I have to admit I never read the Grisham novel, the movie is based upon. The other comments say it deviates far of the novel, so I am happy about that fact. As a man who reads a lot I am almost always disappointed by movies made after a novel. In reading the book, you form your own picture in your head and can't fathom why the movie director made changes.
So I am happy to judge this movie unbiased, as a juror should. This fits, because that is what the movie is about, the manipulation of a court jury. The American jury system may be the most fair (because it does not let "one man have the power to hang or not hang anyone he dislikes") but also the one most easily manipulated. How this is done is shown nicely in the movie. One side (the defense) uses surveillance of possible jurors even before jury selection, choosing mostly jurors they may get some kind of leverage on. This ranges from knowledge of an escapade of a female juror to buying the market store another juror works in. The prosecution uses just personal impressions, coupled with some psychological schooling during jury selection. A third party (Cussack) tries all to manipulate his way into the jury by pressing all the right buttons on the judge's patience. The manipulating goes further into the trial, even using illegal blackmailing tactics.But at the end is a twist.
The story may be a bit thin sometimes. Some think that a bit more detail should have been invested into the trial itself, but you forget that this is a film about the jury duty. So it focuses more on the things happening in the jury room, the hotel the jury is sequestered to and the manipulating team of Rankin Fitch. What I have to criticise is, that the court scenes shown are flat and flawed with argumentative holes big enough for a steam train. That should have been reworked to fit more into an otherwise very smart movie.
The acting is great through all the roles be it major or minor ones. I especially like the obvious bonding of Cussacks character and the second Latino juror after Herrera (I don't find his name). But all roles have their shining moments. Overshadowing the acting are Hackman and Cusack in my opinion with Weisz giving them a run for the money in many scenes. Hackman is at the top of his game, but I consider Cussack up to it. He may not be an expressive actor like Hackman, who uses all of his body, voice and mimics to act. Cussack is more a subtle actor which I like about him.
A mostly clever plot, some good editing, great acting...you see why I like this movie. It has great suspense and while not reaching the same level as "12 angry men" it is still showing a nice view on the jury system.
So I am happy to judge this movie unbiased, as a juror should. This fits, because that is what the movie is about, the manipulation of a court jury. The American jury system may be the most fair (because it does not let "one man have the power to hang or not hang anyone he dislikes") but also the one most easily manipulated. How this is done is shown nicely in the movie. One side (the defense) uses surveillance of possible jurors even before jury selection, choosing mostly jurors they may get some kind of leverage on. This ranges from knowledge of an escapade of a female juror to buying the market store another juror works in. The prosecution uses just personal impressions, coupled with some psychological schooling during jury selection. A third party (Cussack) tries all to manipulate his way into the jury by pressing all the right buttons on the judge's patience. The manipulating goes further into the trial, even using illegal blackmailing tactics.But at the end is a twist.
The story may be a bit thin sometimes. Some think that a bit more detail should have been invested into the trial itself, but you forget that this is a film about the jury duty. So it focuses more on the things happening in the jury room, the hotel the jury is sequestered to and the manipulating team of Rankin Fitch. What I have to criticise is, that the court scenes shown are flat and flawed with argumentative holes big enough for a steam train. That should have been reworked to fit more into an otherwise very smart movie.
The acting is great through all the roles be it major or minor ones. I especially like the obvious bonding of Cussacks character and the second Latino juror after Herrera (I don't find his name). But all roles have their shining moments. Overshadowing the acting are Hackman and Cusack in my opinion with Weisz giving them a run for the money in many scenes. Hackman is at the top of his game, but I consider Cussack up to it. He may not be an expressive actor like Hackman, who uses all of his body, voice and mimics to act. Cussack is more a subtle actor which I like about him.
A mostly clever plot, some good editing, great acting...you see why I like this movie. It has great suspense and while not reaching the same level as "12 angry men" it is still showing a nice view on the jury system.