12 Angry Men directed by Sydney Lumet (1957), is often considered to be one of the greatest films ever made. But the question is: is this deserved? Today we will discuss just that.
The basic plot synopsis is this: A group of twelve jurors have to decide whether someone on trial is guilty of murdering his father. All of the jurors vote guilty except one. They spend the rest of the film discussing whether he's innocent or not.
I know the film may sound boring because of how simple the plot is, but the film is not really about the plot itself as it is the group discussing and attempting to come to the truth of the case.
One thing this movie does really well is how it deals with the question of whether the man on trial is innocent or not. At first when all the evidence is laid out it seems like him being guilty is undeniable, but as more holes in the story surrounding the murder gets brought the idea of him bieng guilty becomes less likley.
Another thing this movie does well is how it deals with the theme of justice. The one man who voted innocent makes it clear that he's only doing that because he views it as unjust to send someone to die without having a discussion about it first to make absolutely sure he's guilty. Whereas the man who most heavily argues for the guilt of the man on trial is only really concerned about retribution against criminals.
Overall I believe the film deserves the reputation it has received as one of the greatest films of all time. So be sure to check it out when you have a chance!