The 12 Angry Men

The stars of the film :

• Martin Balsam as the first Jury / Foreman (The jury foreman, somewhat preoccupied with his duties; proves to be accommodating to others. An assistant high school football coach)
• John Fiedler as the second Jury (A meek and unpretentious bank clerk who is at first domineered by others, but as the discussion furthers, so does his courage, even motivating him to reprimand Number 7 for inappropriate behaviour.)
• Lee J. Cobb as the third Jury (A businessman and an emotionally distraught father, opinionated and stubborn with a temper and an alleged streak of sadism; the antagonist)
• E. G. Marshall as the fourth Jury (A rational stockbroker, unflappable and self-assured)
• Jack Klugman as the fifth Jury (A young man from a violent slum, a Baltimore Orioles fan)
• Edward Binns as the sixth Jury (A house painter, tough but principled and respectful)
• Jack Warden as the seventh Jury (A salesman, sports fan, superficial and indifferent to the deliberations)
• Henry Fonda as the eighth Jury (An architect, the lone dissenter (in the beginning); the protagonist. Identified as "Davis" at end of film)
• Joseph Sweeney as the nineth Jury (A wise and observant elderly man. Identified as "McArdle" at end of film) 
• Ed Begley as the tenth Jury (A garage owner; a pushy loudmouthed bigot)
• Goerge Voskovec as the eleventh Jury (An immigrant watchmaker, proud to be a naturalized American citizen)
• Robert Webber as the twelveth Jury (A wisecracking, indecisive advertising executive)

The introduction of the film
The film tells the story of a jury made up of 12 men as they deliberate the guilt or innocence of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt.
12 Angry Men explores many techniques of consensus-building, and the difficulties encountered in the process, among a group of men whose range of personalities adds intensity and conflict. Apart from two of the jurors swapping names while leaving the courthouse, no names are used in the film: the defendant is referred to as "the boy" and the witnesses as the "old man" and "the lady across the street".

Best bits :
The point where the eighth Jury raises his hand to say that 'the boy' is not guilty, the bit where he explains that he does not know whether his decision is right or wrong, he just keep saying 'what if' and also the bit where he is trying to explain why he said that 'the boy' is not guilty.

My Favourite Part :
It when the eighth Jury when into a deeper detail about how the possibility f each things that happen on the day 'the father' died, being stab right on the chest and being sawn to be falling from the upper level of the apartment.

The weak bits :
All the argument shows every important things about being a fair jury but even if it shows all of it, in the end they do not come up with any possibility of who could be the criminal in this crime of killing. Some people might be happy as the way it is, but most prefer to at least know who might do the crime and also the reason behind it since, they ca actually come up with all of the prove that has being said. 

My rating for this movie
Out of 5 is 4, since I'm a bit confuse at some point of the story, but the rest has been really impressing and interesting to watch.

Comparement between the two characters chosen ( Third Jury and the Seventh Jury )
Event if the two juries changes their mind about the case, each have their own reason to chose doing so. The reason why jury seventh changes his mind is because he just wanted to get out of the room and also  because there's many other jury who chose 'not guilty' after 'layers' of arguments. the reason why the third jury so against on putting 'the boy' 'not guilty is because of his own personal reason: his problems with the relationship between him and his son, but with all the prove and all the fact that has been given to him, he constantly came out of the decision.

Issues, concepts or other things I could reflect on :
There are many proof that drive the jyries aroung the corner, with the strengh of it, it slowly move the juries point of view about the crime and force them all (except the eight jury) to accept the fact that the so called criminal is not guilty in the killing case. each one of the juries has their own knowledge of believe towards diffrent stuff, some uses their knwledge, some uses common sense and some uses their own believe on what actually a crime really is but most just uses the plain fact that 'the eye witness saw everything and said what they think happen on that day' without considering something else might happen. The film dig out the truth about the stuff that were suppost to happen in a room full of juries that have their own point of views and it also help the viewers understand more about what justice really is and also help the viewers to chose or decide justice with proof or reason why such thing has been said outloud and why people should believe it.