Talk about a simple film! 12 guys as jurors are in one room for all but maybe 3 minutes of the film. In 90+ minutes, they talk through the details of the murder case, some aforementioned in the courtroom and some underlooked, to either determine a verdict - which must be unanimous or else the trial is "hung."
The fact of a unanimous vote being required makes the foundation for a very gripping film. However, with no visual flashbacks or anything, if one is going to be successful for a film with such a monotonous setting, some guidelines are required. 1. The running time must not be overlong. At some point, we'd feel as frustrated as some of the jurors. 2. The screenplay must be first-rate. and 3. The acting must be believable.
This film passes all three criteria with flying colors. The running time is barely over 90 minutes, ample time to throughly develop every idea. The script was great! The details of the case are thought out wonderfully. And the character development: It's amazing what you learn about all 12 men, without learning their names! While I won't reveal the outcome, I will say that the way the momentum swings is almost like watching a football game or something. The final point about the screenplay (as well as the acting) is that it's all very believable. It sounds like a conversation I might expect to encounter in 1957 in a jury room. Even in 2001, however, the substance of the movie is still valid. The situation in real-life still occurs.
One final thing about the acting. While all 12 men did great performances, I am continually amazed by Henry Fonda. He is one of the few men of his time I have seen fit each role he plays to a tee.. without ever overacting.
In summary, this is a movie that very deserving of the praise it receives.
The fact of a unanimous vote being required makes the foundation for a very gripping film. However, with no visual flashbacks or anything, if one is going to be successful for a film with such a monotonous setting, some guidelines are required. 1. The running time must not be overlong. At some point, we'd feel as frustrated as some of the jurors. 2. The screenplay must be first-rate. and 3. The acting must be believable.
This film passes all three criteria with flying colors. The running time is barely over 90 minutes, ample time to throughly develop every idea. The script was great! The details of the case are thought out wonderfully. And the character development: It's amazing what you learn about all 12 men, without learning their names! While I won't reveal the outcome, I will say that the way the momentum swings is almost like watching a football game or something. The final point about the screenplay (as well as the acting) is that it's all very believable. It sounds like a conversation I might expect to encounter in 1957 in a jury room. Even in 2001, however, the substance of the movie is still valid. The situation in real-life still occurs.
One final thing about the acting. While all 12 men did great performances, I am continually amazed by Henry Fonda. He is one of the few men of his time I have seen fit each role he plays to a tee.. without ever overacting.
In summary, this is a movie that very deserving of the praise it receives.