12 Angry Men Reviews

Think before you answer...
this movie is as good as anything else in the world..
this is about real justice...

Esta película tiene una sensibilidad propia de su época que puede llegar a sentirse ajena pero el trabajo de dirección y las dinámicas entre los personajes hace que este sea un trabajo bastante disfrutable.

The film is an experience where the stories take us to unknown places and fantastic, or being a spectator of disturbing moments of extreme action, but this is not the case of 12 Angry Men, develops in a small room where there is not much movement but develops a plot that keeps you fully connected with the film, takes you to imagine a series of situations and makes you feel out of this small jury room. this movie is a gem for film history.

12 Angry Men is one of those films that you just have to call a classic no matter whether you like it or not. It is a story of great mystery and great power because of what could happen to the convict of the film and that the 12 jurors have the power to decide that. 12 Angry Men is a classic that isn't a very long running one but the main thing is that it is a classic that is really easily remembered as well as the actors within the film particularly the legendary Henry Fonda. Watching 12 Angry Men is a lot like playing the Cluedo board game. If you've ever played the game, you will see what I mean. It is a film with adventure because it takes you into depth within the case and the decision of whether the convict is guilty or innocent. It shows a greatly artistic design of what the courts were like in those days and also about how serious they were with the investigation because almost all of the jurors fell out with each other.


What I also really loved about 12 Angry Men is that we never knew any of the 12 jurors real names. Not even juror 8 who is the main character in the film who was portrayed by Henry Fonda. Juror 8 was the most curious juror out of all 12 because he was sort of really keen to cover everything within the investigation. Each of the 12 jurors are very different people really. Juror 1 is an Assistant High-School Football coach, juror 2 is a meek and unpretentious bank clerk, juror 3 is a businessman and an emotionally distraught father, opinionated and stubborn with a streak of sadism, juror 4 is a rational stock broker, unflappable and self-assured, juror 5 is a young man from a violent slum, a Baltimore Orioles fan, juror 6 is a house painter, tough but principled and respectful, juror 7 is a salesman, sports fan, superficial and indifferent to the deliberations, juror 8 is an architect, the lone dissenter (in the beginning), juror 9 is a wise and observant elderly man, juror 10 is a garage owner; a pushy loudmouthed bigot, juror 11 is an immigrant watchmaker, proud to be a naturalized American citizen and juror 12 is an indecisive advertising executive. In the 1997 remake of this film another legendary actor portrayed juror 8 and that was Jack Lemmon.


Sidney Lumet's directing was really good in this film. He makes it seem so realistic that the murder investigation was real and almost everything else was real. Most court dramas are set in the same place but they all investigate different cases. Sidney Lumet has created probably his most famous film first. His directing debut started with a bang and in a huge way. The script was just amazing that is really well written and didn't flaw once.


This is a masterpiece from Henry Fonda but I don't think it's his best film though. I preferred his acting and character in The Grapes Of Wrath. It is one of the best classics to have ever come on screen in cinema history. It is a classic that has been remade and has failed greatly. 12 Angry Men is an amazing film but my favourite courtroom drama is still To Kill A Mockingbird. 12 Angry Men is one of the greatest films of the 1950s and is one of the best if not the most famous mystery film of all time.

There are so few movies in this world that manage to immerse you completely into the situations it portrays. In general, the simpler the situation, the easier the immersion. And this film is extremely simple in premise; it has only two rooms in the entire film and 12 characters, and they pretty much just talk for the entire movie. This seemingly simplistic premise really manages to immerse you as a viewer to the events from the very first scene. The film is also exceptional due to the fact that had it been directed by anyone else than Lumet, it would not be very good. Any other director would've loved to put flashbacks to the events the jurors discuss in the film, or even make the final juror simply punch Fonda to the face in the end. Any of the changes that can be imagined for this film would've made it a lesser picture as a whole. This, I think, works as proof of the fact that 12 Angry Men is one of the few movies in this world to almost reach the term "perfect" as it's primary form of description. If you change it, it just isn't as good in any level, as evidenced by the horrid 90s remake of the same name.

12 Angry Men is such a good courtroom drama, that for me, it simply blows the majority of every other film in this genre out of the water (okay, technically this isn't really a "courtroom" drama because the entire film happens in the jury-room. But let's face it, the plot's purpose is one that leads into the most important part of the courtroom process, the verdict).
The combination of a tight script with a solid ensemble cast (oh, & lets not forget a big screen directoral debut for Sidney Lumet) make for a tense, compelling movie that even though it keeps 99% it's entire length within one room, a viewer can't help but to be spellbound.

''It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don't really know what the truth is. I don't suppose anybody will ever really know. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we're just gambling on probabilities - we may be wrong. We may be trying to let a guilty man go free, I don't know. Nobody really can. But we have a reasonable doubt, and that's something that's very valuable in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it's SURE. We nine can't understand how you three are still so sure. Maybe you can tell us.''

A dissenting juror in a murder trial slowly manages to convince the others that the case is not as obviously clear as it seemed in court.

Henry Fonda: Juror #8

12 Angry Men is obviously one of the best films in existence. It is proof that, for a film to be great, it does not need extensive scenery or luscious locations, elaborate costumes or fancy effects, merely perfect acting all in one room.
The twelve angry men are the twelve jurors of a murder case. An eighteen-year-old boy from a slum background is accused of stabbing his father to death and faces the electric chair if found guilty. Eleven of the men believe the boy to be guilty, only one man(Henry Fonda) has doubts. Can he manage to convince the others as well?



The court case provides only a framework, however. The film's greatness lies in its bringing-together of twelve different men who have never met each other before and the interaction of their characters as each man brings his own background and life experiences into the case. Thus, we have the hesitant football coach (Martin Balsam), the shy, uncertain bank clerk (John Fiedler), the aggressive call company director (Lee J. Cobb), the authoritative broker (E.G. Marshall), the self-conscious slum dweller (Jack Klugman), the solid, dependable painter (Edward Binns), the selfish salesman (Jack Warden), the calm, collected architect (Fonda), the thoughtful, observant older man (Joseph Sweeney), the racially bigoted garage owner (Ed Begley), the East European watchmaker (George Voskovec) and the beefcake advertising agent (Robert Webber) who has plenty of chat and little else.

Juror #10: Bright? He's a common ignorant slob. He don't even speak good English.
Juror #11: Doesn't even speak good English.

Almost the entirety of the film, takes place in merely one room, the jury room, where the men have retired to consider their verdict. The viewer finds him or herself sweating it out with the jury as the heat rises, literally and metaphorically, among the men as they make their way towards their final verdict. Interestingly, the jurors (apart from two at the end) are never named. They do not need to be. Their characters speak for themselves.

Henry Fonda is eminently suitable and excellently believable as the dissenter who brings home the importance of a jury's duty to examine evidence thoroughly and without prejudice. Joseph Sweeney is delightful as Juror No. 9, the quiet but shrewd old man who misses nothing, whilst E.G. Marshall brings his usual firmness and authority to the role of Juror No. 4. All the actors shine but perhaps the best performance is that of Lee J. Cobb as Juror No. 3, the hard, stubborn, aggressive, vindictive avenger who is reduced to breaking down when forced to confront the failure of his relationship with his own son.
Several of the stars of '12 Angry Men' became household names. Henry Fonda continued his distinguished career until his death in 1982, as well as fathering Jane and Peter. Lee J. Cobb landed the major role of Judge Henry Garth in 'The Virginian'. E.G. Marshall enjoyed a long, reputable career on film and t.v., including playing Joseph P. Kennedy in the 'Kennedy' mini-series. Jack Klugman was 'Quincy' whilst John Fiedler voiced Piglet in the 'Winnie The Pooh' films and cartoons.

''One man is dead. Another man's life is at stake. If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused, a reasonable doubt, then you must bring me a verdict of Not Guilty. If, however, there's no reasonable doubt, then you must, in good conscience, find the accused Guilty.''

Oscar-winning cinematographer Boris Kaufman focuses in on the heart of what director Sidney Lumet and writer Reginald Rose are attempting to convey to the audience through the brilliant acting of all concerned. Watch as the jurors vote to make it six to six. The camera hones in for just the right lighting, facial expression, and angle to show the anguish and torment in the souls of these twelve angry men. It flashes to the key juror #8(Fonda) from time to time at just the right moment for the full effect of his deep conviction that the eighteen year old should have a fair consideration of all the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of killing his father. The use of shade and shadow, especially when the thunder storm crackles outside is used to show the tempest that rages inside the jury room. The heat that eventually makes even juror #4(Marshall) sweat, complements the pressure of the arguments and debates the atmosphere throughout the single room.

Twelve Angry Men is actually based upon a television play. These were transmitted live back in the 1950s because the video tape didn't exist back then, so we can speak of theater. The movie itself has very much the same feel to it. I like the interactiveness between the actors and the modern theater performance, used back then. In recent movies we can see all too often an actor caring about his/her facial expressions when filmed and caring about the voice at the studio dubbing stage. In this film everything, you see and hear looks 100% natural.
I am especially overwhelmed by the values transmitted by the main characters. Honest Hank (Henry Fonda) is of course the most likeable character. E.G. Marshall stands out as well. But it's the great, late Lee J. Cobb who runs away with the movie in his final scene. Very powerful.
All this is simultaneous with a musical score by Kenyon Hopkins that matches mood to action in a perfect blend of all essential elements making this one of the best Hollywood films ever.

''However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous. In the event you find the accused 'Guilty', the bench will not entertain a recommendation for mercy. The death sentence is mandatory in this case. You're faced with a grave responsibility. Thank you, gentlemen.''

"It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don't really know what the truth is. I don't suppose anybody will ever really know. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we're just gambling on probabilities - we may be wrong. We may be trying to let a guilty man go free, I don't know. Nobody really can. But we have a reasonable doubt, and that's something that's very valuable in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it's SURE. We nine can't understand how you three are still so sure. Maybe you can tell us."

Based on a teleplay by Reginald Rose, 12 Angry Men marks Sidney Lumet's magnificent film debut. This masterpiece is a dynamic, intense, searing, spellbinding morality study and a brilliant portrayal of our justice system at work. 12 Angry Men was first released decades ago in 1957, yet this potent social microcosm still feels as relevant as ever.

On paper this straightforward courtroom drama probably wasn't much to get excited about - a single room setting (with little to no exceptions), a dozen old-timers arguing, and a first-time feature film director. But when preserved on the medium of film, 12 Angry Men is transformed into a consummate fermentation of acting prowess and dynamite direction. This is a movie that could stand as a screenwriting masterclass in the development of character and plot without resorting to big stunts, grandiose locations or special effects. From start to finish the film is just the story of twelve men on a hot, stuffy afternoon in a single room debating the guilt of a teenager on the wrong side of the tracks. The fact the film kept me riveted and entertained for its entire length is a gratifying testament to everyone involved. In an age dominated by summer blockbusters and teenagers merrily chatting about the latest action fest, 12 Angry Men serves a simple yet powerful reminder that a solid script, a good story and vividly-drawn characters are all that matter at the end of the day.

To the untrained eye, the plot of 12 Angry Men probably appears pretty straightforward and quite boring. Do not be fooled by the apparent simplicity of the plot. Instead of being single-note, it's a multi-faceted and deeply provocative examination of the flawed nature of the justice system. There are twelve main characters altogether (this is usually a recipe for cinematic suicide); however the complex story and dynamite dialogue allows an audience to get to know each and every main character in the picture. Even more amazingly, the characters are never given names (until the very end when two men introduce each other). As an audience member, you will never realise that the characters are nameless. The proceedings are so mesmerising to the point that character names don't even matter.

The central narrative of 12 Angry Men focuses on a jury's intimate deliberations on a capital murder case. The case concerns a teenage Latino accused in the stabbing murder of his father. The defence and prosecution have rested, leaving only the jury to contemplate the facts and reach a verdict. A guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. To the inexpert eye, it seems like a straightforward open-and-shut case: the defendant has a weak alibi, the key body of evidence points to the defendant's guilt and eyewitnesses have come forward, claiming to have seen the murder taking place.

Rather than chronicling the happenings of the trial and the pomposity of the attorneys, the film commences as the jurors are being released into the deliberation room. This sole location is where the film will remain for almost its entire length. As the twelve-man jury file into the cramped jury room of a hot afternoon, the men seem willing to take the case at face value and lock in the "guilty" verdict. The men are more concerned with getting to a ball game on time, and aren't even prepared to spend five minutes discussing the matter. However, the guilty verdict can only be reached if all twelve men agree on it. During the initial vote, eleven vote "guilty" whereas one member of the jury (Fonda) opts for the "not guilty" verdict. After the customary disparaging "there's always one!" comments are elicited, this juror begins to defend his decision: the boy may be guilty of murder, and probably is, but there is a sufficient amount of reasonable doubt to consider the "not guilty" verdict as the more appropriate decision. The rest of the film follows the escalating apprehension in the room, and the conflict between the jurors as they endeavour to reconcile their divergent beliefs concerning the guilt of the defendant.

In this day and age, 12 Angry Men is a forgotten gem overlooked by the current generation of movie-goers who tend to view the latest action/adventure flick in lieu of the classics. This is also a film with a fairly unexciting premise. It's also fairly offputting to set an entire film in the confines of a single room! Only three minutes in the film's 96-minute running time transpire outside the jury room. Needless to say, it'd take a filmmaking team of remarkable skill to achieve the desired result. Director Sidney Lumet was up to the task. He managed to have this film in the can after only 21 days of shooting! The director employed a number of subtle cinematic techniques to enhance the claustrophobic atmosphere of the jury room. As the film progressed, the camera levels kept descending. At first moderately higher than eye level, the camera steadily moves downwards to below eye level. In addition, the initial stages of the movie were achieved using wide shots. The shots progressively move further inwards as the film draws closer to its enthralling conclusion. Different lenses were also applied to elevate the claustrophobia levels. This approach serves the film well. One can almost feel the heat of the non air-conditioned room and the intensifying emotions of the jurors.

"Well, I'm not used to supposin'. I'm just a workin' man. My boss does all the supposin' - but I'll try one. Supposin' you talk us all out of this and, uh, the kid really did knife his father?"

Lumet does a commendable job of building tension. The director also manages to deal effectively with the social issues (including racial bigotry) which arise in the course of the heated discussions in the jury room. Lumet accomplishes a dreadfully gruelling task here; by sticking to the format of the play and allowing almost all the events to transpire within one room, while still managing to keep things fresh and rattling along at a brisk pace.

The film's script explodes like twelve sticks of dynamite. Snappy dialogue and realistic human depictions are the highlights of the screenplay. It's also a multi-faceted tale, unfolding on various different levels. On the first level it's a mystery. The interplay between the jurors throws up several feasible scenarios for the crime. Although differing theories as well as inconsistencies in the official statement are raised, we're left to draw our own conclusions. On another level the film is a deep scrutinisation of human character as revealed by the actions of the twelve grouchy men in dealing with their dilemma. On top of this, 12 Angry Men is a study of the failings of the justice system which relies on imperfect human beings to determine its outcome. These small-minded humans are left to judge who should live and who should die. The film acts as a worthwhile reminder that our justice system is based upon the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" and that all have the right to a fair trial. The suitably idealistic message of 12 Angry Men is pure and simple, yet it offers so much more. We witness our own personalities as fragments in the twelve jurors, often times letting personal biases and impatience cloud our judgment.

One of the most stirring parts of the film is when the provocative question is asked: "What if it were you that were on trial?" If my life was in the balance I'd hope a juror like Henry Fonda would be sitting in the jury box. It's disturbing to contemplate the fact that so many men are willing to dismiss the case within five minutes because of other priorities on their mind. What about the poor boy whose life is in question? What if he isn't guilty and is consequently executed on false charges? It's easy to put oneself into the place of both defendant and juror, which demonstrates the potency of both the story and the performances.

Henry Fonda leads the cast as the juror who reminds us that we shouldn't be afraid to go against the herd. His character opposes the opinions of eleven others! The cast is a powerhouse. All twelve members of the cast (there are a few other minor cast members, but they aren't on screen for any more than a minute each) are impeccable. They bounce off each other's lines naturally and credibly. Each actor is brilliant and serves a purpose. The cast is a mosaic of the typical Average Joes compelled to do jury duty. There are the younger ones, the elderly ones, the impatient ones, the foreigner, the old crone, and the smart one. Just simply sit back and enjoy the scorching performances of Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, Martin Balsam, John Fleder, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Joseph Sweeney, George Voskovec and Robert Webber.

"Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't even have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution."

12 Angry Men has been classified as a "legal thriller". It's also known as a courtroom drama. Sidney Lumet's directorial debut is a sizzling courtroom drama done right: easy on the courtroom, heavy on the drama. Lumet went on to make such films as Dog Day Afternoon, Network and The Verdict. Not many of the world's greatest directors can boast a debut of this quality. Not even Alfred Hitchcock got it right the first time...neither did Steven Spielberg or George Lucas or Martin Scorsese. Even M. Night Shyamalan tried unsuccessfully before receiving critical acclaim with The Sixth Sense. 12 Angry Men is a lesson on the perfect film debut. No first-time director has ever done it better. 12 Angry Men is a masterpiece. It's an engrossing film that consumes you in its happenings. Filmed in less than a month on a measly budget, this shining example of efficiency has held up amazingly well for more than 50 years. I consider this an absolute must-see movie that's being overlooked far too often.

10/10

"12 Angry Men" is a compelling jury room drama with an outstanding cast. A boy of 18 is on trial for murder and Juror No. 8 (Henry Fonda) is the only one in the room to declare a verdict of "not guilty" while all the other 11 jurors vote "guilty". Fonda then has the unenviable task of trying to persuade the rest of the jurors to reconsider their verdicts. They go over the evidence carefully and Fonda points out some discrepancies in the prosecution case but will he get support from any of the others? Juror No. 3 (Lee J. Cobb) and Juror No. 10 (Ed Begley) are determined to see that the boy is found guilty and they do not intend to give in easily to Fonda's assessment of the case. This is a marvellous film with an impressive list of players. Just take a look at the cast for this film:- Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Martin Balsam, Jack Klugman, Ed Begley, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, John Fielder, Robert Webber and Edward Binns. What a line up!! They all gave impeccable performances - particularly Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb. Several of the other players were unknown at the time but have since gone on to become fine character actors. Expertly directed by Sidney Lumet the entire film takes place in a jury room in a New York court. Although mainly restricted to this one set the tension never lets up. Unfortunately, the film was not very successful at the box office upon its release but has since become a classic and is on many "top ten" lists. Henry Fonda regarded this as one of the best three films he had ever made. The film was shot in less than three weeks for a budget of only $350,000.
"12 Angry Men" was remade as a TV movie in colour in 1997 with Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott but for me this cannot compare in any way with the original.
Favourite lines:
Martin Balsam: "Eleven guilty - one not guilty. Well, now we know where we are".
Ed Begley: "Oh boy, there's always one".
Henry Fonda: "Well, there were eleven votes for guilty. It's not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first".
Lee J. Cobb: "When I was a kid I used to call my father "Sir". That's right - "Sir". You ever hear a kid call his father that anymore?".
Fonda (to Lee. J. Cobb): "Ever since you walked into this room you've been acting like a self appointed avenger".

I saw this film two hours before this review was posted and i've never been in such a hurry to write one.

The plot revovles around twelve jurors who are uncomfortably brought together to debate about a seemingly open and shut murder case. The unanimous decison appears in sight except for juror No. 8 (Fonda), a citizen with a conscience who insists on establishing reasonable doubt.

The film some thought was a courtroom drama is quite the opposite, we see hardly any of the courtroom or the trial, we are instead drawn to the hot atmospheric examination room afterward where cigerttes are smoked, 'facts' are discussed and voices are raised.

The ingeniuity of 12 Angry Men is not the review of the trial or the evidence, but the dissection of the jurors. Everyone has a range of diversified views and inclinations on each other with real world preconceptions, With character basis working well individually and also on a group level as prejudices's are revealed.

We feel ourselves becoming more and more immersed with Verisimilitude as the camera direction and choreography becomes so tight with intensity we see the beads of sweat on their faces. With the debate raging back and fourth and a youngs boys life hanging in balance,it never lets up on pace. A must see for film fans a must not for those who suffer with high blood pressure.