I understand why this is considered important and good, but I must admit I was bored stiff during this movie.
This movie, which takes place all in one room, is emotional and powerful.
Angry!? They don't even lay a finger (let alone a light slap) on each other in this drawn-out, one-set movie. Look to Twilight for a film bristling with emotions and true anger, characterized by violent rages and emotional outbursts.
One of the things that keeps this film so mesmerizing and relevant is the Us Versus Them Curse is still too much among us - it simply is a Hydra that keeps shifting appearances. And whether we admit it or not, we`re ALL part of the problem. Whether you use the term `nigger` or must check the color of the accused`s skin to be `politically correct` (AKA: "Poor little dumb darkie don`t know no better!"), blindly O.K. the actions of anyone with a badge or immediately riot `cuz "Everybody knows ALL cops are pigs!", proclaim all Americans from the age of three should carry an AK 47 to be safe and shoot to kill anyone who says otherwise, or run to burn down poor black neighborhoods then rush home to your gated communities to see yourself on the news "protesting for peace and love!", you are part of the problem. When we start pointing at all the `hypocrites`, each of us best start (AND END) with pointing at ourselves. There is no justification for the popular `one-size-fits-all` mentality. There are only facts and the individual`s behavior and actions. Accusations of "He`s Black", "He`s A Dumb Redneck!", "All Cops Are Pigs!" are the actions of lazy fools who don`t want to be bothered with thinking for themselves in one of the few countries where that right exist. Think about it. And don`t just rigidly conform to be a `nonconformist`!
One of the best films I ever saw. And it makes one think that the "beyond reasonable doubt" part of jury decision, why was it good up until now, until the Bill Cosby trial, but suddenly there were doubts about the reasonable doubt clause in the minds of some jury members, so a "mistrial" was declared, and Cosby even went so far with his infamy that he started a lecturing tour (maybe about the respect for women?) Now, this "reasonable doubt about reasonable doubt" trick was invented to save " America's Daddy" from infamy. And what about the "free" decision of the Jury? Well, some Jury members can be intimidated outside court, as it happened with witnesses after the JFK case. Some of the witnesses were killed, others intimidated and those people changed their statements or they fled and went to live in other parts of the country. Justice is rendered by people, and thus is vulnerable to dishonesty. Now, this film shows us an independent, free jury, and it's fascinating to see how human perception and judgment is playing a role in rendering a decision they make by their own conscience, assessing the evidence, using their common sense to see things "beyond reasonable doubt." Cosby had connections, and I knew in advance his cronies will find a raft for him to sail into safety. I just have reasonable doubts about the use of that "reasonable doubt" thing's sincerity, which was twisted out of context to declare "mistrial." This movie here is an excellent one about the decision-making by an honest, free jury.
This is a 1957 American courtroom drama directed by Sidney Lumet, adapted from a teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose.
The film shows the story of a jury made up of 12 men as they deliberate the guilt or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt.
In the United States, a verdict in most criminal trials by jury must be unanimous.
Only one of the jurors goes for not-guilty at the beginning.
The different personalities of the jury add intensity and conflict during the stormy discussion.
No names are used in the film except for the last scene.
It is remarkable that, during 96-minute run time, only one jury room is used in the film except 3 minutes spent in the main courtroom.
Yet the film makes you stay at the edge of your seat.
Superb are the performances of all the actors.
No wonder it was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".
Captivating, engaging and exquisitely acted.
Amazing movie that speaks volumes to each of us of the awesome responsibility of serving on a jury. The cast headed by Henry Fonda is wonderful. Each contributes so much to their characters that one becomes fascinated with studying how they think. You just might change the way you look at minorities or those less fortunate than yourself. "12 Angry Men" makes the world a better place to live in!
Filmed almost entirely within the confines of a small jury room, Sidney Lumet’s intense courtroom drama is absolutely engrossing. His roster of A-List stars play off one another expertly on a set that is little more than a claustrophobic mix of sweat and cigarette smoke. As the afternoon’s deliberations wear on and tempers begin to flare Lumet deftly places each separate juror on trial, slowly exposing the hidden motives and deep-seated prejudices influencing their decisions. While one man holds anyone from “those neighbourhoods” in equal disdain another has an axe to grind with his own son, a situation that quickly sets him on a collision course with Fonda’s character. In the end however, as a sudden rainstorm brings some relief from the oppressive heat, it is time for one final, decisive vote. With its brilliant cast and tightly focused direction "12 Angry Men" is a powerful ensemble piece exploring what can happen when conscience versus consensus. An American classic.
An interesting legal drama! Definitely not an action film, as it is heavy on dialogue, but it definitely puts you in the mind of a regular jury member.
There are no age suitabilities for this title yet.
There are no summaries for this title yet.
There are no notices for this title yet.
There are no quotes for this title yet.