Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining, Educating and Stimulating...A Timeless Classic
Review: Throughout its deceptively short 1 1/2 hours, "12 Angry Men" keeps the viewer captivated with the simple story of the deliberations from a young man's murder trial. Director Sidney Lumet does a fantastic job of keeping us involved in what amounts to a filmed play, held in the confines of a medium-sized room. He manipulates the ebb and flow of tension (and what tension!) brilliantly, never leaving any doubt as to the title of the picture. The camera moves nimbly among the actors playing the jury, and provides a great illusion of action in what is really a static atmosphere. Henry Fonda heads the ensemble cast of solid actors; the team of men deliver memorable performances. By movie's end, you'll have a definite sense of each character. It's truly wondrous how all involved take an ultimately limited tale and infuse it with a life that lasts far beyond 1957. The film retains an uncanny vitality, and remains provoking to this day.(A bit of trivia: Fans of "The Odd Couple" TV series might remember an early episode that uses "12 Angry Men" as the basis for a story about how "Felix" and "Oscar" met. Part of the humor was, of course, that "Oscar," Jack Klugman, had a role in the classic film.) MGM is starting to put out a series of releases that it calls "Vintage Classics." Despite the reverence of this label, they seem not to value the films' cinematic significance very much. Although this DVD displays an excellent picture and contains good sound (for its age), the movie house hasn't seen fit to equip it with any special features. Indeed, this seems to be par for the course with the "Vintage Classics." The ONLY supplement included with "12 Angry Men" is a trailer. They don't even provide a booklet! Nevertheless, considering the DVD's technical strengths, the greatness of the film itself, and the price of the product, I don't hesitate to make this "12 Angry Men" disc a hearty recommendation.
Rating:
Summary: I Never Tire of It!
Review: I received this video last weekend and have since watched it three times, all the way through. I am not the least bit tired of it yet! I love movies that have all-star casts but no real "starring role"; 12 ANGRY MEN is just such a movie. It is fascinating to watch the interaction between twelve superlative actors confined in a small space (the jury room) for nearly the entire film. All of the actors -- including Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley, and Martin Balsam -- are superb. However, my favorite characters are the ones played by Jack Klugman, George Voskovec, E.G. Marshall, and Edward Binns. Klugman's character, a young man from the slums, clearly has some repressed anger but is basically a vulnerable, soft-spoken person. Voskovec's character is an immigrant from (I assume) Eastern Europe, well-mannered and thoughtful, though he becomes angry when he sees others not taking their democratic duties seriously. E.G. Marshall's character is a bit aloof and very reasoned; but unlike a couple of the others (Cobb's and Begley's characters), he is no bigot. When at the end of the movie he realizes that his judgment was wrong, he does not hesitate to admit it. Binns plays a kindly, working-class man who gives Cobb's character a few lessons in respect. And of course, Henry Fonda comes across as sincere, thoughtful, and compassionate. The superlative cast and direction (by Sidney Lumet) make 12 ANGRY MEN a classic that can be watched again and again.
Rating:
Summary: This is My Old Standby!
Review: For some reason or other, this is a DVD that I keep forgetting to review. Well, now I'm here to review it so as to give it a five star rating and to tell you that this is unlike any 'courtroom drama' film you've ever seen before. IF you can believe it, the movie (except for the very beginning and end) takes place and was shot in one room. The plot: a realtime jury deliberation for a murder trial where the one man out of 12 who votes 'not guilty' faces that burden of convincing the others that despite how the evidence appears, he is right. There are a few things that make this film unique (besides the said plot, which is as fascinating on the tenth viewing as it is the first). The cast does a truly marvellous ensemble job as every one of the 12 jurors has their own ideosyncracies and moments that form a brilliant tapestry of emotion and suspense. The direction is perfectly suited for the 'small room' feel. That is, the shots are quite long - panning left, panning right, but staying on the same angle for minutes at a time. The script is also well done, letting each of the 12 personalities collide as we watch them switching their votes back and forth with each new revelation. A film like this really wouldn't make it today (and there was a modern adaptation a few years ago that despite being good, predictably flopped). Why? The plot is small by today's standards (2 hours of jury deliberation). There are only twelve characters and as for scenery, there is...one room. But that's part of what makes the film so super. The smaller the stage, the bigger the play. I suppose it is 'common wisdom' that successfull films in the '00s need big money, plots, and settings. That's why these twelve angry men are a breath of fresh air. Enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: Wow
Review: That movie is the best, for your personal and professional life. Every body should own one... Negotiation, bargaining, integrative, distributive, a little bit of shouting... that is what you need to help you understand others... You should have this movie...
Rating:
Summary: 12 Jurors + 12 Great Performances = 1 Superlative Movie!
Review: How many times have you seen the "One juror holdout" theme played out in movies and (especially) on TV shows? Probably quite a few. But none done so well and so very convincingly as the 1957 classic, "12 Angry Men". Henry Fonda's arguments attempting to persuade his fellow jurors of the defendant's "possible", but by no means "certain" innocence plays out exceptionally well in this film. This is due in no small part to Fonda's fine portrayal, as well as each of his 11 cohorts. For me, in addition to Fonda, the standout "jurors" are Lee J. Cobb and Ed "Ya Know What I Mean?" Begley. I've always wondered where this was filmed. All we ever see here is the jury room....drab, old, hot, high ceiling, big (sticky) windows, et al! Perfect setting! Very realistic looking....right down to the rickety electric fan that Jack Warden just can't seem to get started! Buy this video; you'll have to love it! Quibble about VHS version ......... If you own the VHS version of this film, perhaps you've noticed something odd about it (I certainly did). ..... It's being played at the wrong speed! It's running too FAST !
It's not all that annoying, except in a few places where the dialogue is definitely noticeably sped up. (Particularly when Lee J. Cobb or Ed Begley are speaking. Their deep voices seem higher pitched than they ought to be.) To bear out the above minor complaint, we can check out the running-time statistics on each package. ..... VHS running time is only 92 minutes. But the film SHOULD run 95 minutes. (And I'm almost certain nothing has been cut out in the video print.)
So, for some reason, the video makers saw fit to compress the 95-minute movie into 92 minutes. Most curious. I'm getting the DVD version soon, which Amazon claims has a 96-minute run time (1 minute LONGER than the whole film). ??
I'm hoping this is accurate, and the DVD has been slowed down to the proper speed. Having this great film in widescreen will be a major plus as well!!
Rating:
Summary: Human nature on trial in the jury room.
Review: Most thrillers focus on the drama that happens in the course of a murder, or the drama that happens in the courtroom afterwards. In 12 Angry Men, all the action occurs in the closed doors of the jury room after the murder and after the court-room theatrics. It might be hard to imagine how a black and white movie shot virtually entirely in one jury room might be dramatic, but "12 Angry Men" certainly achieves a level of drama achieved by few other movies. There are no special effects, no elaborate settings, and yet it's a movie with more power and passion than most contemporary multi-million dollar productions. Much of the initial drama revolves around the murder case that the twelve jurors have to decide on. Is the accused young man guilty or not-guilty of murdering his father with a knife? Eleven of the twelve men are firmly convinced that he is guilty, and only one has doubts. It is here that the real drama begins, as the jurors discuss the case, breeding personal conflicts as the lone juror (acted by Henry Fonda) pleads his case. This is the movie's real strength, as it portrays vivid and brilliant characterization of the jurors. They become frustrated and angry, with varying emotions and temperaments. But one by one they begin to break under the burden of "reasonable doubt." As the evidence is weighed in increasing tension, the jurors begin to change their guilty verdict to not-guilty. The tension is shared by the viewers, because we don't know whether or not the accused is guilty, and like the jurors need to weigh the evidence as it is presented. Is the accused guilty or not-guilty? In the end, what happens in the jury room isn't so much about murder mystery, but about personalities, personal pride and egos. The sweltering heat and enclosed jury room proves to kindle emotions of anger and rage. In fact, in the end we still don't know the final answer about the accused's guilt, who really did it and how. Nor does Fonda's character argue that the defendant is innocent, but merely that there is not enough proof to determine his guilt. But the fact that the question about guilt remains an open question at the end of the movie really doesn't matter. It is the conflict of personalities that makes the movie so powerful: the 12 angry men in many ways represent ourselves. Just as in the real world, these 12 men are composed of an assortment of personalities and people: such as the sports fan, the slum dweller, the mathematical thinker, the business man, the logician, the prejudiced emotional thinker, and the nerd. The emotions and personal interaction are brilliantly portrayed, and amongst these 12 angry men many viewers will recognize themselves. Not only is this movie a portrayal of logic in action, but ultimately it is a portrayal of aspects of our own human nature, including our own prejudices and personality flaws. This is especially evidenced in the concluding scenes, where two jurors shake hands and introduce themselves by name. It is only then that we realize that although the individual personalities of these 12 men are now so well-known to us, we don't even know their names. If you are getting the idea that I was wowed by this movie, you're absolutely right. Even though it is nearly fifty years old, it has to be one of the best movies I have ever seen. If there is a weakness, it would be that it seems rather remarkable that the jurors uncover things not found in six days of trial. But it is completely free of profanity and indecency, and is tremendously powerful in its portrayal of human emotions, personalities and conflicts. The acting is superb. It's a masterpiece. Very highly recommended! Go watch it. And again. And again...
Rating:
Summary: A great movie about epistemology
Review: It always pisses me off when people give The Matrix as a philosophical movie, when there are so many much more rich sources of artistic exploration. 12 Angry Men is one such example, a great movie about epistemology. During an unseen trial, a young man of a negatively-seen ethnicity (which is never specified) is accused of the murder of his father. It is an "open and shut case", and all the jurors agree that he is guilty, except juror #8, played by Henry Fonda. In 95 minutes, almost shot in real-time, we observe as the jurors' prejudices and emotions churn and crash in mighty waves, as each piece of evidence is examined and examined again, as every actor plays against the others. In the process, we witness an object-lesson in epistemology : what is doubt, what is evidence, how do we prove or disprove a proposition, and how people in groups act in group dynamics that sometimes are not conductive to the truth. Politically speaking, 12 Angry Men is a testimony against juries and capital punishment, but that is not the point of the movie. It is a movie about how we judge events and how we filter the truth. And that's something that you won't get from any action movie.
Rating:
Summary: 12 Jurors + 12 Great Performances = 1 Superlative Movie!
Review: How many times have you seen the "One juror holdout" theme played out in movies and (especially) on TV shows? Probably quite a few. But none done so well and so very convincingly as the 1957 classic, "12 Angry Men". Henry Fonda's arguments attempting to persuade his fellow jurors of the defendant's "possible", but by no means "certain" innocence plays out exceptionally well in this film. This is due in no small part to Fonda's fine portrayal, as well as each of his 11 cohorts. For me, in addition to Fonda, the standout "jurors" are Lee J. Cobb and Ed "Ya Know What I Mean?" Begley. I've always wondered where this was filmed. All we ever see here is the jury room....drab, old, hot, high ceiling, big (sticky) windows, et al! Perfect setting! Very realistic looking....right down to the rickety electric fan that Jack Warden just can't seem to get started! Buy this video; you'll have to love it! Quibble about VHS version ......... If you own the VHS version of this film, perhaps you've noticed something odd about it (I certainly did). ..... It's being played at the wrong speed! It's running too FAST !
It's not all that annoying, except in a few places where the dialogue is definitely noticeably sped up. (Particularly when Lee J. Cobb or Ed Begley are speaking. Their deep voices seem higher pitched than they ought to be.) To bear out the above minor complaint, we can check out the running-time statistics on each package. ..... VHS running time is only 92 minutes. But the film SHOULD run 95 minutes. (And I'm almost certain nothing has been cut out in the video print.)
So, for some reason, the video makers saw fit to compress the 95-minute movie into 92 minutes. Most curious. I'm getting the DVD version soon, which Amazon claims has a 96-minute run time (1 minute LONGER than the whole film). ??
I'm hoping this is accurate, and the DVD has been slowed down to the proper speed. Having this great film in widescreen will be a major plus as well!!
Rating:
Summary: A couple clarifications...
Review: Excellent movie that I think we can all agree could not be made today. There probably isn't too much I could add that hasn't already been said, but I wanted to clarify two common misconceptions regarding this movie. Beyond all the many themes pertaining to prejudice and our criminal justice system that this movie touches upon, it is a classic study in group psychology. Something I've noticed in the different summaries of this movie is the assumption that, initially, 11 jurors automatically assumed the defendent's guilt, and voted accordingly at the beginning of the movie. This is not altogether true. If you watch closely when the initial vote is taken, 4 of the characters (the timid banker, the old man, the immigrant, and the young man originally from the slums), hesitate to raise their hands to vote guilty. They slowly start to raise theirs hands only after they look around and see their neighbors shoot their hands up quickly. This illustrates a common phenomenon of group psychology wherein many people feel the pressure to simply go with the flow without thinking, so as not to march out of line with the pack (kind of like the initial overwhelming support of the Iraq war once the war drums started beating). The Henry Fonda charater understood this. His understanding was the reason behind his crucial gamble to vote guilty along with the others, only after a second vote was taken by secret ballot. The other misconception is the assumption by many reviewers of this film that the young man who is the defendant is Puerto Rican. At no poing in the movie is the actual specific ethnicity of the defendant referred to. The one brief shot of the defendant at the beginning of the film reveals a young man who might have been Hispanic, Italian, Eastern European, Middle Eastern, etc. The vagueness of his actual ethnic background was done on purpose so that the larger message of general blind prejudice and its potential dangers was not obscured by any particular manifestation of prejudice against any given group. All in all, an amazing movie and display of superb acting. Incidentally, I agree with a couple reviewers that Lee J. Cobb absolutely stole the show in the last few minutes of the movie. Powerful acting at its best!
Rating:
Summary: Good.
Review: '12 Angry Men' is a fantastic film by one of the most underrated directors ever; Sidney Lumet. It about 12 jurors trying to figure out a complicated crime. Along the way, they discover a lot about each other and about human psychology.
|
