What begins as an open and shut case of murder soon becomes a mini-drama of each of the jurors’ prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused, and each other. Based on the play, all of the action takes place on the stage of the jury room. Written by pike “1 2 Angry Men” focuses on a jury’s deliberations in a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 1 8-year-old Latino accused in the stabbing death of his father, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence.
The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. 8 (Mr… Davis) casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr… Davis’ bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after all, the jurors must believe beyond a reasonTABLE doubt that the defendant is guilty.
As the deliberations unfold, the story quickly becomes a study of the jurors’ complex personalities (which range from wise, bright and empathetic to arrogant, prejudiced and merciless), preconceptions, backgrounds and interactions. That provides the backdrop to Mr… Davis’ attempts in convincing the other jurors that a “not guilty” verdict might be appropriate. Written by Brian Earthen Top of Form A teenaged Hispanic boy has just been tried for the murder of his father, and the case is now in the hands of the jury. A guilty verdict will send the boy to the electric chair.
The case looks, on the surface, cut and dried. But Juror number 8 (Henry Found), despite believing that the defendant is probably guilty, feels that the facts merit a cursory review before the jury hands in a guilty verdict. His insistence on a brief examination of the case seems to rub many on the jury the wrong way, as they continue to see the matter as open and shut. Fascinatingly, as they examine the testimony and facts of the case, the experiences, personalities, limitations, and biases Of the jurors weave in and out of the deliberation process, at times to its benefit and at times to its detriment.
To the benefit of the deliberation process, 1) the very elderly juror (Joseph Sweeney) is the only one who can see a possible motive explaining why an elderly witness may have misled the court in his testimony; 2) the one fellow (Jack Kludging) who grew up in a rough neighborhood, where he witnessed numerous knife fights, is the only one who sees a problem in assuming that he defendant made the stab wound found; and 3) the juror who had done contract work by the elevated subway (Edward Bins) was the only one in a position to question what one of the witnesses might or might not have heard.
To the detriment of the deliberation process, 1) one juror (De Begley) is so consumed by his personal prejudices that he sees value in ridding the streets of the Hispanic defendant whether or not he is guilty, and 2) another, Juror number 3 (Lee J. Cob), is impervious to reason because he has been physically harmed by his teenage son, and, consequently, views every engage boy, including the defendant, as capTABLE of patricide. The number of obstacles on the path to honest assessment of the facts is a constant threat to the deliberation process.
If the jury fails to unanimously agree on a verdict of either “guilty” or ‘hot guilty,” it will become a hung jury (a jury that cannot reach a decision, and must retire from the case without declaring a verdict). Watching how this matter is resolved is a riveting study in the nature, and ultimate beauty, of the trial by jury process. One by one the jurors change their minds and decide the boy is not guilty. Juror number 3, the man at odds with his teenaged son, is the last one to change his mind.
The jurors, at last, are TABLE to vote unanimously for acquittal. As the jurors leave the court building, Juror number 8 and Juror number 9, the elderly man, introduce themselves to each other as Davis and Macrame, respectively. Macrame says “so long” as he takes leave of Davis, knowing that they will never meet again, that their lives had crossed only for a single purpose. Page last updated by waves, 1 month ago Top 5 Contributors: stuntman, laird-3, spelunker, waves tenanted (View full history) Bottom of Form
Summary Views By Several Persons Reviews & Ratings for 12 Angry Men More at Impeder Top of Form Filter: Hide Spoilers: Bottom of Form page 1 of 69: Index 689 reviews in total 442 out of 478 people found the following review useful: Excellent Author: baklava from Belgrade I July 2000 *** This review may contain spoilers An excellent courtroom drama with a unique twist. Instead Of following the trial itself, the viewer has a unique chance to observe the events behind the closed doors of a jury room. The film begins with the end of the trial. The jurors retire to deliberate the case.
A preliminary vote is taken and the result s 11:1 in favor of the guilty verdict. Eleven jurors have raised their hands to convict a young man of killing his father. Only Juror #8 has doubts. At first even he does not truly believe the young man to be innocent but notes (rightfully) that the case for the defense might have been presented in a more convincing manner and that the boy might be given the benefit of a doubt. Since the boy is to be executed if found guilty his life is now in the hands of the jury and juror #8 reasons that the least they could do is talk about the case a bit.
As time goes on some Of the jurors change their minds and find hat there is perhaps enough reasonTABLE doubt not to convict the young man after all. But not everyone is easy to convince. Although the plot of the film is excellent and it is fascinating to see what little things can influence which way a verdict goes, where this film really succeeds is in presenting the characters of the 12 jurors. The character of each of the jurors emerges through a wonderful mix of perfect casting, excellent dialogue and near-flawless acting.
Juror #1 – a simple man who clearly does not understand the full complexity’ of the task that lies before him but is trying to do everything not to let anyone else find this out. He appears at ease only once during the film – when he talks about football. He has the misfortune to be selected foreman Of the jury -a task he clearly does not relish. Juror #2 – a small, quite man, clearly unaccustomed to giving his own opinion much less to expecting his views to be of any importance. Apparently he finds solace in his job – he is an accountant.
Juror #3 – probably the most complex personality in the film. Starts off like a pleasant self-made successful businessman, he analyses the case impartially, explains his arguments well and is reasonably self assured. As time goes on e becomes more and more passionate and seems to be somehow personally involved with the case. He also starts to show some signs of slight mental instability. Wonderfully played by Lee J. Cob – this is the character you remember after the film is over.
Juror #4 – self assured, slightly arrogant stockbroker. Obviously considers himself more intelligent than anyone else in the room, he approaches the case with cool heartless logic but (as one of the jurors says – “this is not an exact science”) he does not take into account the feelings, the passions, the characters of the people involved in the case. He is conspicuous by the fact hat he is the only juror that does not take his jacket off (it is a very hot day). Juror #5 – here is a man under great emotional stress.
He comes from the same social background as the accused boy – with who he almost unwillingly seems to identify with. Paradoxically this appears one of the main reasons for him voting guilty – he does not want compassion to influence him – so ironically it does. Juror #6 – a simple man, quite readily admitting that everyone in the room is better qualified than he is to make decisions and offer explanations. But he really wants to see justice done and it worries him that he might make a stake. Juror #7 – the only one that really has no opinion on this case.
Literally throughout the film his thoughts are never on the case – he talks of baseball, of the heat, of fixing the fan but the only reason he has for voting this way or that is to speed things up a bit so he might be out of the jury room as soon as possible. Not an evil man he just has no sense of morality whatsoever – he can tell right from wrong but does not seem to think it’s worth the bother. Juror a caring man, has put more thought into the case than any of the other jurors. He tries to do his best even in the face of seemingly impossible odds.
Juror – a wise old man with his great life experience has quite a unique way of looking at the case. Juror 0 – the most horrifying character in the film. Votes guilty and does not even try to hide the fact that he does so only because of the boy’s social background. The tragedy comes from the fact that his own social position is only a cut above the boy’s – which makes him all the more eager to accentuate the difference. Juror #1 1 – an immigrant watchmaker, careful methodical man, well mannered and soft spoken. Aspects the right of people to have different opinion to his – and is willing to look at both sides of the problem. Loses his temper only once – horrified by the complete indifference of juror #7. Juror #12 – a young business type – perhaps he has his own opinions – but is careful to hide them. What he has learnt out of life seems to be that intelligence is equal with agreeing with what the majority of people think. The film succeeds in doing something very rare today – developing an intelligent plot while also developing 12 believTABLE, memorTABLE and distinct characters.
Top of Form Was the above review useful to you? 31 6 out of 343 people found the following review useful: Simple but great. Author: Joshua (ianrholt@yahoo. O. UK) from Guide Park, England 23 October 2004 ’12 Angry Men’ is an outstanding film. It IS proof that, for a film to be great, it does not need extensive scenery, elaborate costumes or expensive special effects – just superlative acting. 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 convicted.
Eleven of the men believe the boy to be guilty; only one (Henry Found) has doubts. Can he manage to convince the others? 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 Fiddler), the aggressive call company director (Lee J.
Cob), the authoritative broker (E. G. Marshall), the self-conscious slum dweller (Jack Kludging), the solid, dependTABLE painter (Edward Bins), the selfish salesman (lack Warden), the calm, collected architect (Found), the thoughtful, observant older man Joseph Sweeney), the racially bigoted garage owner (De Begley), the East European watchmaker (George Behooves) and the beefcake advertising agent (Robert Webber) who has plenty of chat and little else. Almost the entire film takes place in just 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 them. Henry Found is eminently suiTABLE and excellently believTABLE 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. , 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. Cob 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 ‘1 2 Angry Men’ became household names. Henry Found continued his distinguished career until his death in 1982, as well as fathering Jane and Peter.
Lee J. Cob 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 Kludging was ‘Quince’ whilst John Fiddler voiced Piglet in the Winnie The Pooh’ films and cartoons. Of the twelve, only John Fiddler, Jack Kludging and Jack Warden* are still alive. Although around the eighty mark, they are all still acting. The film was still availTABLE on video last year and it is shown on t. V. Airily frequently. Cannot recommend it too highly! (*John Fiddler died June 2005. Jack Warden died July 2006. ) Bottom Of Form 282 out of 31 3 people found the following review useful: No bombs, no car chases but edge of the seat stuff none the less Author: Andrew Devonshire from Northern Ireland 18 September 2002 This film is superb, in fact as Shakespeare once said “Its the bees’ knees”. The film captivates the audience from the beginning. Each of the twelve jurors are introduced to us as they are introduced to themselves.
The characters are ell draw out and individual, each with his own personality. The tension of the characters draws the audience in from the start. We imagine that the case is open and shut, 11 me saying guilty and 1 not. We feel the discomfort of Henry Found as the other characters belittle and mock how he can see any reasonTABLE doubt in the case. But we also share his victories and the enthusiasm as he proceeds to refute or add doubt to the arguments for guilty and are captivated and draw in as other jurors begin to see doubt in the proceeds nags.
The audience can also see the arguments for guilty and wonder if Fond’s hearted is correct in saying that he doubts. Yet they also feel the shame of the characters as he disproves that a previously sound theory is iron tight, joining his side as members of the jury do. On top of this they are wonderfully woven in human elements such as the misconceptions that influence people and the growing tension between different characters. This is brought to life even more by the amazing performances, Found, Lee J Cob and Joseph Sweeney are of particular note. Darted watching this film on a bored relaxed laying about day but by the end I was on the edge of the seat with my hands on my knees feeling more ensue than a politician on results day. How a film should be made. Modern directors take note(that’s our telling off for the day) 10/10 -rope of Form 259 out of 297 people found the following review useful: Should be in everyone’s top ten list of greatest films of ALL TIME….. Author: Freddy Levity from Melbourne, Australia 11 January 2005 . Films rarely get this uplifting and brilliant.
I cannot think of the last time was so intrigued by the flawless plot, dialogue and acting since 12 Angry Men. For such a simplistic story set in one jury room, it is surprising that Sidney Lumen can drain you of all your emotions and leave you on the edge of your seat with suspense, mystery, and some of the best acting your bound to ever see grace the silver screen! When a boy is on last day of trial for killing his father in the heat of domestic arguments, 12 jury men are forced to present a verdict in which if guilty, is the one way ticket to the electric chair for the boy.
When the jury men decide to quickly end the discussion and raise their hands to find out who thinks the boy is guilty, only one jury man (Henry Found) doesn’t put his hand up. Trial and Character revelations, doubts, and possibilities follow. So masterfully crafted is this film, that every time I watch it, only gets better. It includes some of the best character development I’ve ever seen. Sidney Lumen is an expert in this field and this is by far his greatest contribution to Hollywood history – one of the most important contributions to world cinema.
However it was Henry Found and Lee J. Cob who really made this film legendary, with their incredibly realistic performances. Casting was genius. And the dialogue was astoundingly riveting up until the brilliant finale. What really impressed me personally also was the camera angles and movements hat made the film so suspenseful. Black and White made the film all the more powerful. And the music was minimal, which gave the film a more atmospheric experience, like you were their in the jury room with them – and you just feel that tension really built up as the movie proceeds.
This inexpensive film, with such a simple setting had the world talking, the academy awards nominations rolling and Henry Found at his complete best form. I have rarely been so hypnotized by a film ‘Lawrence Of Arabia’ and ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’ are other ones that come to mind. This is a definitive mewing for anyone who loves film. It sums up everything love about film. Everything from a technical point of view to superb acting and a simple yet complex character driven story, it’s platinum and is most definitely one of the greatest cinematic achievements of all time – bar none!
A statue should be erected in Sydney Lumen’s honor…… “Is it possible? ” – Juror #8/Henry Found 1 95 out of 225 people found the following review useful: No Dissonance Author: deg (tedg@FilmsFolded. Com) from Virginia Beach 26 April 2001 This film deserves to be on anyone’s list of top films. My problem is that it is o perfect, so seamlessly polished, it is hard to appreciate the individual excellences. The acting is top notch. I believe that monologue acting is quite a bit simpler than real reactive ensemble acting. Most of what we see today is monologues pretending to be conversations.
But in this film, we have utter mastery of throwing emotions. Once the air becomes filled with human essence, it is hard to not get soaked ourselves as the camera moves through the thick atmosphere. Yes, there are slight differences in how each actor projects (Found internally, Balsam completely on his skin… ) but the ensemble presents en vision to the audience. The writing is snappy too. You can tell it was worked and worked and worried, going through several generations. It is easy to be mesmerism’s by this writing and acting, and miss the rare accomplishment of the camera-work.
This camera is so fluid, you forget you are in one room. It moves from being a human observer, to being omniscient, to being a target. It is smart enough to seldom center on the element of most importance, so expands the field to all men. This is very hard. Very hard, to make the camera human. So much easier to do what we see today acknowledge the machinery and Geiger with it. Do we have a filmmaker today who could do this? Tee’s Evaluation 4 of 3: Every considerate person should experience this. 1 72 out of 188 people found the following review useful: If you only ever see one Black and White movie, make this it.
Author: Delightful from England 22 September 2005 watched this film for the first time, when it was shown at about 1 o’clock in the morning. Made an effort to see it as it is rated as one of the best movies ever made, however I must admit that I watched it with a sense of reluctance as I’m not a great one for old “classics”. This film blew me away however; how anorak can I be about old films? How many other pre-sass gems are there out there that I haven’t seen? What strikes me most about this film is how progressive it is for its day.
Indeed the issues this film makes about American society of the 1 sass, still ring true for western society today. This film concerns twelve jurors debating the sentence of an 18 year old Puerco Rican boy who on the face of it, has no real alibi. However one man, played brilliantly by Henry Found, is ill-at ease putting a young boy to death without even debating his case, much to the despair of the other jurors. What follows s a brilliant piece of film making, slowly revealing many of the juror’s complex characters to the audience as they react to Fond’s concerns with their own mix of metal scars, prejudices and insecurities.
What especially struck me about this film is how ordinary most of the characters are, none of the jurors are shown to be especially bad men, indeed most are portrayed as honest everyman type people. The use of ordinary characters is the films master- stroke because as one by one they begin to question their initial instincts, the flaws of society that have let this Puerco Rican boy down are presented to the audience. Tragically it appears that many of the issues that were beginning to be discussed in the sass have only got worse.
For me there is one immortal comment in this film: one of the jurors, a man in his sis says that the youths of today have no respect and have changed so much for the worse since his day. How ironic is it that some grumpy old men of today who may not even of have been born when this films was made, still say exactly the same thing? Finally a quick look at the cast shows that Found aside many of the cast were only moderately successful after this film. I think that’s a shame as everyone f these actors is excellent and plays their part in making it one of the best films of all time.
