Rating: 
Summary: Intense, insightful, and suprisingly entertaining...
Review: To be perfectly honest, the scenario for this movie actually doesn't sound very appealing. A common reaction would be to think - just watching 12 men in a room for the whole movie? How exciting can that be? Well, believe it or not, when the 12 men are impeccably cast, able actors and are given interesting and insightful things to say it can be VERY entertaining. Additionally, besides managing the seemingly impossible feat of holding the rapt attention of the audience in such a limited setting, 12 Angry Men is an inspirational, perceptive movie with much to say about the power of democracy and our court system. Anyhow, the basic plot, as indicated earlier, may appear dull - basically the film is about the meeting of a jury in which 11 out of the 12 men, for various reasons later explored, ranging from the sensible to the silly, vote guilty. The particulars of the case are really not as important as the way the characters of the men are explored in the discussion that follows after one of the men refuses to back down in his vote of not guilty. So, this is truly a memorable film - and not just because of the way it handles a potentially uninteresting topic with great skill. 12 Angry Men is just, quite simply, wonderful entertainment that leaves one thinking afterwards! Lastly, one other thing that is worth noting again is the cast - Henry Fonda is excellent, but the overall effect is only as good as it is because of the combined work of the experienced character actors involved. Enough raving already - just go ahead and see the film!
Rating:
Summary: 12 Angry Men: Truth as an Onion
Review: Put a group of strangers within a box, lock them up for a while, see how they interact, and you have the making of a fascinating film genre. Director Sidney Lumet shows us in TWELVE ANGRY MEN how the search for truth is as elusive as and as difficult as peeling an onion apart, one layer at a time. A offstage murder trial was held and a disparate group of twelve male jurors meet to decide the fate of the defendant, a young Puerto Rican boy who faces a mountain of circumstantial evidence all of which indicates his guilt. As the jurors go into the room, the audience can see that they are a cross-section of Brooklynese society. They meet, they talk, they vote. Eleven vote guilty. It is Henry Fonda (who does not reveal his name as Davis until the very end) who is the dissenting vote. As his vote is announced, the table consensus is 'Who is this jerk who will keep us here for God knows how long?' It seems that Lumet wants Fonda to symbolize the voice of a liberal reason that he would use later in FAIL SAFE, SERPICO, and THE VERDICT. The other jurors are not mere one-dimensional symbols. They run the gamut of the prejudiced old man, the perceptive old man, the angry son-hating father, the sports nut, the corporate executive, the ex-gang banger, and the ethnic Italian who wants to be the 'good American.' Initially, the table is united against the liberal thinking Fonda, whose reply was to probe constantly through the hollowness of the collective reasoning. Slowly, he makes his point that in the American system of justice, a jury need not be convinced that a defendant is innocent to render a verdict of not guilty. All that is needed is 'reasonable doubt.' Each time one of the jurors explains his choice, Fonda exposes that choice as having one of two flaws: either that juror had been guided by irrational prejudice or by a misunderstanding of logic and circumstannce. With bigoted jurors like Ed Begley and Lee J. Cobb, both of whom have made a career out of roles exactly like this, Fonda is content to let them spew out their vicious personal demons, never getting angry in return, but making sure that the remaining jurors see that bigotry has no place in a jury room. With rational jurors like E. G. Marshall, Fonda has to accomplish what the defendant's own lawyer failed to do: to provide an alternate explanation for the accused's actions. As he does so, the audience can sense a gradual shift of tone away from superficial snap judgment and toward reasoned deliberation. It was sometimes painful for Fonda to use his knife edge reasoning to peel back the hatred and fixed prejudices that so many take for granted in others but fail to see in themselves. At the end, there is one holdout for guilty, Lee J. Cobb, who refuses at first to see what the others do, that there is plenty of reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt. As he shouts his anger, the jurors can see that he is really raging against an ungrateful son who disappointed him years before. Finally, Cobb's anger becomes apparent even to him and he switches his vote to not guilty.
TWELVE ANGRY MEN is probably the best court room drama ever filmed. The magnificent talents of the twelve actors coalesce to evince the reason why we have the legal system that we do. This movie shows this idea better than any law book ever written.
Rating:
Summary: Inspiring
Review: This is truly one of the most inspiring and awesome movies I have every seen. Although basically every minute of the movie is in one room I was hanging on its every word. The acting is great, but the real message is the there is a little bit of each of those characters in all of us. Henry Fonda's character exposes the fact that all of us have our own issues and prejudices which guide each and every decision that we make. Those 12 angry men are truly a microcosm of today's society.
Rating:
Summary: A masterpiece of great acting
Review: TWELVE ANGRY MEN is unique in being one of the few films based on a television screenplay. The movie developed out of Reginald Rose's 1954 teleplay for "Studio One," and was just a critical success that it was filmed for general film release in 1957. This film is all about one thing: great acting. The plot itself is as simple as any in the movies: a jury convenes to render its verdict in a murder trial. The initial vote is eleven guilty and one not guilty. The remainder of the movie consists of the lone not guilty overcoming the prejudices, the biases, and the inner personal demons of the other eleven. The ostensible star of the film is Henry Fonda, but all twelve actors do stunning jobs in their respective roles, and the way that these twelve extremely distinct personalities interact is one of the great joys of the film. The film ends up a character study, as the moral and emotional make up of each individual is reveals as each personal reveals his reasons for defending his guilty or not guilty vote. Many of the actors were stalwarts of the American stage. Henry Fonda is best known as a film actor, but he frequently in his career made trips back to the stage. Lee J. Cobb made nearly a hundred films, but far and away his greatest achievements were on stage, in particular in arguably the greatest role in an American stage play in the 20th century: creating the role of Willy Loman in Arthur Miller's DEATH OF A SALESMAN. E. G. Marshall is another actor familiar on screen, but whose greatest work was in theater. The same is true of Martin Balsam and Jack Warden, who made his film debut in this movie. But it isn't fair to do anything but praise all twelve actors. Every single one leaves his mark on this film. Any fan of great cinema or great acting needs to see this film. There was later a first rate recreation of this film in color done for cable TV. Jack Lemmon capably performed the Henry Fonda role and George C. Scott one. Not quite as good as the original, but still exceedingly watchable.
Rating:
Summary: Back to basics! This is a must see for any movie lover...
Review: When I watched this movie I did not now much about it, other than it was old. I couldn't imagine it would be one of my best movie experiences of my life. But it was, and still is. Either you like old movies or not. If you belong to the first category chances are you have seen this one. If not, do it! This is the thriller of thrillers! If old movies do not appeal to you either listen up or miss something really special! This movie goes back to basics, where the moviemakers actually had to think to create an exciting plot (No offence but most movies today tend to compensate a lousy story, bad dialogue or acting with hitech effects). They had to carry the stories on with well thought dialoges and characters. I mean, we are talking about a movie talking place in one room (!), has the same 12 actors in it, an obvious ending (at least that is the impression you get!) and it is still so exciting that you forget the clock ticks! It's a thrill to see the story develop and to get to know the characters and what motivates their behaviour! This movie has few modern counterparts, but I know one -- the usual suspects. If you like movies like that, go for it! If not, give it a shot anyway!
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely Fabulous
Review: This movie points out the effects and influences of those around us. It is set in a jury room where they are debating the guilt of the defendant. It is 11 against 1, with one person not so sure. By the end of the movie, it is 11 against 1 with 1 person not so sure (only with the opposite verdict). Being made in 1957 this is a movie that can be watched by all family members and is well worth watching. One of my favorite films of all time and it is very thought provoking. Once you pay attention to the different characters in the movie and their reactions to the questions and information and each other. A true study of human nature and "the pack mentality" that even today can be described as "peer pressure". This movie is a must have for any movie collection and a must view for anyone who likes movies to think about. a definate classic!
Rating:
Summary: What Really Goes on in that Back Room
Review: "12 Angry Men" is an all time classic. It outshines all of the modern movies that have focused on court drama because it does what no other movie can do. It accurately informs the viewer of the movie about what really goes on in the back room where the jurors of a case discuss the trial and also gives a lesson on human nature. The movie is about a court case in which a young man is accused of killing his father. The movie picks up at the end of the hearing, right before the jurors go back into that back room. Of the 12 men that made up the jury, all but one man thought that the defendant was guilty. The man that thinks that the accused murderer is innocent is all by himself and over the course of this enthralling movie, we see how one man can overcome a majority and bring about what may be the truth. One of the great things about "12 Angry Men" is that it shows human nature at its best. 12 men are given the task of deciding whether or not a young man is guilty of murder. On man, as stated above, thinks that the defendant is inncoent of the crime. As the movie progresses the man that believes that the accused is innocent is the only man that will talk about the case and share his opinions. He uses logic and his own beliefs to prove what he wants to prove. The other 11 men start to think about what has been said and they start talking about the case. This is what shows human nature. This film shows that it takes just one person to help bring about the right way in doing something. This is a classic that nobody that is interested in the judicial branch should miss. After watching this film you get a good feeling inside because this is an all around great film. I strongly recommend this film because it gives accurate information on the jury system and reveals some information on human nature and physcology. I insist that you see this film, it is really worth it. Happy Viewing!
Rating:
Summary: Enthralling from start to finish
Review: I was fascinated by this entire film. Yes, it is basically a filmed stage play, but the idea of having everything happen within such a suffocatingly close space works amazingly well. No cheap shots, no explosions, no car chases. Just a well-written script with talented actors all doing their part. I liked seeing that I recognized all 12 jurors from other roles, and even knew most of the names. We pretty much remember Henry Fonda and Ed Begley looking like they do in the film, but to see Jack Warden and Jack Klugman as relatively young actors show how time flies. This movie should be at the top level of all these actor's resumes. I also liked how they handled certain prejudices. I'm sure certain words were left out that would have been used at that time, but not as much as you might think. While it was more acceptable to make minority comments in those days, there was also a politeness today's society lacks. These men would have observed this politeness. But the fact that this issue was so important to several jurors, and the fact that they had to get this feeling out shows a great blend of writing and acting. A big winner.
Rating:
Summary: Impressive!!!
Review: It is very interesting movie. This film shows twelve men¡¯s debate in one room except first scene, which is inside a court and last scene, which is outside a court. It does not seem to take money. The synopsis of this film is quite plain. Twelve jurors sentence to a boy who is indicted for murder. However, one juror declares not guilty, he was not sure of guilty. Another jurors complained that, they think it more in detail. One by one, they have doubts and situations that were thought as a fact, become uncertain circumstance. Finally, they change their mind to not guilty one by one. It is a nice point of this film. As I was watching this film, I found some peculiar things. It is a constituent of jury who are all men and Caucasian. It explains atmosphere of the society at that time as this film was made in 1957. U.S.A. accepts a jury system typically, so the constituent of jury is quite important. Twelve jurors all indicate different occupation, personality and thinking. This point is also amusing. At First, guilty was superior to not guilty eleven versus one, but at the end this situation completely changes on the contrary. It is splendid and attractive because of well-organized screenplay and outstanding performance. Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb, their acting was brilliant and impressive. This film is the best work as a courtroom film that is ever made.
Rating:
Summary: The finest courtroom drama
Review: 12 Angry Men is one of the finest courtroom dramas ever created for the silver screen. Although many other movies have borrowed liberally from the plot, they have never captured the tension of this film or it's humanity. It is for this reason that I believe 12 Angry Men will outshine many other flashier movies to be a classic worth seeing by your grandchildren's children.
The plot is very simple. A poor, young man from the wrong side of the tracks in on trial for murdering his father in a fit of anger. The evidence seems overwhelming: an eyewitness to the killing, a murder weapon was a knife owned by the young man, and he was seen fleeing from the scene of the crime. Guilty? You'll have to wait and see.
Well, when our film starts the 12 jurors have just been led to the jury room where they are to decide if the defendant should be convicted and given the death penalty. Eleven of the jurors vote guilty without really reviewing any of the evidence. Mr. Davis (Henry Fonda), juror #12, objects and asks that his apathetic companions at least give take a look at all of the information before sentencing the boy to death. The other 11 jurors are incensed by this waste of time but finally, they agree.
Watch as the evidence is examined bit by bit and make up your own mind. Guilty? Innocent? That really isn't even the point. This is a beautiful example of how suspense can be wrought without eerie music and 2 million dollars worth of sets. Ninety-eight percent of the film takes place in a small, claustrophobic jury room where you can feel the heat of bodies and smell the sweat, and know the true face of the man who has the seat next to you. Layer and layer of pretense is stripped from the characters until their true selves emerge and then, and only then, can they begin to see the truth in the case.
Although he has been nominated for 5 Oscars in the past, Sidney Lumet has never been given the kudos he deserves as a director. Without props or fantastic sets, this film relies heavily on intense performances from his all star cast-and he manages to bring it all together into a film that is even greater than all of its parts. I salute him. Don't miss 12 Angry Men -you will regret missing one of the finest movie experiences of your life.
| 
