Rating: 
Summary: wonderful film!
Review: This is a great film! It really makes you think
Rating:
Summary: Addendum
Review: Here are two subtleties in 12 ANGRY MEN which I don't know if anyone else has remarked on. At the end of the movie, as Henry Fonda leaves the empty jury room, he looks back at the table and an odd "laughing" or braying motif plays in the music. Is Fonda inwardly "laughing" at the eleven people whom he has "put one over" on? Then he steps out of the room with a rather sinister or secretive air, looking rather like - get this - like someone LEAVING THE SCENE OF A CRIME! I believe the movie is posing the question: "Who is the real criminal, here?" Maybe that's is a little farfetched, but I think there is a reason for everything is a work of art, especially in this very subtle and psychological film. My second observation: in the opening moments of the film, we see a series of people walking by outside the jury room. First, a young man with a suitcase and the air of a stranger, then a scholarly looking fellow, then a jovial young man congratulating a bunch of people on the happy outcome of a case, and finally a guard trying to quiet the people down. I believe that these figures are meant as types or mirror-images of Henry Fonda, E.G. Marshall, Robert Webber, and Martin Balsam.
Rating:
Summary: Anatomy of a jury.
Review: One of the best character studies ever filmed is "Twelve Angry Men," written by Reginald Rose and directed by the great Sidney Lumet. An eighteen-year-old boy is accused of killing his brutal father. On the hottest day of the year, eleven men file into a stifling jury room convinced that this is an open and shut case; the boy obviously did it. They are all anxious to go home as quickly as possible.
The one dissenting voice is juror number 8, a thoughtful individual with a conscience. He doesn't know whether the accused murdered his father or not, but he thinks that it is the jurors' duty to carefully examine the facts before condemning the young man to death. Can they be absolutely sure that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? The other jurors, with great reluctance, agree to discuss the details of the case.
As they deliberate, the jurors reveal their frustrations, hopes, disappointments, and prejudices. Every part in this film is perfectly cast. Lee J. Cobb is a standout as a man who is estranged from his son and who wants all ungrateful children to pay for their sins. Ed Begley is juror number 10, a vicious individual who proudly parades his bigotry before his fellow jurors. Joseph Sweeney, juror number 9, is the oldest of the twelve. When juror number 8 starts making some good points, the old man is quick to acknowledge that there may be more to this case than meets the eye. Also noteworthy is E. G. Marshall as juror number 4, a low-key and dispassionate individual who never seems to sweat, no matter how overheated the jury room becomes. Henry Fonda, in one of his finest roles, is the embodiment of integrity, courage, and compassion.
Certain aspects of this film are dated, particularly the hokey music which is jarring to the modern ear. However, the give and take between the men is mesmerizing, and the questions raised are still valid today. How can twelve ordinary people effectively separate fact from fiction? How much time and effort should the jurors expend before they bring in their verdict? If they are not one hundred percent sure that the defendant committed the crime, should the jurors let him go free?
Since this movie was filmed in 1957, there was no DNA testing or detailed forensic evidence to consider. With juror number 8 leading the way, the men consider the credibility of the eyewitness testimony, the behavior of the accused after the crime, and even the methodology of using a switchblade knife. Soon, disagreements erupt; the jurors start shouting at one another and they nearly come to blows.
"Twelve Angry Men" is about one individual's ability to stand up for what he believes, even when others ridicule him. It is also a powerful study not just of our criminal justice system, but also of the diversity of human experience, the nature of peer pressure, and the difficulty of ever fully knowing the truth.
Rating: 
Summary: Intelligent, thoughtful movie
Review: Like most reviewers of "12 Angry Men," I recognize its unique quality and also appreciate the film's intelligent, thoughtful plot. 95% of the movie takes place in one room, so it's like watching a stage play.
The careful buildup to the suspenseful ending is emotionally powerful. Plus the great cast. My only criticism is that the constant bickering and yelling gets a little tedious after a while.
Rating:
Summary: the elusive truth
Review: Having recently had a jury duty experience that was equally as contentious as the one depicted in "Twelve Angry Men", I found this film fascinating, and one that maintains its interest because of the taut, well written script (by Reginald Rose, based on his play for TV), and some of the finest character actors of mid-20th century cinema, and though Henry Fonda was a big star when this was made in 1957, he blends in to be part of what is essentially an ensemble acting piece.
Practically the entire film is set in the single jury room, on a hot and humid day, with these twelve incredibly diverse men, and shows how their backgrounds color how they arrive at their conclusions. Truth is very elusive in this case, and it's a matter of questioning if there is "reasonable doubt".
There are many things that point out how times have changed in 50 years; it has been decades since a jury would be chosen that would only consist of white men, and a few years since a table full of ashtrays with cigarette butts would be allowed, but the basic truths remain the same, and if one places twelve strangers to come to a verdict in a difficult case, tempers are going to flare. The hot head in this film is Juror # 3, Lee J. Cobb, who sees the events through the lens of his relationship with his son, and he gives a fiery performance, but each actor has a lot to contribute to the success of this film.
This was the first feature film in Sidney Lumet's long career, and he was nominated for a Best Director Oscar; the film was also nominated for Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay, but lost in all three categories to David Lean's "Bridge on the River Kwai". Lumet was to work with Fonda again in '64 with the riveting cold war thriller (and my favorite Lumet film) "Fail-Safe", which also had in its cast Juror # 6, Ed Binns.
Total running time is 96 minutes.
Rating: 
Summary: Ruthlessly absurd
Review: This film's stupid! They spend all day in that room, to be deceived by a maverick, and come to highly disproportionate and illogical conclusions!
If this film is in anyway a representation of real life jury process then I would be slightly frightened.
My vote is 1.
Rating:
Summary: A Stronger Finish, Please
Review: I recently saw this movie for the first time and I was impressed. It is has the appearance of a fine stage play brought to the screen. It has a powerful script, excellent direction, and 12 outstanding actors playing an intentionally diverse group of jury members. It had all of the makings of a "5 Star" except for the ending.
"12 Angry Men" is the story of 12 jurors that meet to decide the fate of a man tried for murder. They meet with the impression that it is a simple matter given the evidence that they have heard; an eyewitness, a person below the apartment who heard the person threaten to kill the victim, the murder weapon that he claimed to have lost, as well as a few other significant bits of evidence. As they prepare to issue their decision, a member of the jury suggests that maybe they not act so quickly. It's a hot day in a hot room and everyone wants to go home, back to work, or to the ballgame. No one, except one, seems interested in "wasting" time discussing the evidence. No need to itemize what happens next. This is the story of how one man can make a difference. It is also a story of how we distort our reasoning with our prejudices. The alleged perpetrator, you see, is from a minority and we see that this was reason enough for some to believe his guilt. As the lone man begins to gather support, we all start to see things through a different perspective. A strong element of the movie is the diversity of the characters. I bet most people know someone who would fit about every one of the personalities profiled. The actors all deserve a near-equal credit for bringing such vivid life to their roles. My problem was the last two converts (you saw this coming didn't you?). I'll be glad to watch this movie again but I could not detect and sound reason why the last two changed their verdict. I think it had to do with the need to wrap things up more than anything else.
The movie is a bit dated in my opinion. The element of prejudice is very strong in this movie out of the 1950's. It may have been right on track for its' time. Today it looks anachronistic. I may be wrong but my impression is that the OJ Simpson verdict showed us that it was money, not race, that determines the outcome. There are many legal issues that are raised but not thoroughly discussed. That's to be expected given the time constraints of the standard length of a movie. However, it enables the writer to present debatable issues in a one-sided perspective. For some, the writer (Reginald Rose) may be right on the money. For others, there may be a tendency to call out, "Now wait a minute!". Whatever the case may be for you, I will say that I found this movie to be one that gripped my attention and held it to the very end. It's failure to finish strong cost it in my ratings scheme. If it were a choice, this one would be given a "4.5".
Rating:
Summary: Definitely worth more than one viewing!
Review: You may think when you read what the film is about that it will be dull and uninteresting. The entire movie is about a jury of 12 men who must decide if the accused is guilty of the crime. Yawn right? I was surprised when as the movie went on how I was really into it as piece by piece they took apart the prosecution's case and more and more jurors took the side of innocent instead of the single one. I believe that if violence isn't a criteria for a good movie for you, than this film would be an excellent choice to see.
Rating: 
Summary: Struggling to make it through this movie....
Review: as I type. It's not even suspenseful. It's pretty crappy from where I stand. The story is VERY dated, and the whole "bad neighborhood practically condones bad behavior" is NO GOOD in my book. Also, this movie highlighted reasons why the evidence was possibly wrong, and barely gave the viewer a chance to sufficiently weigh that against the evidence produced. All you hear is the jurors bringing up a piece of evidence and refuting it. Example: we never saw the old man walking, so we have to take Henry Fonda's word at how slow he was going.
We also, at the beginning, saw the boy looking all downtrodden in the beginning---a BLANTANT attempt to sway the viewer from the getgo. We never see the witnesses or anything. All we're left with is what these jurors say...no room to make your own judgment call.
Also...I'm not sure how the law was back then, but Henry Fonda's character going to the boy's neighborhood and then buying the knife was DEFINITELY grounds for dismissal from the jury. The same thing happened in the Scott Peterson case--with the woman who did her own internet research--she was dismissed. Now, with the foreman (in the movie) being so pressed about laying ground rules, I find it hard to believe that he would not have reported Fonda's character.
Now, I understand how "reasonable doubt" works. But something about this movie is incredibly off where I'm concerned. It just seems to put together and too "scripted" (if you will).
Struggling to make it through this junk. And the fact through Henry Fonda I see Jane Fonda...that only adds to the unbearable factor.
Definitely not a classic in my book.
Rating: 
Summary: Worth A One-Time Viewing
Review: 12 men sit (and stand) in the jury room trying to decide whether the man is guilty or not. somehow, this isn't that bad of a film and can actually keep your interest.
i remember the first and only time i saw this one when i was in school (yes, they showed it in the classroom). i must say that for a 50's film that remains inside the jury room for most if not all of the movie, this was done well. but why a classic? it has a little suspense, sure. it can get quite interesting at times, yes. but once you see the end of the arguments between these men, what's left? i'll tell you what it left, the one time i'll ever see this movie. i think it deserves three and a half stars, but thats just because of its restrictions. when you take a hard-to-do plot such as this and make it work even remotely, you've done a nice job. but if you don't keep in mind the old age of this film and its uninteresting concept for a film, then you'll see its mistakes. by all means, if you can sit there and watch a jury room fight a man who insists that the subject is not guilty (which you can see for a much shorter time on family matters), then rent this. but i must warn you, the story is only good for a one time viewing (in my opinion).
|
