Before I watched it, I couldn't imagine how good a movie with 12 people in a small house, and then talking non-stop, could get a high score of 8.7. After watching it, I was completely convinced, even though I never liked watching old movies. The screenwriter's credit for making the plot compact and interesting.
Everyone who studies law should watch it. The film, to put it bluntly, shows the process of a jury discussing and deciding a verdict. It is exciting and enjoyable to find out the doubts of each piece of evidence in the debate again and again, and the seemingly tight chain of evidence is broken one by one.
The actor's unique performance allowed the audience to see 12 vivid characters. Different backgrounds have different characteristics, which to a large extent also affects each person's way of doing things, from which one can guess the decisions they may make. Such a performance was so successful that even 12 people without names could clearly distinguish them.
Then, then I was speechless. Anyway, it's a good movie, let's watch it.
ps. I also think of the other two jury-related films, "The Devil's Advocate" and "The Runaway Jury", which are both good-looking.
View more about 12 Angry Men reviews
