12 Angry Men

Fantastic film. The movie has a pretty simple premise: what will the 12-male jury in a murder case with a teen suspect decide given the implications are death penalty if they unanimously agree that the teen was guilty? We are pretty much confined to the jury conference room for the entire film. This is one of those movies that excellently gives characterization based on how people respond differently to a single event/circumstance (in this case, the murder case). Henry Fonda stars as the hesitant Juror #8, an architect who doesn't necessarily think that the teen is not guilty but isn't fully convinced by the evidence used by the defense. Other jury members include the jury foreman, a high school football coach; a man particularly angry at the teen due to his personal problems with his 22-year old son; a racist and xenophobic man who makes false generalizations; an immigrant; a man who grew up poor; a man who just wants to get to a baseball game; and an advertising executive who seems like a people pleaser and doesn't seem to pay much attention to the case The film basically follows as Juror #8, originally in the minority with a 11-1 "guilty" vote, pokes holes at the evidence used against the teen, including eye witness testimony of a woman who claimed to have seen the teen through the window of passing train cars, an older man with a limp, and the murder weapon which was found to be a knife available at a local pawn store (meaning it wasn't unique to the suspect). Over time, he is able to convince the other jurors as they navigate their morals. Only Juror #8 at first actually takes time to dissect the evidence rather than going to a foregone conclusion, treating it as if he was on trial and how he would want the jury to behave. The movie is just very interesting throughout the whole time; its message is clear and impactful commentary on the biases we have. Just a well-written, excellently crafted watch.