12 Angry Men

Rating:
Summary: Riveting
Review: A marvelous look at the court system, peer pressure, and social norms then and now, this classic ranks up there with TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, INHERIT THE WIND, and a host of other great movies from the fifties and sixties. Remarkable what they could do back then with only talent and a sparse set.

Rating:
Summary: Still engaging
Review: I've seen the newer version with Jack Lemmon and became more involved since I was familiar with most of the actors. Although I only recognized a couple actors in this version, I still found myself getting involved. The plot is still the same, but watching the actors connect with each other is worth seeing it.

The basic plot is a group of men who are placed in a locked room to decide the fate of a young man facing a murder charge. Beyond a reasonable doubt, this movie shows you what happens behind the closed doors.

This film is ideal in the classroom for facilitating discussion on decision making and group dynamics. Although you don't hear the legal argument, you hear the pieces of it from the jurors' discussion. I highly recommend watching this.

Rating:
Summary: Great Acting From All Twelve
Review: 12 ANGRY MEN is a movie that one can watch again and again - as I have during the past three months - and not tire of. Each time I see the film, I am riveted by the superb writing, direction, and acting. Who could mind being trapped in a hot, cheerless jury room for ninety minutes with such great actors as Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Ed Begley, Martin Balsam, and Jack Klugman? Even the less famous actors, like Edward Binns, Jack Warden, Robert Webber, John Fiedler, Joseph Sweeney, and George Voskovec, are first-rate. By the way, here is an interesting bit of trivia. Did you know that at least five of the twelve "jurors" had important roles in plays by Arthur Miller (my favorite playwright and one of America's finest)? Lee J. Cobb, of course, was renowned for his Willy Loman in DEATH OF A SALESMAN (and it is a Loman-like character he plays here). E.G. Marshall and Joseph Sweeney created the roles of Reverend Hale and Giles Corey in THE CRUCIBLE; Ed Begley was the original Joe Keller in ALL MY SONS; and Jack Klugman played Willy Loman later in his career. That so many of these actors were closely associated with one of the twentieth century's foremost playwrights would alone be enough to recommend 12 ANGRY MEN.

Rating:
Summary: Important and Profound
Review: Both the play from which this film was adapted, and this film appeared in the 50s, when America was flying high and the paranoia of McCarthyism was still palpable. TWELVE ANGRY MEN is a clarion call to stop the rush to judgement on individuals based on appearances or flimsy evidence. Henry Fonda, who believed so much in the project that he financed much of it, as Juror No. 8 embodies the cool, unbiased American who doesn't take the easy way of going with the crowd. (Interesting note: none of the jurors are referred to by their names, although Fonda and Sweeney introduce themselves at the end. This anonymity, however, doesn't prevent their individual personalities from coming forward.)

Under Sidney Lumet's meticulous direction, all 12 jurors come to a boiling point in the claustrophobic, pre-air conditioning jury room. And all 12 actors are given their moments to shine several times. To reinforce what everyone else has been saying, Fonda, Cobb, Marshall and Begley are the stand-outs here but they and Lumet are careful not to let anyone steal the show.

Nearly 50 years later, this movie still remains fresh and relevant. It is an important reminder that jury duty is not an excuse to take time off from work, nor should it be viewed as an inconvenience which we should shun. Most of the time the system works, and the system works because 12 people, as Juror No. 11 explains, decide the fate of another citizen based on objective evidence, and, most importantly, they have no stake in the outcome. This is a film that makes even the most jaded American nod in appreciation for how justice is dispensed.

Rating:
Summary: One of the Best Movies
Review: The first time I saw this movie, I was hooked, and every time it comes on tv, I do my best to watch it. You have this young Hispanic boy who is accused of killing his father. He doesn't have the best background,and they are asking for the death penalty for this young guy,and when the jury goes in to deliberate,you have eleven men willing to convict,but one who doesn't wish to convict.The arguments brought out and the things that the jurors forgot about,yet remembered when in deliberation makes you wonder how some people judge without really looking at ALL the evidence. What a great film.

Rating:
Summary: They don't make them like this anymore!
Review: As clearly illustrated by viewer reviews previous to mine, this is a brilliant example of filmmaking. Not only for the classic theme of courtroom dramas which became an important element in the late 50s followed with WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION, ANATOMY OF A MURDER, JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG and many others, but 12 ANGRY MEN clearly dramatizes the elements present behind closed jury room doors.

Picture a scenario: 12 people, complete strangers to each other, different ages, different backgrounds, different values, different personalities, and different occupations are all sitting together in a cramp room seriously lacking of air conditioning on a rainy afternoon. 11 jurors with the exception of Henry Fonda vote guilty immediately. Therein lies the tale.

This is more than film entertainment. It serves as a life's lesson to be learned. Henry Fonda's Juror #8 serves as a charactization of a person who sees different sides to every question, and believes in proper and sheer analysis of the facts before a death sentence of the accused felon is to be determined. His motive is not merely to change their votes, but to get each of them to rethink their hasty convictions. Along the way, each character is slowly but surely beginning to see more in common with themselves with Fonda than meets the eye.

His main opposition consists of Robert Webber as a smug advertising man who thinks of people in terms of percentages, Jack Warden a marmalade salesman who is more concerned about ballgame tickets, Ed Begley as a bitter garage owner who has little or no respect for his fellow man, E.G. Marshall as a stockbroker who is very quick to support the defendant's guilt, yet is unwilling to admit his own conscious guilt in such matters. Finally Lee J. Cobb stars as a gruff, bitter Messenger Service Exchange merchant who is simply determined to have the defendant committed.

There have been many dramatizations and repeat viewers following, but this adaptation remains the very best of all of them - more importantly it should (in my opinion) serve as a model for other films to follow, and a moral to analyze the facts before you know the truth, and never set passions before principles.
Excellent direction by Sidney Lumet and Boris Kaufman's photography is top notch!

A DEFINITE MUST SEE! HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

Rating:
Summary: An excellently made courtroom drama
Review: I'm not a fan of old movies, but this film was very compelling and excellenly directed. Unlike other legal dramas, the entire film takes place in the juror room. The beginning of the movie starts out with the jurors leaving to deliberate, and a single shot of the man whose fate they have to decide on. I normally would have been bored with a film that takes place in a single setting, but the director does an incredible job of presenting the different characters, and brings a lot of personality to every one. The viewer begins to understand each of the jurors as the movie progresses, and their reasonings for their verdict.

The other great thing about this filmn, is that none of the facts of the case are presented in the court, and all of the knowledge the viewer has about the case come from the jurors. As they present their arguments, we begin to learn more about what might or might not have happened. At the end of the film, we still don't know what actually happened, which shows that the movie isn't about whether or not the man is guilty or not, but the reasoning and logic that produces the final verdict given by the jurors. The tension in the jury room is amazing and you find yourself siding with certain jurors, almost as if you were actually in the room.

As far as the DVD for this film goes, it's pretty weak. ZERO extras on a DVD nowadays is just unacceptable, even if the movie is 40 years old. I'm sure in their extensive vault they could have come up with something.

Rating:
Summary: My kind of hero.
Review: I forget how many lawyers TV series and movies I've seen in my lifetime - and none of them all put together are worth as much to me as this single picture.
The script is simply wonderful. Having enough time to elaborate and make his point to the other jurors, and without ever losing his temper or his moral and intellectual superiority, a good man manages to turn the table and save the life of a man who is innocent, who would otherwise have been sent to hang.
It's one of those movies that teach you how to think and feel and make you want to be that kind of hero - not the happy trigger kind.

Rating:
Summary: BEYOND "REASONABLE DOUBT" THE CLASSIC DIALOG-LED FILM
Review: I am not a big fan of B&W movies, so a film needs to be a extraordinary in some way for me to bear it. 12 Angry Men is surely one of them.

The setting is limited to one smoke-filled backroom, at a time when men felt naked if they took their jacket and tie off. 11 of these jurors came into the room wanting to fry the defendant, but 1 was determined to point out all the ambiguous testimony, nobly toting the concept of "reasonable doubt." Guess who triumphs in the end?

The ensuing conversations are fascinating. Sidney Lumet had complete mastery even then. The claustrophobia is palpable, but the camera is fluid enough to give you every angle on the closed, locked room, and every emotion and bead of sweat on the men trapped at work there.

The cast is natural: sweaty, down-to-earth folk putting on their smart hats. You always feel like you are in there with them, following the logic, thinking about whether the evidence presented is believable. Yet the plot presents easy heroes and villains: the everyman just trying to make sure justice is done; the bigot who can't keep his opinions to himself; the noble immigrant. Social bromides, I am sure, perhaps even back in 1957.

If you have a thing for intelligent dialog-driven crime movies, this Lumet/Fonda partnership will keep you glued to the screen for an hour or two. Several times, perhaps.

Rating:
Summary: An answer to a Q or two
Review: A Giant of a Film!!! To add to the general knowledge - the film was filmed primarily on location at the Bronx County Couthouse in NYC - and one of the little secrets Lumet used was to gradually move the walls in on the jurors during the course of the film, dramatically heightening the claustrophobic effect!! (Did I just mix a metaphor???)
The ensemble cast - truly outstanding. Not to be missed - and to be discussed. This is a timeproof reflection of the frailities of us all.