12 Angry Men (50th Anniversary Edition) Reviews

• How to make a great movie (recipie below)

  
  By A1PB4CAWL8T413 on 2000-09-19
  1 incredible script
  12 talented actors
  lots of emotion
  1 very simple set
  no special effects
  

  Produce under good direction. Serves millions.

  Seriously, this film is a masterpiece. A jury has to decide a seemingly open and shut case of a young man (who, as with most of the jurors, remains nameless throughout the film) who has been accused of murdering his father in a fit of anger. The evidence couldn't be clearer that this guy did it. Murder weapon, motive, eyewitness testimony all in place.

  One juror (Fonda) however, wants to talk the case out. He's not 100% convinced that the guy is guilty. And so it begins. An emotional roller coaster follows as we learn about the jurors, their reasons for voting as they do and how (or if) they are forced to re-evaluate the evidence.

  Part of the charm of this film is it's starkness. 99% of the film takes place in one room; the jury room, a simple set consisting of little more than a table, 12 chairs, some windows and a fan.

  The best part, I believe, is the character development of the jurors. When the movie begins, they are just 12 anonymous characters. Even though none of the jurors are named in the movie (two are in the very last scene, after the case is over) by the time the movie is over, you feel as if you know and understand every one of them.

  Truly a remarkable film and well worth repeated viewings.
  
  

• the elusive truth

  
  By AQ8DU6XVA3USJ on 2005-02-21
  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.
  
  
  

• A Masterpiece, not a Megabudgeter.

  
  By A18RBRV5S99XD8 on 1999-06-12
  Where do I start? How many films can you honestly watch three times in a fortnight and know it wont be too long before you feel compelled to view it again? 12 Angry Men, a movie that risks everything on a script, and succeeds triumphantly because that script sets you back on your heels(instead of earth-shatteringly expensive special effects or exotic location work) and draws a uniformly astounding set of performances from a cast most of whom were unfamiliar at the time. Henry Fonda, one of only two "big" names amongst the dozen participants, has the advantage also of being the one who stands against the view of a group of jurors, hell bent on putting a young boy in the electric chair for "obviously" murdering his father. Yet each character is played so well, is so interestingly unique in each case, and is given such telling lines, that you hang on the words of them all equally. The other well known face, (at least in 1957), is Lee J. Cobb, who in any other film would have stolen it completely, but here is "merely" as memorable as all the others. Robert Webbers character is excruciatingly irritating, but hes playing it to perfection none the less. That Fondas viewpoint will win the day is probably never in doubt, but how he,(and infact some of the other characters despite themselves), achieves this is positively gripping and astonishing. Sidney Lumet, in his directorial debut, proved at once what he was capable of, and, in this single set scenario, that classic status does not necessarily depend on an extravagant outlay. One of the Top Five Best Movies of all time. I rest my case!
  
  

• 1 Great Script + 1 Director Named Lumet + 12 Jurors + 12 Fine Acting Performances = 1 Heckuva Good Movie!

  
  By A1FDW1SPYKB354 on 2005-11-03
  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 quite so well and so very convincingly as 1957's wonderful "12 Angry Men".
  
  This black-and-white classic court drama was directed by Sidney Lumet and co-produced by one its star actors, Henry Fonda. The film premiered in movie theaters on April 13th, 1957.
  
  This was Sidney Lumet's very first feature film as a director. He had only directed television programs up until "12 Angry Men". Lumet's first theatrical effort turned out to be a very good one indeed, belying its low budget and short three-week shooting schedule.
  
  Did you know ..... That "12 Angry Men" was originally written for a TV program? The teleplay version was aired in 1954, as an episode of the TV series "Studio One".
  
  The film was remade in 1997 (as a Made-for-Cable-TV movie), with Jack Lemmon starring in the Henry Fonda role. In many scenes, that newer version is pretty much a word-for-word duplication of the '57 film. The '97 version is OK, too. But the original is superior overall (IMO), with better jury-room atmosphere and that certain 1950s-period detail and aura that could never be replicated in later decades. William Friedkin (one of my favorite movie directors) directed the '97 version of "Angry Men". I hadn't realized that Friedkin was involved in the remake until doing some research for this Amazon review.
  
  The '57 version of "Angry Men" earned three Oscar nominations, including one for "Best Picture" of the year (it lost out to "The Bridge On The River Kwai").
  
  Henry Fonda stars in the film as "Juror #8". Fonda's arguments, as he attempts to persuade his fellow jurors of the defendant's "possible" but by no means "certain" innocence, play out exceptionally well in this film. This is due in no small part to Fonda's fine performance. Each of his eleven fellow actors (jurors), to a man, do quite nicely in their respective parts as well.
  
  Very nearly all of this 96-minute film was shot in the "jury room", a perfectly natural setting for the movie considering the subject matter, of course. From what I've read, an actual jury room was used to shoot "12 Angry Men", which further enhances the gritty, realistic look of this B&W classic. The old-time jury quarters come complete with high ceiling and big (sticky) windows. Another realistic touch was the rickety and troublesome electric fan that juror Jack Warden just can't seem to get started (until the light switch is flipped on).
  
  We get to see outside of that confining 16x24-foot jury room for only a very few minutes -- at the beginning and end of the movie. Those brief scenes include a nicely-done courtroom segment which depicts the trial's judge (portrayed by Rudy Bond) giving the jury the appropriate instructions before turning the murder case over to them. Note the bland, banal, and seemingly-uncaring manner in which the judge issues his instructions to the jury. I thought this was a good piece of writing here -- to have the judge, at the end of another long day in the sweltering non-air-conditioned courtroom, speak to the jury in a rather detached way. It's obvious that this judge has given out these exact same instructions many times prior to this trial. It's become merely "routine", and his robotic-like words are telling us that he could probably say this stuff in his sleep.
  
  After the jury files into the back room, we get our only look at the defendant in this murder trial -- a young 18-year-old Hispanic boy who is accused of knifing his father to death late one night. The boy glances at the jurors as they leave the courtroom; and it's hard at that early point in the film to not feel some compassion and sympathy for this young man whose life is in the hands of the twelve men he just watched leave the room. It's another fine piece of (silent) writing here, to give the audience one brief look at the person whom the film's story is really all about. The young defendant, played by John Savoca, never says a word here, and never utters a sound, but he says a lot with just his facial expressions during those few short seconds he's on camera.
  
  Very little music accompanies this movie (besides the low-key theme that plays under the opening credits and some additional music at the end of the picture). I'm guessing that Mr. Lumet was of the opinion that the tension in the jury room was ample enough to propel the film forward, and that a minimal amount of music was required. I think that's correct too.
  
  The cast here is comprised of all men. Not a woman juror to be found. Even the two "alternate" jurors who were dismissed at the start of the picture are men (we get a brief glimpse of those two male alternates in one shot during the short courtroom scene).
  
  I think it might have been interesting if one or two female jurors had been inserted into this Reginald Rose screenplay. But it was decided to go with an all-male jury instead. And I certainly can't fault the results. It's a film that works extremely well, despite the cliched premise (i.e., "11 vs. 1 in a jury room").
  
  Screen time is divided up pretty evenly between the "Twelve Angry Men" throughout the film. And each and every one of these twelve actors is worth watching here. They're all very good. If the words "top-notch ensemble cast" ever applied to a motion picture, that phrase certainly would adequately describe this film's troupe of actors.
  
  It's a cast filled with familiar faces (or soon-to-be-familiar faces, from a "circa 1957" perspective). As I look over this cast of 12, I'm reminded of something from a TV fan's standpoint .... and that is the connection between 8 of these 12 actors and one of the best-written television series ever aired, "The Fugitive" (which ran from 1963 to 1967). Eight of these "jurors" made guest appearances on "The Fugitive", some of them appearing in multiple episodes of that TV show.
  
  The majority of this "angry dozen" also showed up on lots of other TV programs in the years following the release of this film -- including many episodes of "The Twilight Zone", which (like "The Fugitive") proved to be a familiar stomping ground for several of these actors, with five of them logging guest appearances on that Rod Serling-created anthology program.
  
  
  Here's a rundown of the film's exceptional cast (complete with some random chunks of miscellaneous info and bio data re. each of these "jurors"):
  
  "Juror #1" (The Jury Foreman) -- Played by 37-year-old Martin Balsam. .... Martin was one of the last "holdouts" in the film, changing his vote from Guilty to Not Guilty quite late in the movie. .... Martin is possibly best-known for his part as "Detective Milton Arbogast" in 1960's "Psycho". His "meeting" with "Mother" on the stairs is a memorable scene in that Hitchcock shocker. .... Balsam passed away of a heart attack in February 1996. He was 76.
  
  "Juror #2" -- John Fiedler. .... John was the youngest of the twelve jurors (at age 32), besting Robert Webber for this "youngest" honor by just four months. .... Fiedler made scads of TV guest-starring appearances, including his memorable recurring role as "Mr. Peterson" in "The Bob Newhart Show" during the 1970s. .... He was also famous for providing voices for cartoon characters. .... The Wisconsin-born Fiedler died, at the age of 80, in June 2005.
  
  "Juror #3" -- Lee J. Cobb (age 45). .... A distinguished film actor ("The Exorcist"; "The Three Faces Of Eve"; "The Dark Past"), Cobb was the very last "Angry" juror to have his vote swayed. His emotion-filled breakdown at the end of the film put a cap on the roller-coaster ride of feelings he exhibits throughout the movie. An extra nice touch is when Henry Fonda's character helps Cobb on with his jacket after all the other jurors have left the room. Fonda shows his compassion toward Cobb here, despite the violent outbursts Cobb aimed at Fonda earlier. A nice finishing touch of humanity here. .... Cobb was 64 when he passed away in 1976.
  
  "Juror #4" -- E.G. Marshall (42 years old). .... Marshall acted in dozens of movies and made over 130 TV appearances (mostly in the early days of the medium). .... Was born in Minnesota in 1914. Died in 1998.
  
  "Juror #5" -- Jack Klugman (34 years of age during filming) -- Famous for his TV characters ("Oscar Madison" and "Quincy"), Jack's acting career began in the very earliest days of television (in 1950). .... Klugman is also remembered fondly by this writer for his parts in the TV series "The Twilight Zone". .... Klugman, like two of his jury-mates, was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (the other two Philly-born actors in the cast being Ed Binns and Joe Sweeney).
  
  "Juror #6" -- Edward Binns. .... There's a nifty little "connection" between Binns and Henry Fonda (besides this picture) -- i.e., both appeared in the 1964 film "Fail-Safe" as well ("Grady, this is the President!!"). Binns was playing bomber pilot "Grady" when he was being screamed at by "President" Fonda. Another "Fail-Safe"/"12 Angry Men" tie-in is the fact that Sidney Lumet directed both movies. .... Ed Binns passed on in December of 1990 (when he was 74). He was 40 when he played "Juror Number Six".
  
  "Juror #7" -- Jack Warden. .... Jack provides most of the comic relief in this movie. He gets in several zingers at the expense of Baltimore Orioles' baseball fan Jack Klugman -- "Baltimore? What have they got, except good groundskeeping?" -- "And pop-ups are fallin' for base hits wherever we look!". .... Warden was 36 in early 1957 when "Angry Men" was filmed. .... Jack's acting career, in both TV and in the movies, extends back to 1951.
  
  "Juror #8" -- Henry Fonda. .... The most recognized name in the cast, Fonda was 51 when he made "12 Angry Men". .... Henry was famous for his many highly-memorable big-screen roles, in such films as "Mister Roberts", "The Grapes Of Wrath", "Young Mr. Lincoln", and "On Golden Pond". .... I'm also very partial to Fonda's performance in "Fail-Safe", in which (as mentioned previously) he portrayed the President of the United States. .... Henry Fonda left behind a legion of faithful fans and a legendary roster of film roles when he died on August 12th, 1982, at the age of 77.
  
  "Juror #9" -- Joseph Sweeney. .... Sweeney was the oldest (72) and one of the most likeable of the 12 jurors in the film. .... Joe was one of only two jurors whose name was revealed in the movie (Mr. "McCardle"). .... Sweeney only made six movies, with "12 Angry Men" being his last. His first film was a 1918 silent flick called "Sylvia On A Spree". .... The 79-year-old Sweeney passed away on November 25, 1963 (the very same day that America buried its assassinated President, John F. Kennedy).
  
  "Juror #10" -- Ed Begley (Sr.). .... Begley, 56, played the bigoted "Juror Number Ten", whose "Not Guilty" vote does not come without a vigorous fight ("Ya know what I mean?"). .... I've always liked this guy in everything I've seen him in, from Barbara Stanwyck's father in the screen version of the famous radio play "Sorry, Wrong Number" (1948), to "Patterns" (both the TV version in 1955 and the film adaption the following year), to a skillful performance in "The Fugitive" in 1964, to his very funny part as a court judge in a 1965 episode of "The Dick Van Dyke Show" ("Mr. Petrie, is it your intention to go through the ENTIRE alphabet?!" LOL!). .... Ed Begley, in April 1970, died at the age of 69.
  
  "Juror #11" -- 51-year-old George Voskovec. .... The Austrian-born Voskovec was the only juror (actor) who was not a native of the United States. .... His lineup of credits includes several movie parts and better than fifty TV roles. .... Date of death: July 1, 1981 (age 76).
  
  "Juror #12" -- Robert Webber (age 32). .... Like many of these other actors, Webber's list of TV acting credits is about a mile long. Just prior to his death (of Lou Gehrig's Disease) in 1989, Robert had been a regular in the TV series "Moonlighting". .... He was also a common sight in 1970s-era television crime dramas.
  
  
  THE DOPE ON THIS DVD...........
  
  "MGM Home Entertainment, Inc." placed this DVD on the home-video market on March 6th, 2001. "12 Angry Men" is part of MGM's "Vintage Classics" series of DVDs.
  
  The disc sports a very-pleasing Widescreen (1.66:1) image and two Dolby Digital audio soundtracks (English 2.0 Mono and French 2.0 Mono). It's not an Anamorphic video transfer we see here, but picture detail looks excellent nonetheless. Very little to complain about, IMO. French and Spanish subtitles are on the disc, too.
  
  The Original Theatrical Trailer for "12 Angry Men" is the lone bonus supplement offered up on the disc. Run time for the trailer is 2:13. As with many trailers of this era, watch for the "alternate" takes of scenes (which are not quite the same as what end up on screen in the final cut of the movie). Lee Cobb's "fuming tirade" scene, for instance, is a different "take" than the one in the finished film, with some extra (snarling) dialogue added as well.
  
  I get a kick out of old trailers. And while this one for "12 Angry Men" doesn't include the melodramatic screen-filling written passages that some (even older) movie trailers contain, the narration we find here has that same 'overdone' effect. An example being when this completely-inaccurate narration is heard in the trailer: "Twelve men turned into twelve clawing animals!" ... Huh?? 12 clawing animals? This is not true at all. Only one of the jurors would even remotely fit that description (Cobb).
  
  The overly-dramatic music used for the trailer is not to be found in the movie itself either. Fun-to-watch stuff though.
  
  The DVD Menus are quiet and static in nature. Four choices are available from the disc's Main Menu screen -- "Play"; "Scene Selections" (four Menu screens used for the movie's 16 chapters); "Theatrical Trailer"; and "Languages".
  
  No paper insert is included.
  
  I'd also like to point out a mistake in the movie description that is found on the back of the DVD case. For some reason the author of that descriptive blurb claims: "Eleven jurors are convinced that the defendant is guilty of murder. The twelfth has no doubt of his innocence".
  
  The above passage is not accurate. The 12th juror referred to there (Fonda) is not at all completely convinced of the defendant's innocence. Fonda's character (revealed as "Mr. Davis" in the final reel) states numerous times during the movie that he "isn't sure" if the boy is guilty or innocent. In fact, he says "I don't know" when asked point-blank by a fellow juror "Do you really think he's innocent?". So, I just wanted to point out this erroneous info being given to unaware DVD buyers who might take the package's blurb to heart. Certainly not an Earth-shaking error, but still worth pointing out.
  
  There's another minor error on the packaging as well. The box claims that the film received "four" Academy Award nominations...which is wrong. It received three.
  
  ----------------
  
  To close this "Angry" dissertation ;) .........
  
  "12 Angry Men" has been one of my favorite motion pictures for a long time now. It's certainly one of the best-written and competently-acted dramas of its kind ever produced. And this sparkling-looking DVD edition only makes me want to revisit this film all the more. And I'll bet that the odds are 11-to-1 in favor of other DVD owners feeling that same way after viewing this Digital Disc.
  
  Pretty good odds, huh? (Or are they?) ~wink~
  
  

• The finest courtroom drama

  
  By A3N9TGJFS6IQFY on 2002-03-29
  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.
  
  
• BEYOND "REASONABLE DOUBT" THE CLASSIC DIALOG-LED FILM
  By A1L8HRCM60W0W7 on 2003-11-23
  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.
  
  

• I Could Watch Over and Over
  By on 1999-11-25
  I've seen this movie at least seven times and I'm still not remotely tired of it. Henry Fonda turns in one of his best performances as a stubbon jury member who thinks the man they're trying for the murder of his father may be innocent, despite seemingly overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Despite initial disagreement from the other 11 members of the jury, Fonda shows that the case isn't as open and shut as everyone thought. He also reveals that prejudice is playing a major role in the way the men are making their decisions. Lee J. Cobb is fantastic as a prejudice guy taking out the anger he feals over fights he has with his son on the young man being tried. E.G. Marshall stands out as an inteligent and logical man fighting against Fonda until the end, and Ed Beggley excels as a common bigot who believes all the poor are bums and crooks (a speach he gives at the end of the film to that effect is quite powerful. As he speaks, each of the jurors turn away, and by the end, no one is listening and Beggley breaks). Rounding out this supurb cast is Jack Warden, Martin Balsam, and a very young Jack Klugman. Director Sidney Lumet takes almost nothing (a cast of about 12, one room, no special effects) and transforms it into a rich, provocative, and moving story about America and the men who live there. If only today's directors could do the same.
  
  
• 'no one wears eyeglasses to bed'
  By A193A7T1E8CUTB on 2006-09-24
  I first saw this movie years ago on the late late when I was around [...] years old. It impressed me and gave me a lot to think about. Today, and over the years, it still does.
  
  It achieves something which the best writing does-but it achieves it in a way that is fully cinematic. A book could not substitute for it. What makes it stand the test of time--and have appeal to many personal ages and stages--is its multiple layers. This is not just one story. It is actually several stories overlapping-and interpenetrating.
  
  Having watched it many times, it seems that every frame counts for something. Virtually the whole story takes place in one small jury room, of which we are given the benefit of seeing from virtually every perspective. The same for the characters, which are themselves anything but two dimensional. The film does not have a dull moment--not even when the characters themselves are doodling and bored!
  
  When I first saw the movie, I thought that it had something to do with human perfection always being within reach even in an imperfect situation. An imperfectly conducted trial with a selection of angry and biased jurors working within an imperfect system of law is brought to perfection as the jurors gradually realize that doubt is always possible and so the law itself forbids the death penalty-it merely leaves the decision in the hands of the jurors. That was my understanding when I was nine. I have since seen many other ways of looking at it and, though I still think that in some way the theme of perfection under imperfect circumstances is part of it, I also think there are many other layers.
  
  Though I all but have the dialogue memorized, I still notice new things when I watch it again. This was a very studied production, from the exact wording of the script, to the body language of the characters and direction and camera angles--again from the smallest details, beginning with simply the jurors trying to get comfortable and make their "space" as they are locked in the jury room-along with the small interpersonal exchanges--right up to the involved discussions and passionate confrontations.
  
  An important story layer lies in the theme of how conformity shapes human opinion, and what an individual can and cannot do to effectively awaken the use of reason in a group of people-not simply establishing another conformity or fashion. This is perhaps the predominant layer, insofar as it coincides with what the film is most famous for: one lone juror, voting not guilty, holding out against and eventually persuading the other 11 who were voting guilty. Here it is an exceptionally good character study, showing how different possible psychological motives and dispositions may result in more or less flawed perceptions of, even concern for, truth. The film has been called optimistic, and it is in the sense that it suggests that under the right circumstances, this concern can be rekindled in everyone-that it is universal.
  
  Another story layer lies in the theme of how leadership works and what it means. There are several characters who, for different reasons, represent "natural leaders," and several others who, for different reasons, represent "natural followers." But things never quite naturally fall into place, and the struggles between the characters as they vie for position never quite works out as they, or even the audience, expects. But what happens is very believable, and there is not a cheap shot taken in the whole plot. Ultimately there is a showdown between the hero and his chief nemesis, but the nemesis winds up performing what is perhaps the most morally heroic act in the whole film.
  
  It is also an excellent detective story, an excellent whodunit. The guilty verdict which seems cut and dried at the beginning is gradually and effectively analyzed as it is supplemented with details so that it does become questionable-and not in a cheap way; it still leaves you thinking.
  
  Acting is very good. I'd rank Henry Fonda's low key performance his masterpiece. Also the masterpiece of a number of masterful character actors.
  
  In my most recent viewing, I decided that the defendant is, in fact, innocent...
  
  
• 12 distinguished actors.
  By A53LE13K1AONQ on 1999-09-21
  I had heard references of this film many times and wanted to see what the fuss was about.Earlier had watched a special effects sci/fi whizzarama and felt compelled to come down to earth very quickly. Well with Fonda and Lee J.Cobb and Sidney Lumet directing I guess you cant go wrong.I liked how the diferent characters interplayed with each other despite the differences in their backgrounds.E.G.Marshalls character,the smug accountant who doesnt sweat.You just gotta hate him. Having been on a jury even with the best intentions in the world after a few hours sitting with eleven strangers you pretty well get to know their personalities and prejudices no matter the evidence.After a while believe me it can get personal,especially when capital punishment is involved.The plot itself is not a new concept but it was then in 1957.I also liked the black&white photography which emphasized the seriousness of the plot.The ending was predictable of course but this did not detract from the marvellous performances of these actors most of whom sadly are no longer with us.I should feel moved to see the 1997 version just to compare the two, but I wont.Its in colour.
  
  
• Timeless. A classic. Will never be bogged down by age.
  By A3GW14989FU2N9 on 2001-08-23
  This movie shows you a simple truth. Take a fantastic script, twelve fine actors lead by Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb, no special effects, a very sparse setting that will not distract from the characters and the story and you have a great film. Being filmed in Black and White rather than color also added to to the greatness of this film. What 11 jurors believe to be an open and shut case of homicide turns out not be be so simple when one juror (Fonda) votes not guilty. He is not sure whether the boy is guilty or innocent but he has a reasonable doubt and believes that a capital crime with someone's life on the line deserves more than 5 minutes of the other juror's time. This movie is like an onion; it strips the characters bare and slowly as they talk and listen in the hot and stuffy jury room statements they thought were conclusive begin to become hazy. It's like a mystery being untangled. Even at the end, you really don't know the truth but you do know that the lives of the 12 men have been irrecovably changed. Rose pulls no punches in his dialogue. This movie will still be a classic in 100 years.
  
  
• Amazing film-crappy dvd
  By A1L6OCSI9IS4Q on 2008-03-09
  Is anyone else sick of of great movies being "double-dipped" on Dvd? They first come out with a bare bones edition on dvd, and then a little later they come out with a "special edition" dvd with only a couple extra features on it and then charge you more..like this dvd. Do you think this is all the supplemental materials that exist for this film? I seriously doubt it. Great film, lousy dvd.
  
  
• This movie highlights what is wrong with Hollywood....
  By A176IA89VGH46M on 2006-03-09
  ...because when was the last time they turned out a movie like this??? NO special effects, NO crazy shock endings, NO elaborate sets; just one HELL of a good script and a bunch of superior actors. Its hard to explain just what the power of this movie is, since by modern audience standards, it is 'old'. The film is in black and white, it takes place almost entirely in one room, the acting is typical '50s style (no 'method' acting here). And yet, 12 Angry Men is a better movie that virtually any Best Picture winner from the past two decades (YES, its THAT good). Brilliantly conceived, intelligently written, masterfully paced, wonderfully acted (shall I go on??). Henry Fonda and company put on a tour de force here, and the effect is amazing: You will be RIVETED to the screen as 12 men from different walks of life come together to decide the fate of one teenage boy. As a side note, this film will also make you realize just how good an actor Henry Fonda truly was, as he OWNS his role in 12 Angry Men.
  Oh, in case anyone is wondering if I am old or something (like that's the reason I like this movie: I just turned 35. Not exactly a senior citizen!)
  To anyone who hasn't seen this movie: Rent a copy now! HIGHEST (and I do mean HIGHEST) POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION!!
  
  
• Not Just a Courtroom Drama-Micro-spective of the Human Condition..Must SEE!!
  By AC9VA2KAQLSX4 on 2006-07-27
  This black and white masterwork of film is a must see for all. This is a not just a courtroom movie, but an examination of ourselves and how we see each other. Reginald Rose's original play reads like a powerhouse, even in a highschool english class, but given the direction of Sidney Lumet, the dynamite cast and the beautifully stark black and white cinematography it becomes a legend on film.
  
  This movie centers on the diverse jury and it's deliberations in the murder trial of a young Puerto Rican man accused of killing his own father. It is an examination of our perception of one another, our selfish nature, our apathy when a crisis occurs-but does not affect us and our preconceived ideas of each other NOT based not upon fact, but upon our own experiences and traumas. It sheds light on how we process our decisions and how we can be easily yet unknowingly swayed away from the truth and yet believe we make honest and fair evaluations of fact, when in all truth we do not.
  
  This was the ONLY film in which Henry Fonda starred AND was the producer and it was slow to take off at the box office. But within a few years this film became an american film mainstay. Regardless of the stunning performances and positive reviews, he never produced again.
  
  This film has many of the early television and film greats and each gives a RIVETING PERFORMANCE!!! There's Jack Klugman, Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, E.G. Marshall and Lee J. Cobb who gives one of the most memorable performances in the film. Cobb, who was known for his moving portrayal of Willie Loman in Death of a Salesman, is aggravating and compelling. Fonda depicts the "voice of reason" juror that is neither self-righteous or bleeding-heart wimpy. He challenges the other jurors and the viewer alike to rethink their conclusions and recalculate them by utilizing ALL the facts. Anyone that sees this movie will recognize at least someone they know that is like each juror, which are designated only by number throughout it's entirety, in their daily lives.
  
  Don't let the black and white format sway you, this DVD is presented in a lovely widescreen format that intensifies the expert cinematic talents of the golden age of the silver screen. This is considered an essential for anyone that loves film. My thirteen year old actually sat mesmerized through the whole film and began to watch some of my other DVDs (To Kill a Mockingbird, Inherit the Wind, Judgement At Nuremburg, to name a few) and at that tender young age, he is determined to spread the word and keep the tradition of sharing these movies of great distinction..
  
  Metaldiva Sez: This is one of the essential films you should watch and share with your friends and family. This is an excellent price to own and to share. Get it today....
  
  
  
• This Film Is Magic.
  By A2DYFG50K8TMM8 on 2006-10-12
  Why? Because the movie is about 12 men in a jury, who decide if the pleaded is guilty, or not. I still didn't answer the question. Somehow, they talk and argue for over and hour and a half, and SOME HOW we are still drawn to the screen and we can't take our eyes off of it for a second!
  
  The movie has the famous Henry Fonda(One upon a time in the west) along with 11 other top notch actors. All of which play characters that are NOTHING alike, and we love it. The performances are great, the script is more to marvel over, and the movie just makes you leave thinking good thougts, as well as baffled thoughts.
  
  1 man vs. 11
  
  
• Separates the men from the boys.
  By APYCNRS112N2B on 2000-02-05
  Take 12 great character actors and put them in one room for the entirety of the film, and do it without driving the audience crazy. How? By creating a masterpiece.

  Henry Fonda had started to direct the film (he produced it) but instead gave the nod to first-timer Sidney Lumet (who would go on to a string of `classics': Serpico, Prince of the City, The Verdict, Fail-Safe, Network).

  Through his use of the camera, Lumet creates much of the drama here. The intense setting, the biting dialogue is all well complimented by perfect casting, each of the twelve is right on target, from Robert Webber to John Fiedler and everyone in between.

  This film stands alone. It is blasphemous Showtime would do a remake in 1997 adding nothing to this fine original other than needless color film stock

  Sit back and enjoy a wonderful, one-of-a-kind piece of dramatic film making
  
  

• A powerhouse of a film, everything movies should be
  By A2B8GXSCB1R05T on 2003-07-02
  "12 Angry Men" is a masterpiece of stage production to film transition. It is the quintessential one-set, one-act story, where the power of the story and the quality of the acting are so gripping that you never even notice the sparse setting.

  Group dynamics are the theme of this story, as leaders emerge, personalities change, and text-book scenarios of group communication unfold. However, there is no sense of stodgy academia or creative exercise. It truly is a powerful, edge-of-the-seat type of story.

  Unfortunately, the DVD adds little, although with a film this great extras are not needed. The film looks good, and has aged like a fine wine.
  
  

• Great Acting From All Twelve
  By on 2004-01-23
  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 six 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; Jack Warden was Marco in the premiere of A VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE; 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.
  
  
• Brilliant
  By A2G7E3A0YN6XLV on 2006-03-24
  After seeing this film for the first time in a government class several years ago, I thought this could very well be one of the greatest films I had ever seen. And after watching this classic many times after that, I know realize exactly how brilliant this film is.
  
  For a director to make his debut into Hollywood, Sidney Lumet sure made a huge splash with this masterpiece. The concept of 12 jurors in a courtroom for the entire film, without any of them knowing each other at all at the beginning of the film, makes this movie worthwhile. The character advancement throughout this film is perhaps what makes it so interesting. Also, the variety of the characters involved makes for a truly remarkable viewing experience.
  
  The main concept deals with the trial of a boy who has been charged with first-degree murder. The jurors must decide the boy's fate, knowing that if he is accused, he will face a death sentence which will send him to the electric chair. For 11 of the jurors, the verdict seems simple. Guilty as charged. But for the other juror, played by Henry Fonda, he feels that there is still a possibility the boy is innocent.
  
  As the movie progresses, the facts are laid out on the table so to speak. But also the possibilities are explored, leading to a jury divided. The growing unity of the characters throughout this film is once again, true brilliance. This script could not have been written any better than it was.
  
  All in all, this is a film that someone of any age can enjoy. The story hooks you from beginning to end, and the characters are ones that many people can relate to. This is a must-watch for any film fan or someone just wanting to catch a great movie. Henry Fonda's performance is nothing short of excellent, and makes this a truly great film.
  
  
• Just A Great Movie!!!!!
  By A2SPHTIPK9IKDQ on 2006-05-06
  Need I say more? Anything good that the previous reviewers have said, I ditto. Great Acting, Directing, Writing with a clearcut theme touching on responsibility and our criminal justice system.
  
  I saw this story as a TV play in 1950 when it first appeared--it was great then, and it's still great. Buy it and keep it and see it often. We all can learn from it.
  
  
• An excellent case study in negotiations, influence, team building... Every manager/leader must watch this.
  By A12N9WYHS0OYLK on 2007-03-03
  I watched this movie last week as part of my coursework on Influence. This film is often used at business schools as a case study in negotiations, conflict management, team building, persuasion, etc.
  The story is about twelve jurors who need to decide whether a teenager accused of killing his father was guilty or not. A guilty verdict would result in a death sentence. The preliminary vote is eleven to one in favor of guilty. The only juror who votes not guilty is an architect played by Henry Fonda. He is unsure and proceeds by asking probing questions. The rest of the movie takes you through their decision making process.
  I will not spoil the story for you but will elaborate on what you should look out for while watching the movie. Pay close attention to the 12 characters. Each has a unique personality, influenced by their prejudices. Observe how they interact and how the coalitions are formed. Be aware of when public voting and private voting are used. Observe how Henry Fonda remains calm and impartial throughout the process and attacks issues and not people. Overall, observe how interpersonal and procedural tactics influence group decisions.
  The 12 jurors - referred to by juror number and seated in clockwise order on the table:
  1. The foreman - an assistant football coach
  2. Bank teller - has a high-pitched voice and wears glasses
  3. Businessman - who is aggressive and has a broken relationship with his son
  4. Stockbroker - arrogant, self-confident and driven by the facts
  5. Man from the slums - quiet and self-conscious, dressed in a suit
  6. House painter - strong physically, stands up for his principles
  7. Salesman - wears a straw hat and cares primarily about a baseball game he might miss
  8. Architect (Henry Fonda) - calm, impartial and rational
  9. Old man - weak physically but with a strong sense of justice
  10. Garage owner - aggressive person who harbors a prejudice against slum people
  11. Watchmaker - of European origin, speaks with an accent and has a strong ethical obligation to do his duty as an American citizen
  12. Ad executive - sits on the fence and contributes more fluff than substance.
  This movie is on my list of the five greatest movies ever made. Great script, direction and acting. I highly recommend it, especially to managers and leaders.
  
  
  
• Worth seeing even after forty years
  By A1HO9J4DCQDGP9 on 2000-07-27
  If I could give one film more than 5 stars this film would be it. "Twelve Angry Men" is an atmospheric, hard-hitting film about the life or death decision that twelve jurors have to make in seemingly cut and dried case of patricide. On the surface, the nameless accused seems guilty but one juror, played magnificently by Henry Fonda isn't so sure. Forcing his companions to reevaluate the case opens a can of worms as the prejudice, indifference, and ignorance of his fellow jurors become all too apparent. There are many stereotypes in this film, such as the angry father played J.Cobb, and Jack Klugman of Quincy fames is excellent as the young man who has pulled himself out of the slums and knows more than his fair share about switch-blades and how to use them. Fonda, however is the King-Pin in this film, drawing the many characters together, from the gentle, quiet immigrant watchmaker, to the handsome but stupid Advertising Executive. At first the film moves slowly, almost sedately, but it quickly gathers momentum, giving you tense moments such as the secret ballot at the beginning, to the power struggle between Fonda and the enraged spurned father in the guise of Cobb. Fonda's stand against his fellow jurors is bittersweet as he strives to convince them the case might not be as cut and dried as they think. Full of tense moments, quality acting, and surprisingly good male bonding scenes as temporary friendships and alliances are set up as more and more of the jurors become aware that the boy on trial just might be innocent. The steamy heat in the jury room is not just from the stifling heat wave that the city is going through rather it is symbolic of the tension between the men, and the breaking of the weather is also the breaking of the group into two factions; those who still think the boy is guilty and those who have reasonable doubt. The 1997 remake of this film was instantly forgettable, lacking the atmosphere and chemistry of the 1957 version. Sidney Lumet's"12 Angry Men" is testament to brilliant acting, a superb script and suspenseful directing. Quite simply the best film ever made in my opinion.
  
  
• A tense thriller that keeps you riveted
  By A1ZTE3K3EN4TS3 on 2001-02-25
  In spite of the fact that this movie takes place almost exclusively in one room AND at real time, this movie is incredible! It holds you from the beginning and keeps you throughout. We are slowly given information about the case as the jurors discuss it, and Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) tries to get the men to look at the facts again. At the beginning of the film, his is the lone "not guilty" vote among the 12, but as time progresses, he begins to win over his fellow jurors. The thing I appreciated about this movie is the fact that you could actually SEE the individual jurors changing their thinking. Only one just suddenly changes his vote for no real reason, while the rest have to be won over one at a time - and it's understandable as to why they change their mind. As each new piece of evidence is uncovered, the picture becomes clearer. As Fonda himself says: "It's not whether or not I think the boy is innocent - it's whether or not I have a reasonable doubt as to his guilt". This is a GREAT film classic, and the cast is all superb. You'll recognize many faces, but probably never knew their names. This is one movie you'll be happy to add to your collection of greats!
  
  
• Entertaining, Educating and Stimulating...A Timeless Classic
  By A3LEJ7UEJQDQNA on 2001-03-23
  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.
  
  

• Fantastic Discussion Fodder, Decent Movie
  By A3FVAWZNKW9GX on 2003-07-20
  When considering a movie like "12 Angry Men," it is difficult to separate a critical perspective from a sociological one.
  
  As a look into the sociology of this demographically similar collection of jurors, the movie is profound. It hits the oft-discussed issues of prejudice based on age, country of origin, economics and education. It came out in 1957, a time when racial unrest was brewing in a way we had never seen, and when fear of people from another country (Russians) was heightened through the bigoted efforts of Joseph McCarthy.
  
  "12 Angry Men" needed to be made and viewed, but it isn't perfect. The ideas put forth are necessary to discuss, and worthy of response, but it misses the power of "Inherit the Wind" or "To Kill a Mockingbird."
  
  We are introduced capably to the inner sanctum of the juror room, where decisions are made by ordinary men, each with agendas and biases. This room is where justice happens, or fear prevails, and screenwriter Reginald Rose shows us how fragile justice can be. However, in that fragility, Rose also lets us see the hopeful side of it all, that even the most biased of men is more than his sheer ignorance.
  
  As a movie to be considered for its screenwriting and directing, the criticisms come easier. Though the actors are among the best America has ever had together in one movie, they occasionally come off canned and overscripted. Fonda's soliloquies don't always seem sincere, and this reduces their impact on the audience. He reminds me of a prototypical Phil Donahue, pontificating from a bully pulpit. He even has the pose in one crucial scene where he leans on his leg while standing to make his point.
  
  In fact, as each juror presents his views, the viewer is forced to see not a complex character develop, but a projection of one aspect of American society. It isn't as natural as it could be.
  
  One character who needs highlighting is Jack Klugman. His role as a guy who grew up in the ghetto, but broke out and made good is impressive. He is plausible. He looks like a clean-cut suburban man, but speaks with authority when addressing the others about his background as it relates to the case.
  
  Should you watch it? Absolutely. Watch it with others, especially students, then talk about the film.
  
  Anthony Trendl
  editor, HungarianBookstore.com
  
  
• This is My Old Standby!
  By A3ODGAW5Z2EJ1M on 2004-03-06
  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!
  
  

• Worth seeing again and again
  By ALL9RA5PC7I4R on 2004-07-31
  "That cause is strong which has not a multitude, but one strong man behind it." (James Russell Lowell)
  Henry Fonda is that one strong man in this absolutely riveting drama that unfolds in one single room where 12 jurors - the "12 angry men" of the title - are assembled to decide on the fate of a teenager accused of having murdered his father. At the outset, 11 jurors, for various reasons, are in favour of the verdict of "guilty", the lone dissenting voice being Fonda's, who believes there is enough room for doubt regarding the boy's guilt to warrant a verdict of "not guilty".
  The "facts" of the case are few and simple, and the logic by which Fonda and - in due course of time - other members of the jury unravel the supposed indisputability of those facts is also simple. What makes this film different and, in my view, important is that it deals with the subject of our implicit prejudices and inappropriate priorities and the way they affect our every judgement. Supposedly "indisputable facts" are very often the products of our selective memory, which in turn is dictated and coloured by our prejudices and priorities.
  Take, for instance, the character played by Jack Warden - a man who will go along with any verdict as long as he can catch the baseball game that evening to which he's got tickets. He "believes" the boy is guilty only because the majority is in favour of the "guilty" verdict. When later the opinion of the majority has turned in favour of the verdict of "not guilty", he sees fit to side with the majority not because he now believes there is enough reason to doubt the boy's guilt but only because it will help the jury reach a unanimous decision quicker and enable him to reach the baseball game on time. Warden's priority is baseball, and the fact that a teenager's life is at stake holds less significance for him than watching the game.
  Ed Begley's character believes the boy is guilty because the latter comes from a slum and, according to him, slum-dwellers are all the same - violent, antisocial, dangerous beings genetically inclined to stealing and murdering - and the boy therefore deserves to be condemned to death for the safety of decent society.
  Then there's Lee J. Cobb's character, who lets his own deep personal anguish cloud his reason and prejudice him towards wanting to see the teenager sentenced to death.
  What I gathered from this fascinating film is this: We frequently see, hear and recall events not as they have actually occurred but in a manner that will help fulfill our priorities or reinforce our existing beliefs and prejudices. While making decisions and passing judgements, we often choose to ignore the objective reality and to replace it with our own subjective (and unreliable) interpretations of the same, in order to support those priorities and prejudices.
  This film must rank as one of the greatest and most important films of all time. Henry Fonda's quiet strength and dignity pervade the film, but it is Lee J. Cobb who turns in an astounding performance and steals the show as far as I am concerned.
  A must-see and must-have for all lovers of good and meaningful cinema.
  
  
  
• Very important
  By AB1UMC7SB9D7Z on 2006-04-04
  For a movie based mostly in the necessity for repetition and seeing both sides of the issue, it does not, like it would seem, make one tired of hearing the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt." This is an issue of objectivity, the idea that has taken centuries of philosophers to finally understand doesn't exist in a subjective standpoint. I can say nothing about this film that isn't repeated, with full clarity, in the dialog under many different contexts. They hold a man's life in their hands, and in the process are going to learn a lot about what must go into the proof.
  
  To be a bit honest, and a little hesitant, I must say that a lot of it strikes me as pretty liberal. I think this film is strongest when it doesn't get into politics, so the constant repetition of the phrase "bleeding heart" kind of gets to me. However, it's something of a necessity, because one of the things that these characters have to overcome is personal politics and prejudice to figure out where exactly to take a stand and where to leave be. And as a product of its time, it's immensely profound.
  
  What I like most about it is that it is not a criticism of the American system, it's actually in full support of it. If it criticizes anything, it criticizes the people who take it aloofly and don't understand the power they hold when they operate within said system. Responsibility is something I personally find quite lacking currently, and it's nice to see a movie expound the virtues of personal responsibility towards lawful conduct. This does not mean falling into hegemonic status quo, for that would mean the boy dies because nobody takes the time to question him. This means making sure you understand what you know and what you can't know.
  
  Beyond the writing itself, the directing and the acting really shine. It must be appallingly difficult to shoot an entire movie in such a small space, but Lumet does it superbly and the camera shows the audience EXACTLY what it needs to know when it needs to know it. It's art to be beheld. Also, all of the actors maintain their characters and the characters' mood swings amazingly, making it fluid and above all, very real.
  
  --PolarisDiB
  
  
• One of the All Time Greats
  By AGLDQK4S01KPH on 2006-09-12
  In a day with "lock em up and throw away the keys" Conservtaives in charge of all three branches of the Federal Government this film and its message is needed now more than ever.Its message is seek justice, through the rule of law, a line the GOP'ers abuse regularly. Thse film depicts how jury deliberations should be, especially in cases where the death penalty is involved. This is a powerful drama, the first feature film Directed by the great Sindey Lumet. Outstanding performances from Henry Fonda, who also Produced, Ed Begley ( as a bigot ), Edward Binns (a Lumet regular), Lee J. Cobb ( punishing the accused to get " revenge against his estranged son), Martin Balsam, Jack Klugman (the only surviving cast member ), and the recently deceased Jack Warden,who has tickets to the Yankee ( boo ) game, and is in a hurry to get the jury deliberations over with. No sex, no ( real ) violence, and it is a great film. I guess great acting, writing, and direction do mean something. A must see !
  
  
• monumental acting piece
  By A1VLMHYTSVU2J1 on 2006-11-27
  wow,the first time I saw this movie about 1995 I was blown away.It simply is well acted by several accomplished masters who are so compelling in their parts you feel your in the room with them.Not alot of flash or pageantry but your rivetted to every word and movement on the screen much the same way as watching a world class violinist who may not provide the ambiance of a rock concert but blows you away with raw talent.If your one who enjoys the current fair of cop/investigator dramas on television such as law and order or csi you will especially find 12 angry men a great film to enjoy
  
  
• What leaves those marks on the side of your nose? Glasses?
  By A5WMBIOGE8Q6N on 2007-01-11
  Doubt 1: The defendant had been orphaned and abused for years. The defendant was condition to constant yelling and physical abused. If the defendant had taken abuse leading up to the murder then what mysterious event caused the boy to go over the edge?
  
  Doubt 2: The defense attorney was not aggressive and vigilant in his defense of the defendant. The defense attorney had not financial incentive to perform.
  
  Doubt 3: The expectation to remember the names of actors and movies the boy saw on the night of the murder was unreasonable. The boy was under emotional stress hampering his ability to recall information.
  
  Doubt 4: The knife was not unique and the exact knife could be purchased locally at a store in close proximity from where the defendant lived. Shattering the associated connection that the boy had purchased a unique weapon. Prosecution had discredited the defendant's claim that he lost the switch-blade through a hole in his pocket.
  
  Doubt 5: The killer didn't seem panicked. The killer took the time to clean the weapon and remove any trace of fingerprints. The believability that defendant would return to the crime scene after murdering his father did not seem reasonable. Why would the defendant careful clean the weapon, leave it at the crime scene, and then return; only to be captured by the police.
  
  Doubt 6: The old neighbor man could not have traverse 56 feet in 15 seconds because of his immobile right leg. In an recreation of the event, the jury demonstrated that it would have taken about 46 seconds. The old man could not have seen the defendant fleeing down the stairs.
  
  Doubt 7: The killer used a downward strike to kill the victim. The defendant was an expert knife fighter and would have used an upward thrust. Secondly, the defendant was about 5 feet 7 inches and the killer knife entry angle suggested a taller person.
  
  Doubt 8: The eyewitness claims, she saw the murder across the L tracks. The train required 10 seconds to pass. The eyewitness claimed she saw it through the last car windows of the train. She heard the words, "I'll kill you" and then stabbing. The stabbing would have taken 8 seconds. Secondly, the woman required glasses. The jury did not believe she slept with her glasses and doubted she could have clearly seen the murder.
  
  Doubt 9: The phrase, "I'll kill you" is often a threat but not necessarily acted upon.
  
  
  

• To Kill a Mockingbird (Collector's Edition)
• Inherit the Wind
• Witness For the Prosecution
• The Grapes of Wrath
• Judgment at Nuremberg