In every which way this movie is overrated aside from maybe the acting and even that I believe is good but not great.
The lone juror who voted not guilty initially (played by Henry Fonda) did so at the time solely on the basis of the fact that he ' 'could possibly ' be not guilty and he just didn't know. That in no way qualifies as not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's become a myth that beyond a reasonable doubt means with 110 % certainty. Saying you don't know with no real basis for it doesn't mean not guilty. Or saying the case was too perfect, so therefore it raised suspicion that he might actually just not be guilty is reckless and irresponsible and yet this character is the protagonist in the story. He did in fact manipulate others very early on based on emotional appeal and not case facts.
Further , the juror goes beyond the evidence presented at the trial and even asks the shop owner about the knife. The juror is going way beyond his responsibility and this would be considered a mistrial. The job of a juror is not to imagine themselves as a defendants lawyer, it's to follow each fact presented.
I understand it's just a movie, but it's also a classic and is deceptive for how a jury should operate. It is so unrealistic that it's just silly.
Another odd thing I couldn't figure out was the non stop bantering about how hot the room was. What was the significance of that? We get it, they all wanted to be out of there. It just came up way too often. Watching them all sweat and work on turning on the fan just was a waste of time.
Lastly, all the characters reminded me of a modern social media comment section with some trying to be civil, some name calling, others yelling at one another. By the end of it, like the characters you want it to be done with. Perhaps that was the point ?
Anyways I just can't see the appeal with this version of the movie or its remake. Plenty of other movies about justice available to watch that are not only more entertaining , but also more realistic.
The lone juror who voted not guilty initially (played by Henry Fonda) did so at the time solely on the basis of the fact that he ' 'could possibly ' be not guilty and he just didn't know. That in no way qualifies as not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's become a myth that beyond a reasonable doubt means with 110 % certainty. Saying you don't know with no real basis for it doesn't mean not guilty. Or saying the case was too perfect, so therefore it raised suspicion that he might actually just not be guilty is reckless and irresponsible and yet this character is the protagonist in the story. He did in fact manipulate others very early on based on emotional appeal and not case facts.
Further , the juror goes beyond the evidence presented at the trial and even asks the shop owner about the knife. The juror is going way beyond his responsibility and this would be considered a mistrial. The job of a juror is not to imagine themselves as a defendants lawyer, it's to follow each fact presented.
I understand it's just a movie, but it's also a classic and is deceptive for how a jury should operate. It is so unrealistic that it's just silly.
Another odd thing I couldn't figure out was the non stop bantering about how hot the room was. What was the significance of that? We get it, they all wanted to be out of there. It just came up way too often. Watching them all sweat and work on turning on the fan just was a waste of time.
Lastly, all the characters reminded me of a modern social media comment section with some trying to be civil, some name calling, others yelling at one another. By the end of it, like the characters you want it to be done with. Perhaps that was the point ?
Anyways I just can't see the appeal with this version of the movie or its remake. Plenty of other movies about justice available to watch that are not only more entertaining , but also more realistic.