12 Angry Men
|
Our Price: $23.99 Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $6.48 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of 12 Angry Men
Movie Review: NO ACTION REQUIRED: GREAT DIALOGUE COMING OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF GREAT ACTORS MAKES THIS ONE POWERFUL FILM
Summary: 5 Stars
Twelve Angry Men was groundbreaking drama when it appeared on CBS's Studio One in 1954. The script, by television writer Reginald Rose (The Defenders), features an all-male ensemble cast in which the characters are nameless jury members in a murder trial. A teenage boy has been accused of knifing his father, and the evidence includes the body, the boy's knife and several witnesses.
The film rights were bought by Henry Fonda, who co-produced the film with Rose in 1957. It was directed by Sidney Lumet and it was his first film. Previously, he had directed television dramas. He went on to direct some very famous films, including Serpico, Murder On The Orient Express, Network, Dog Day Afternoon and The Verdict.
When the 12 Angry Men begins, the jury is filing into the jury room to consider their verdict. The camera angle is wide and high, creating a sense of space. But as the drama progresses, it tightens to a long, low lens. Lumet says he did this to create a sense of claustrophobia.
Only one member of the jury believes the boy on trial may be innocent (Henry Fonda). The others are totally convinced of his guilt. Over the course of the film, they debate the evidence and, one-by-one, change their minds. How that happens is what makes this such a remarkable film, and one of the true gems of screenwriting.
The cast is practically a Who's Who of character actors, including Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E. G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Ed Binns, Jack Warden, Henry Fonda, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec and Robert Webber. Some of the performances - like Fonda, Cobb, Marshall, Klugman and Warden - are remarkable.
The script is masterful, as it weaves the psyches of the twelve jurors into one taut drama. Even though the entire story takes place in a single room, and there is really no "action" per se, it is spellbinding to watch each man wrestle with his own conscience in light of his ever growing doubts over the evidence. It is pretty obvious where the film is heading: but how it gets there is what makes it so fascinating.
12 Angry Men should be required viewing for every man, woman and child in America because it shows our legal system in action better than anything I've ever seen. It is a story about how easy it is to presume someone's guilt based on prejudice, anger or circumstantial evidence. The power of questions - and a reasonable doubt - is all it takes to turn a jury dead set against a defendant totally around.
The film was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Screenplay Oscars, and won the Writers Guild of America Award, among others.
Waitsel Smith
Movie Review: Powerful Ensemble Performance in Still Potent Jury Room Drama
Summary: 5 Stars
With the recent deaths of Jack Warden (just this past week) and John Fiedler, only Jack Klugman survives from the original 1957 movie cast of this blistering, uncommonly well acted drama, a triumphant first feature for now-revered director Sidney Lumet. Written by veteran TV scribe Reginald Rose, the story takes place almost entirely within the confines of a Manhattan jury room. Already overheated by the scorching weather, the twelve men are locked in heated debate over the fate of a ghetto youth accused of murdering his father. Over the course of ninety minutes, we get to know the individual personalities of the jurors in ways that surprise even themselves in a most claustrophobic setting.
The chief battle occurs between Juror #8, who believes a comprehensive discussion of the evidence is necessary before coming to a verdict, and Juror #3, who is convinced it is an open-and-shut case. The drama unfolds as the others move from one side to the other, as questions of objectivity and neutrality are put to the test with each character. It certainly helps to have a sterling cast of familiar faces inhabit the roles of the nameless jurors. Henry Fonda plays Juror #8 with his becalming dignity constantly stretched by the ongoing pressure of a fast verdict. Never the most subtle of actors, Lee J. Cobb is a blustery force as Juror #3 as he slowly reveals his own personal issues leading to his seemingly intractable guilty verdict.
E.G. Marshall plays the cold-blooded elitist stockbroker, while Edward Binns is the inarticulate house painter intent on maintaining a sense of fair play in the room. Warden is a small-time hustler only interested in making the baseball game, Fiedler (later memorable as the meek Mr. Peterson on "The Bob Newhart Show") is the eager bank teller who demands to be heard, Martin Balsam is the overly accommodating foreman uncomfortable in his role as the foreman and Robert Webber is the glad-hand pre-yuppie willing to go with the crowd.
The most vivid impressions are left by Ed Begley's unapologetic racist, George Voskovec's dignified watch maker, Joseph Sweeney's seemingly befuddled senior; and Klugman's shy juror who more than anyone else, comes to empathize with the accused. The film's one slight flaw is that it tips its hand at the outset with the tone of passivity emanating from the judge and the wide-eyed fear in the accused's face. The black-and-white film comes in a clean print on the 2001 DVD but little else except the original theatrical trailer. A masterful work of economy and escalating dramatic tension.
Movie Review: One of the most important movies ever made
Summary: 5 Stars
I was made to watch this movie in my sophomore year of high school by my history professor and after sitting through what I thought would be "just another early, black & white movie," I was stunned to find that there was a gem sparkling underneath. I believe that this is probably one of the best movies ever made, wholly in story. I couldn't care less about who acted in it or how it was filmed or whether or not it is in color. Simply put, the story for "12 Angry Men" is one of the most important stories written recently. (I use the word recently in a loose sense.)Here we have 12 "average Joes," pulled into jury duty from various walks of life to watch a murder trial and decide whether or not the defendent is guilty. It's a story you might hear a friend talk about. The defendent, in this case, will be put to death if found guilty; probably one of the toughest choices any conscious human will ever have to make. The 12 jurors argue the case, its sometimes shaky evidence and their morals, just as jurors would do in real life in such a case. And that's where the gem lies - it exposes the flaws in our judicial system.
"12 Angry Men" might as well be a true story, as something like this has to have happened before. The film shows how easily some people accept the word of people like them and how easily they condemn people different from them - how easily they let their views get in the way of rational thinking. Our justice system is supposed to provide every defendent with a fair trial, in hopes that the truth be exposed and the proper sentence be judged. "12 Angry Men" illustrates the fact that sometimes, defendents aren't always given fair trials. And, in the case of the Puerto Rican boy charged with the murder of his father in the movie, sometimes innocent people are put to death based on simple prejudices. If not for Henry Fonda's character, the boy would have been put to death; even though there *was* reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the crime he was charged with.
If not to discourage people from favoring the death penalty, I believe that "12 Angry Men" should be seen to open some people's eyes and help them think rationally. This movie was way ahead of its time in story, in the vein of "Gentleman's Agreement." I recommend it to anyone of any age because there are no swears, nudity, or guns in any of the scenes. The only "violence" it has is created by the tensions between the 12 jurors and there are no fights of any kind. A masterpiece and a timeless classic.
Movie Review: What leaves those marks on the side of your nose? Glasses?
Summary: 5 Stars
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.
Movie Review: A Directorial Lesson in Great Filmmaking
Summary: 5 Stars
I've been watching a whole bunch of Sidney Lumet films lately and I got to tell you: 12 ANGRY MEN, although being his "debut" attempt, is also one of his finest. It is one of the finest courtroom thrillers ever filmed. Part of the reason I enjoyed it so much has to do with its setup: rather than drag us through courtroom drama, the film decides to begin its tale with the judge issuing orders to the jury. We do not know the facts of the case; we have not seen the swaggering attorneys battling it out; we only get a glimpse of the defendant before following our twelve stars into the jury room. Thus, the film does not distract us with the courtroom antics. Instead, we get the feeling that the trial must have been a quick one. The defendant appears guilty to everyone. Except, of course, to one jury member (Henry Fonda)-a man who seems to be the only one who has given the case any "real" thought.
12 ANGRY MEN really exploits the ignorance of the audience to its advantage. As the jurors battle out the facts of the case, we slowly come to understand what crime has been committed until we feel as if we have the whole picture. This "discovery" process keeps the audience actively involved. In fact, we feel like a 13th jury member. Lumet's camera work, additionally, aids this story. We begin as a fly on the wall, above the jury members (at a distance). But as the film winds up and becomes more and more intense, we slowly begin to tighten in on the jury members, moving from wide-angle shots to tight "zoom" shots. The effect that Lumet manages to create is one of tension. Merely by his choice of camera shots (and lenses) he is able to slowly bring the audience to a boil as we begin to feel more and more confined by the claustrophobic jury room. It is an amazing effect and one that completely involves the audience in the film.
Moreover, the acting in 12 ANGRY MEN is superb. And why shouldn't it be? The script and storyline are a launching pad for good performances. Take twelve interesting, complex characters, employ twelve of the best character actors in town, and place them in a one-setting performance in which the film depends upon these twelve men for everything. You will enjoy 12 ANGRY MEN. It is a great story that is told in a masterful way. In its wake, I just don't think any movie can focus upon the "jury" in the same way. This film leaves much too big of an impact for that.