Analysis of 12 Angry Men - Movie Review Example

 Analysis of 12 Angry Men Movie12 Angry Men is a movie where Puerto Rican, an 18year old is on a trial for allegedly knifing his father to death. After listening to the witnesses, the twelve jurors retire to the jury room admonished that the boy is innocent until proved guilty. The jurors deliberate after a while and it is clear that they plan to give their verdict quickly without further discussions. All jurors other than juror eight vote for conviction, each with varying reasons to be revealed later in the discussion.

Juror 8 manages to convince them to a discussion because he believes that the boy deserves a fair trial. Through listening carefully and analysing Juror 8 point, other jurors think critically, which changes the verdict of all jurors to “not guilty.”On several instances, jurors change their verdict after listening to curiously and critically. In one case, on seeing juror 4 rub his nose from the irritation of his glasses, he recalls than the second witness in the case, a woman, wore glasses.

The woman claimed to have seen the murder form her bedroom window when she was sleeping. Juror 8 asks juror 4 if he wears his glasses when sleeping, which he confirms that he does not and that no body does it. Listening carefully, juror 8 then makes a judgement that the woman in question could not have time to put her glasses on to witness the swift events of this case.Listening between the lines helps uncover the reasoning of the eleven jurors who initially voted for the boy to be convicted.

Some of them just voted this way to dismiss the case and attend to other personal issues like watching a game. Others accepted the face value of the witnesses because they seemed innocent. Listening between the lines, helps uncover some lies, twists, and logics to this case giving the boy a fair verdict. This movie gives a lesson to all jurors to consider everyone “not guilty” until they have the facts of the guilt. The fact that case looks straight forward and the witness convincing does not amount to guilt.

Listening and critically analysis issues can lead to saving a life, which would otherwise be sentenced to death.