12 Angry Men (1957)
General
| Director: | Sidney Lumet |
| Actors: | Jack Warden, Martin Balsam, Lee J. Cobb, Henry Fonda, Jack Klugman, Ed Begley, E.G. Marshall, George Voskovec, Edward Binns, Joseph Sweeney |
A Puerto Rican youth is on trial for murder, accused of knifing his father to death. The twelve jurors retire to the jury room, having been admonished that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Eleven of the jurors vote for conviction, each for reasons of his own. The sole holdout is Juror #8, played by Henry Fonda. As Fonda persuades the weary jurors to re-examine the evidence, we learn the backstory of each man. Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb), a bullying self-made man, has estranged himself from his own son. Juror #7 (Jack Warden) has an ingrained mistrust of foreigners; so, to a lesser extent, does Juror #6 (Edward Binns). Jurors #10 (Ed Begley) and #11 (George Voskovec), so certain of the infallibility of the Law, assume that if the boy was arrested, he must be guilty. Juror #4 (E.G. Marshall) is an advocate of dispassionate deductive reasoning. Juror #5 (Jack Klugman), like the defendant a product of "the streets, " hopes that his guilty vote will distance himself from his past. Juror #12 (Robert Webber), an advertising man, doesn't understand anything that he can't package and market. And Jurors #1 (Martin Balsam), #2 (John Fiedler) and #9 (Joseph Sweeney), anxious not to make waves, "go with the flow." The excruciatingly hot day drags into an even hotter night; still, Fonda chips away at the guilty verdict, insisting that his fellow jurors bear in mind those words "reasonable doubt."
| Status: | QuickPick |
|---|---|
| Run time: | 95mins |
| Origin: | UNITED STATES |
| Aspect Ratio: |
If you like this, try these:
Member Reviews (27)
27 Member
Reviews
says
The acting was probably the best quality of the film (with one caveat), nothing else impressed me. I think the movie’s high rating on this site as well as IMBD is over-hyped and inflated. At times I felt it lacked realism as the characters began to change their views on the guilt of the accused. Most of the reasons presented by the first dissenter to cloud the case with doubt were speculative and flimsy, yet each time those who were convinced that the accused is guilty miraculously changed their mind.
At one point an old curmudgeon who was spouting mildly racist commentary on the case had an epiphany after the other jurors faced away from the table (what was that?) and immediately changed his vote to not-guilty.
Human psychology just doesn’t work like that; people are convinced of their own beliefs and take a long time to change their views, especially in a group.
Finally I am not a big fan of movies that take place all in one area. The whole film is set in a single bland room.
Natalie
says
This movie is enjoyable if you like good story lines. It stays in the one place for most of the movie, this challenges the editors to keep the story moving. It is also great to see the actors of their day give great performances
ARTaylor
says
I saw this show many years ago and enjoyed it so i was keen to see how it stood the test of time. It has remained a very good film with a great cast. I enjoyed the film the second time around and would recommend it.
peterkillcare
says
Can't beat a good B&W movie with a stellar cast
Mark
says
Classic 50's drama that is a must see for all thinking folk concerned about justice in society.
Kerry
says
wow what a great movie, every actor superb. saw it years ago & still as thought provoking. its a classic!
Heather
says
A fair movie
Claire
says
Wow, I loved this movie. Who knew 95 minutes in one room could be so captivating, humourous, and thought-provoking.
Okto F.
says
Worth Watching
Philip H.
says
Although this movie is an oldie, the cast and their performances are brilliant and well worth seeing.
Jo C.
says
Superb.
bo
says
Regarded as a landmark when first released, alas it is showing it's age now. Based on a play there is no attempt to open it out and the story remains confined to a single room. Twelve angry stereotypes could be another title, among them Henry Fonda as the doubting Thomas. At least he stops short of wearing an all white costume. Interesting but rarely entertaining, one for film buffs only.
Peter D.
says
The others have said it all. Top notch.
margaret
says
Well written. Well acted. a thourougly good movie. Well worth watching if you like a down to earth, believable story. No violence or bad language, just a plain good story.
Derek
says
This is the story of a cross section of a jury of twelve urban men. Only a few
are "angry" but they range from immigrants, rednecks through to a solicitor.
However they are almost all prejudiced against the young defendent and want
him executed. Fonda is the lone voice who urges a closer look at
the evidence as he gradually wins them around. At a deeper level it is a plea
for tolerance and understanding, and the film came immediately after the
darkest days of the McCarthyist witch hunts aginst alleged communists and
subversives. As such it also has relevance to today's fear and prejudice
against Muslims. Essential viewing.
Valerie G.
says
Hrishikesh N.
says
Classic.......
Barbara S.
says
Relle
says
A fascinating study of group dynamics. Interesting to consider how it would have been produced differently today. Black and white was unimportant. We were spellbound.
Brian Hurley
says
Kevin Baker
says
Saw this movie when I was a younger lad, the message has not changed.Perhaps it is even more important now.
Alexander Plews
says
Wonderful acting by all of the cast and a great story.
Mr :-)
says
A cinematic gem. Excellent dialogue and acting ... the camera work is exceptional - puts you right in the room.
Rod Massey
says
14 speaking parts, 3 prop sets, B&W, but has more interest than most of the big budget movies made these days. An interesting insight into people's character and prejudices.
Christine Champion
says
Jeff Avenell
says
Very good but by todays standards would not get much of a mention
Graham Woods
says