successful movies in terms of using only a few settings- 97% in one room- to tell a simple yet interesting story. Even though most of the scenes is filmed in the jury room, the plot is so captivating that it does not bore audiences. 12 men who were different in terms of personality are left in one room to decide whether a boy is guilty for murdering his father. If found convicted, the boy would be sentenced to a mandatory death penalty. At first, when a vote is carried out, 11 men voted that the boy is guilty, without much reasoning and debate. Only one, which is Juror 8, suggested that although the evidence points indirectly at the boy, they should not make swift judgments but instead should question the reliability and accuracy of witness' testimonies. Unlike other jurors, Juror 8 is determined to prove the boy's innocence and at the same time convince other jurors to stand on his side. In the end, after much reasoning and heated debate, all 12 men agreed that the boy is not guilty, including Juror 3, who insisted that the boy is guilty since the very beginning.

Rating: 5 stars. Although the movie has a dull start (partly because it's black and white, but nobody is to blame since it was the only available technology at that time), as it develops, it becomes more intriguing and audiences anticipate how the only dissenter (Juror 8) is able to persuade 11 other men with fair reasoning. The fact that most of it is filmed in one room might bore some people, but I feel that it adds more interest to it as it is as if we are literally sitting in a jury room and experiencing how juries would make decisions in real life.

Juror 3

 Best bits: I would definitely say the part where the stubborn Juror 3 changes his vote to 'not guilty'. Since the start of the session, Juror 3 sort of predetermined that the boy is guilty for murdering the latter's father. With just a few doubtful evidences, he made conclusions that the boy should be punished. He did not take into account that the testimonies might have flaws in them but chose to believe it just like that. The truth is that Juror 3 was being prejudicial to the boy. It is revealed that Juror 3 had a bad rapport with his son- he tore a photograph of him and his son. That's why he wanted so badly the accused boy to be pronounced guilty. But in the end, Juror 8 managed to prove him wrong and they unanimously voted the boy 'not guilty'.

Juror 8

Favourite juror: Juror 8. I admire the way Juror 8 is able to give reasons to his argument. Unlike some jurors, he does not yell when he presents his points but does it in a rather calm way. He comes up with brilliant ideas to prove the boy's innocence. He pays attention to details and how they can affect the testimonies. He knows that the testimonies are doubtful and explains in detail as to how the testimonies could be distorted from the truth. He proves that the knife used in the murder is not as unusual as the testimonies suggest- he is able to produce an identical one from his pocket. He is determined till the very end in proving the boy's innocence. He does not let others influence him easily but judges the case solely on evidence and common sense. From being the only dissenter, he is able to persuade everyone to vote 'not guilty', making the vote 12-0 in favour of the boy.

Juror 7

 Comparison of jurors: Juror 9 and Juror 7. Juror 9 changes his vote to 'not guilty', not necessarily believing the accused is not guilty, but feeling that Juror 8's points deserve further discussion. He is trying not to make snap judgments but chooses to pursue the case further. On the other hand, Juror 7 follows the crowd and changes his vote to 'not guilty' not because he supports Juror 8's points, but because he has to attend some baseball game. This is an act of irresponsibility because he simply agrees just for the sake of ending the discussion. He is willing to compromise the boy's life for his own personal reasons, which is a shameful act.

Juror 9