Editorial Review:Amazon.com essential video:Sidney Lumet's directorial debut remains a tense, atmospheric (though slightly manipulative and stagy) courtroom thriller, in which the viewer never sees a trial and the only action is verbal. As he does in his later corruption commentaries such as
Serpico or
Q & A, Lumet focuses on the lonely one-man battles of a protagonist whose ethics alienate him from the rest of jaded society. As the film opens, the seemingly open-and-shut trial of a young Puerto Rican accused of murdering his father with a knife has just concluded and the 12-man jury retires to their microscopic, sweltering quarters to decide the verdict. When the votes are counted, 11 men rule guilty, while one--played by Henry Fonda, again typecast as another liberal, truth-seeking hero--doubts the obvious. Stressing the idea of 'reasonable doubt,' Fonda slowly chips away at the jury, who represent a microcosm of white, male society--exposing the prejudices and preconceptions that directly influence the other jurors' snap judgments. The tight script by Reginald Rose (based on his own teleplay) presents each juror vividly using detailed soliloquies, all which are expertly performed by the film's flawless cast. Still, it's Lumet's claustrophobic direction--all sweaty close-ups and cramped compositions within a one-room setting--that really transforms this contrived story into an explosive and compelling nail-biter.
--Dave McCoy
Related Items:
see more
Related Items:
Customer Reviews
Average Rating:
-
One of the true great masterpieces
Excellent film with an extraordinary cast & plot regarding 12 jurors who have to deliberate on a man's fate. Well written & the performances by the cast are superb. Most notably Henry Fonda & Lee J. Cobb.
Robert Webber (Juror 12) was so handsome, sadly he passed away awhile back of ALS at the age of 64 (he bore a strong resemblance to Kevin McCarthy, though I find Mr. Webber to be the sexier of the two). It was an added treat seeing him in this picture even though I wish he were given more to do in the film to showcase his talent better.
Highly recommended to anyone who enjoys true movies with an absorbing plot from a time when cinema was cinema.
Rating: -
12 Angry Men a Winner
The Jason Robards/George C. Scott version is maybe even better (color). But this version has the special features that the Robards version does not.
Rating: -
A masterful assembly of actors
This is a great film with (in my opinion) the most brilliant collection of actors ever assembled.
All but 3 minutes of this film takes place in the confines of the small jury deliberation room. The 12 white men of the jury retire to the room after the close of a murder trial. The verdict is a shoe-in because as far as the foreman and jury members are concerned the young man on trial (who appears to be Hispanic or Italian) is obviously guilty. But wait - while the foreman goes through the mere formality of taking the men's votes everyone is shocked to hear one man dare to vote NOT-guilty. This is when the story starts getting as hot as the jury room the men are meeting in. It isn't that the holdout is convinced of the man's innocence, but he feels that since the defendant's life is at stake (the death penalty is automatically attached to a guilty verdict) the case should at least be discussed before a verdict is returned to the judge.
The casting is flawless. Henry Fonda is the lone holdout, calm, cool and collected. The other jurors consist of hothead, guilt-ridden, Lee J. Cobb; Let's get out of here so I can get to the ball game, Jack Warden; life-long bigot, Ed Begley; John Fiedler, who's just as mousy as the character of Piglet that he voices for Disney; I didn't ask for this foreman job, Martin Balsam; former kid from the same slums as the defendant, Jack Klugman; methodical stock broker, E.G. Marshall; elderly, sharp as a tack, Joseph Sweeney; Everyman, blue-collar, Ed Binns; East European immigrant, proud to be an American, George Voskovec; and I'll just go with the flow, doodler, Robert Webber. Though I'd never heard of the last three actors before, Voskovec and Webber apparently had long and successful careers in TV (source IMDB). Sweeney, as juror #9 is one of my favorites in this film. He plays the most elderly of the jurors but his observations and uncanny memory lend needed support to Fonda's character.
If you haven't seen this film it's about time you did yourself the favor of doing so. If you have teenagers at home, I recommend you invite them to watch it with you and discuss it afterwords.
Rating: -
Fonda and the gang deliver flawlessly
In the thrilling drama 12 Angry Men, a young man has been accused of murder and his fate rests in the hands of the twelve jurors chosen to oversee the trial. The young man's lawyer doesn't seem to care about his guilt or innocence. The evidence seems condemning in the extreme. There does not seem to be any reason that the jury should be more than a few minutes in deciding his guilt and then...off to the electric chair he will go. Then one juror (Fonda) has the courage to voice his doubts about the case and the evidence presented. Standing firm against all opposition he exposes the faults in the case and attempts to convince the other men in the room of his sincerity...and the young man's innocence.
Henry Fonda plays a Doubting Thomas who must convince his eleven fellow jurors of the innocence, or reasonable doubt of guilt, of a young man accused of murder. In their deliberations he must expose the hateful (Lee Cobb), move the indifferent (Martin Balsam, Jack Warden, and Robert Webber), convince the reasonable (John Fiedler and Ed Binns), sway the coldly logical (E.G. Marshall), inspire the weak (Jack Klugman), shame the bigoted (Ed Begley), and return pride to men of honor (Joseph Sweeney and George Voskovec). This movie is a truly amazing example of character study, superb acting, and a flawless script. It features some of the most talented actors to ever grace the silver screen and it is a film for the ages. If you enjoy suspenseful courtroom drama then this movie is a must see. Five stars.
Rating: 
-
Enjoyable
There are so many versions of this movie that I figured that I'd start with the original-and I'm glad that I did. For it's time, I think this was probably a very gutsy movie. Strong performances and script. I can see why this has earned its classic status.
