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 |
|---|
Canada
Movie Reviews of 12 Angry Men
Movie Review: Enter the jury room and hold on to your values
Summary: 5 Stars
Henry Fonda stars with Lee J. Cobb, E. G. Marshall and a nine other fine character actors in this classic courtroom drama from 1957. Despite the black-and-white filming and dated costume and props, this story still packs a terrific punch, mainly due to terrific writing and careful attention to dramatic unities of time, place and action. The story itself has an elegant simplicity to it: a young man is on trial for the murder of his father, and as the film opens we see the jury (12 white men of various distinctive types) being ushered into the jury room to decide his fate. Eleven of these men are outraged by the brutality of the crime and anxious to return a "guilty" verdict. Only one (Henry Fonda) questions the defendant's guilt. Using various debating techniques, Fonda reveals his doubts about the various pieces of evidence offered by the prosecution, and gradually begins to put "reasonable doubt" into the minds of his fellow jurors.
The conflict in this film (which is pretty much a recording of a stage drama) is between the jurors, not between the alleged murderer and his father, so there's no action in this film beyond 12 angry men heatedly arguing the case. Some viewers may be turned off by the story's preachiness - admittedly the film is pretty heavy-handed in its liberal bias - but it's still a powerful and soul-stirring evocation of one of Americans' crucial human rights: the trial by jury. Our judicial system may not be perfect, but this film certainly is. A must for high school civics class, and a stunning rebuttal to those who doubt that one man can make a difference in this world.
Movie Review: Important and Profound
Summary: 5 Stars
Both the play from which this film was adapted, and this film appeared in the 50s, when America was flying high and the paranoia of McCarthyism was still palpable. TWELVE ANGRY MEN is a clarion call to stop the rush to judgement on individuals based on appearances or flimsy evidence. Henry Fonda, who believed so much in the project that he financed much of it, as Juror No. 8 embodies the cool, unbiased American who doesn't take the easy way of going with the crowd. (Interesting note: none of the jurors are referred to by their names, although Fonda and Sweeney introduce themselves at the end. This anonymity, however, doesn't prevent their individual personalities from coming forward.)Under Sidney Lumet's meticulous direction, all 12 jurors come to a boiling point in the claustrophobic, pre-air conditioning jury room. And all 12 actors are given their moments to shine several times. To reinforce what everyone else has been saying, Fonda, Cobb, Marshall and Begley are the stand-outs here but they and Lumet are careful not to let anyone steal the show.
Nearly 50 years later, this movie still remains fresh and relevant. It is an important reminder that jury duty is not an excuse to take time off from work, nor should it be viewed as an inconvenience which we should shun. Most of the time the system works, and the system works because 12 people, as Juror No. 11 explains, decide the fate of another citizen based on objective evidence, and, most importantly, they have no stake in the outcome. This is a film that makes even the most jaded American nod in appreciation for how justice is dispensed.
Movie Review: Intense, insightful, and suprisingly entertaining...
Summary: 5 Stars
To be perfectly honest, the scenario for this movie actually doesn't sound very appealing. A common reaction would be to think - just watching 12 men in a room for the whole movie? How exciting can that be? Well, believe it or not, when the 12 men are impeccably cast, able actors and are given interesting and insightful things to say it can be VERY entertaining. Additionally, besides managing the seemingly impossible feat of holding the rapt attention of the audience in such a limited setting, 12 Angry Men is an inspirational, perceptive movie with much to say about the power of democracy and our court system.
Anyhow, the basic plot, as indicated earlier, may appear dull - basically the film is about the meeting of a jury in which 11 out of the 12 men, for various reasons later explored, ranging from the sensible to the silly, vote guilty. The particulars of the case are really not as important as the way the characters of the men are explored in the discussion that follows after one of the men refuses to back down in his vote of not guilty.
So, this is truly a memorable film - and not just because of the way it handles a potentially uninteresting topic with great skill. 12 Angry Men is just, quite simply, wonderful entertainment that leaves one thinking afterwards! Lastly, one other thing that is worth noting again is the cast - Henry Fonda is excellent, but the overall effect is only as good as it is because of the combined work of the experienced character actors involved. Enough raving already - just go ahead and see the film!
Movie Review: Justice in a Small Room
Summary: 5 Stars
1957's "Twelve Angry Men" is the story of a jury confined to a small room on a hot, humid summer night to decide the fate of a young man accused of knifing his father to death. The jury's initial poll has eleven jurors for guilty, one for innocent. The ensuing drama revolves around the struggle by the dissenting juror, an architect played with characteristic understated determination by Henry Fonda, to convince the other jurors of the presence of reasonable doubt.
The outstanding cast, a collection of experienced 1950's movie and tv actors who may not be familiar to today's audiences, each bring their particular insights and prejudices to the debate. An elderly man, played by Joseph Sweeney, sides with the Henry Fonda character because he admires the younger man's grit. Lee J. Cobb has an outstanding role as an angry father who sees his estranged son in the actions attributed to the young man on trial. E.G. Marshall plays a confident businessman who gets a lesson in the limits of memory from the Henry Fonda character.
The confining atmosphere of the jury room adds to the tension. Sidney Lumet's brisk but deliberate direction allows each man a turn in the spotlight to examine his conscience as well as the case in front of the other jurors. The end result is a tense, insightful drama about the nature of man and justice.
This movie is highly recommended to viewers looking for an outstanding example of the movie art and a different slant on today's crime dramas.
Movie Review: Society, Stuck in a Hot Room
Summary: 5 Stars
This is a beautifully written script. This 1957 movie is all about holding to principles, articulating what you believe and the power of reason and communication. Fonda's "He can't hear you, he never will. Sit down." was a powerful example of how ...(read more)one can treat unreceptive people and retain personal dignity. The jurors aren't bad people; most of them have paid attention to the six-day trial and are familiar with the evidence, which is fairly compelling. They are able to discuss it intelligently. The writing is showcased by Sydney Lumet's excellent direction and the glorious, gray cinematography.
A crusty old Anglo-American juror complains of the young defendant, "He's a common ignorant slob. He don't even speak good English."
"He *doesn't* even speak good English," gently corrects an immigrant juror.
When the juror (played powerfully by Lee J. Cobb) most vocal in support of finding the defendant guilty accidentally, in a pique of passion undermines one of the primary witnesses, it's one of the many sterling moments in the film. Lumet masterfully directs the subsequent silence and reaction among the other jurors.
"You think too much, you get mixed up." Well, this movie does a fine job of simutaneously ordering and confusing very important matters. It's also respectful of "the other side"; E.G. Marshall is Fonda's well-spoken opponent who has the good sense to know that not everyone on "his" side is on his side.