LukeS

I cannot believe so many talented people can combine to make something that is so much less than the sum of its parts. Boring and ridiculous are the words that spring to mind on viewing this piece of clap-trap.

I am an enormous fan of Spielberg's work (with the following exceptions: The Lost World, 1942, Amistad and his segment of Twilight Zone The Movie). Equally, I love most of the films directed by Kubrick until his dull Eyes Wide Shut (the last word of the title just a spelling mistake away from accuracy). Add to that the obvious talent of Haley Joel Osment, Jude Law, William Hurt and Brendan Gleeson (to say nothing of John Williams) and someone needs to explain how these people came up with a convoluted, soulless, implausible, over-long movie.

Open minded as I am, every time I read a positive review of this film I find myself condescending to the review's author. Who can like this movie? Why? It is unintelligent (ironic considering the title and subject matter) and I've seen the topic covered in more depth and with greater sensitivity in entertainment magazines (to say nothing of the vastly superior D.A.R.Y.L.). Extraordinary.

Although the genre (revenge thriller) is a little dated and the cast hardly A-list, this is a constantly involving film which may delight an unsuspecting audience. Jeremy Irons is not everyone's natural choice for an action hero. However, casting him as the beleaguered Jack Elgin only serves to reinforce the intelligence and sensitivity with which the film's makers construct the story of an innocent man's quest for justice. Support from Forrest Whitaker (amusing, if hackneyed), Charlotte Rampling (bizarre accent/affectation) and Jason Priestly (smarmy, slick and spot-on) enriches the drama and the little boy is fantastic.

Action sequences are sporadic and small-scale compared with big-budget American movies like Planet of the Apes and A.I. but at least The Fourth Angel has characters about whom one cares and a story that, if not wholly original, is constantly involving.

London sparkles spectacularly and the overall look of The Fourth Angel makes you wonder why other British-set films feel cheap and TVesque. The score is a little intrusive but the soundlessness of the Seventies seems a distant memory with modern films choosing to instruct the audience exactly how it should react with over-the-top strings and drums. End of rant. See The Fourth Angel.

This is such a great movie. To think that a movie, set almost entirely in one room with nothing but twelve male jurors deliberating on their verdict for a murder trial, can be thrilling and exhilarating even though you know from the outset how the denouement will unfold! Incredible. Aside from the great performances (by each of these great actors) the standout in Twelve Angry Men is Lumet's subtle pacing and tension-building. Lumet gently leads us in to the crucial characteristics of the jurors. The interplay is wonderful and the slow realisation that there is more to this trial than previously seen is deliciously unfolded.

Atmosphere is as important as character. Watch the jurors sweat in stifling heat and then delight in the rainstorm. All the while, Fonda remains cool and calm in his white suit. A ticking clock, a wall-mounted fan and a dozen heated debaters are perfectly exploited to portray this study in prejudice, justice and humanity. The interlaced moments of comedy are very welcome too and always appropriate to the progress of plot and character.

This film writes the cinematic book on claustrophobia, perspiration, dogmatic bandstanding, small-mindedness, the power of reason and measured persuasion, the mundane games played by truly bored jurors and ultimately the belief that justice will prevail.