So when you hear about the concept of this movie — twelve jurors, stuck in a room together, who have a disagreement about a life-or-death verdict — it sounds like it could lead to some compelling drama. But the problem behind the concept quickly becomes clear: This is a movie about a goddamn meeting.

And it’s one of the worst meetings you’ll ever have in your life. One guy disagrees with an otherwise-consensus verdict, for what he disingenuously and bizarrely claims are no particularly good reasons, and immediately the room turns into angry shouting and recriminations. And like, I know it’s a movie and movies need drama, but still, it’s hard not to think that it’d be really easy for someone to be like “hey, I can definitely understand where you’re coming from with your concern, juror 6, but at the same time, it’s hard to really engage with your position with what you’ve given us here. Are there any aspects of the case that troubled you in particular that you think are worth talking through?”

And bam, now you can just have a nice chill little meeting, where everyone discusses stuff productively together. But instead, we just jump straight into the shouting and ranting (which, yes, will include a heaping dollop of old-timey ethnic prejudice — not being able to sight-read the varieties of white-on-white racism that were evidently common at the time makes the movie weird at points — and Kids These Days boomerism, except of course it’s 1961 and the kids are the boomers). The way everyone ramps the aggro up to 11 at all times makes it feel like it’s Toxic Masculinity: The Motion Picture.

But while the shouty guys are the worst, the guy who’s sticking up for the defendant is also a giant asshole, because he keeps giving these “well, I don’t know, maybe he did it, I just think we should talk about it and be thoughtful in our answer, that’s why I’m saying not guilty” speeches, and then like five minutes later, will be like “btw, using my reconstruction of events, you’ll see that it was mathematically impossible for the witness to have seen what they claimed to have seen,” and like, why didn’t you just say upfront something like “I’m concerned that a lot of this evidence seems implausible, in particular these three things…” and then explain it? Waiting for all the shouting to then slyly bring it up piecemeal is a real dick move.

(There’s also some really wacky legal stuff here, like the fact that even though the charge on trial is murder in the first, even a generous interpretation of the events makes it seem super unplanned and impulsive, but nobody ever brings that aspect up. And the movie lampshades the fact that one of the random jurors is basically doing the defense attorney’s job, but… he really is. Too bad he couldn’t have cross-examined the witnesses to get more information when it would have been useful, and is left having to vote not guilty.)

That said, the movie is effectively shot, and does a good job of getting you inside a claustrophobic room with a bunch of angry shouty guys who keep mopping the sweat off their faces with the same handkerchief they just blew their nose into. So if that sounds like a fun place to spend some time, hey, here you are.