Kenny’s review published on Letterboxd:
Open to a shot of myself last year, walking down the hallways to my next class, Civics. 7th block. Expecting class like usual, but today is different. "We're watching a movie.". You could imagine. But what movie? "12 Angry Men." It's been on my watchlist for a while and plus it ties into what we were learning that unit. This should be fun. Until...the phones break out. So close. The excessive talking, the uproarious sounds of games being played. So much so, that it literally drowns out the film, with no way for it to swim upwards and breathe.
That was my first encounter with 12 Angry Men and it was so bad, to the point where I couldn't even finish it, let alone watch it. A terrible and frustrating first encounter for sure that I will most likely never forget. But I'm back for round two. And this time, with no distractions around me to take away from the experience of watching this. Just me and 12 (other) Angry Men.
The sheer brilliance and masterful storytelling that can be found within Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men is a hard thing to deny or overlook. This case isn't an easy one to decide. There is evidence to back up that the boy did indeed kill his father and there is evidence to back up that he didn't do it. Some of the jurors believe that he killed him and one juror believes otherwise. There's this running theme of indecisiveness in 12 Angry Men that is done very well, alongside the pitch-perfect script and stellar acting from almost every single actor.
There is no a juror out of the 12 that are similar to one another. Each has some unique quality to them that make them standout and memorable. Naturally, Henry Fonda's Juror 8 is the one who stands out the most, as he is the one to say the boy is not guilty, even though everyone else says he is. One by one, he slowly starts to persuade the other jurors into changing their verdict from guilty to not guilty and it's fascinating to watch from start to finish.