For a while I was not very receptive to watching films that were too old. I always thought it would be difficult to get involved in the context, I couldn't be more wrong! 12 angry men, is a great example of how a simple film can do magic with good actors, and what great actors they are!
2,171 Reviews
12 men in a room. Genius.
ElJimbooo17 March 2019
In my opinion, 12 Angry Men is the greatest film that has ever been created. A perfect example of less is more, the simplicity of the plot, the setting of the one room, and the acting talent of the 12 main cast members is enough to conquer the dramatic genre, and ensure that it remains a timeless classic.
Whether you are a fan of the older generation of filmmaking or not, I implore you to experience this acting masterclass for yourself. More current movies such as Resevoir Dogs, which is superb in itself, have borrowed elements from 12 Angry Men, but trust me when I say there is nothing quite like this beautifully crafted drama. Watch it.
Whether you are a fan of the older generation of filmmaking or not, I implore you to experience this acting masterclass for yourself. More current movies such as Resevoir Dogs, which is superb in itself, have borrowed elements from 12 Angry Men, but trust me when I say there is nothing quite like this beautifully crafted drama. Watch it.
Excellent
vukodlak1 July 2000
Warning: 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 is 11:1 in favour 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 defence 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 that there is perhaps enough reasonable 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 he 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. Cobb - 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 that 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 mistake.
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 #8- 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 #9 - a wise old man with his great life experience has quite a unique way of looking at the case.
Juror #10 - 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 #11 - an immigrant watchmaker, careful methodical man, well mannered and soft spoken. respects 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 believable, memorable and distinct characters.
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 he 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. Cobb - 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 that 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 mistake.
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 #8- 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 #9 - a wise old man with his great life experience has quite a unique way of looking at the case.
Juror #10 - 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 #11 - an immigrant watchmaker, careful methodical man, well mannered and soft spoken. respects 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 believable, memorable and distinct characters.
Masterpiece!
navidveradi24 April 2019
The only thing I can write as an average Joe who watches movies simply to be entertained or see a story being told, is that I watched 12 Men argue in a room for more than an hour and I couldn't look away from the screen. Simply a masterpiece!
If you only ever see one Black and White movie, make this it.
Thelightbulb22 September 2005
I watched this film for the first time, when it was shown at about 1 o'clock in the morning. I 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 ignorant can I be about old films? How many other pre-1960s 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 1950s, still ring true for western society today. This film concerns twelve jurors debating the sentence of an 18 year old Puerto Rican boy who on the face of it, has no real alibi. However one man, played brilliantly by Henry Fonda, 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 is a brilliant piece of film making, slowly revealing many of the juror's complex characters to the audience as they react to Fonda'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 Puerto Rican boy down are presented to the audience. Tragically it appears that many of the issues that were beginning to be discussed in the 1950s have only got worse. For me there is one immortal comment in this film: one of the jurors, a man in his 50s 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 Fonda aside many of the cast were only moderately successful after this film. I think that's a shame as everyone of these actors is excellent and plays their part in making it one of the best films of all time. However within the cast there are a couple of treats; look out for Jack Klugman (Quincy) and John Fieldler who is the voice of many of Disney's characters such as Piglet. I urge you all, if you have not yet seen this film, please do so now.
No bombs, no car chases but edge of the seat stuff none the less
Andrew Devonshire18 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 well 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 Fonda as the other characters belittle and mock how he can see any reasonable 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 proceedings.
The audience can also see the arguments for guilty and wonder if Fonda's character 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, Fonda, Lee J Cobb and Joseph Sweeney are of particular note.
I started 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 tense than a politician on results day.
How a film should be made. Modern directors take note(thats ur telling off for the day) 10/10
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 Fonda as the other characters belittle and mock how he can see any reasonable 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 proceedings.
The audience can also see the arguments for guilty and wonder if Fonda's character 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, Fonda, Lee J Cobb and Joseph Sweeney are of particular note.
I started 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 tense than a politician on results day.
How a film should be made. Modern directors take note(thats ur telling off for the day) 10/10
Simple but great.
juho6923 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 Fonda) 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 Fiedler), the aggressive call company director (Lee J. Cobb), the authoritative broker (E.G. Marshall), the self-conscious slum dweller (Jack Klugman), the solid, dependable painter (Edward Binns), the selfish salesman (Jack Warden), the calm, collected architect (Fonda), the thoughtful, observant older man (Joseph Sweeney), the racially bigoted garage owner (Ed Begley), the East European watchmaker (George Voskovec) 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 Fonda is eminently suitable and excellently believable 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. 9, 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. Cobb 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 '12 Angry Men' became household names. Henry Fonda continued his distinguished career until his death in 1982, as well as fathering Jane and Peter. Lee J. Cobb 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 Klugman was 'Quincy' whilst John Fiedler voiced Piglet in the 'Winnie The Pooh' films and cartoons.
Of the twelve, only John Fiedler, Jack Klugman and Jack Warden* are still alive. Although around the eighty mark, they are all still acting. The film was still available on video last year and it is shown on t.v. fairly frequently. I cannot recommend it too highly!
(*John Fiedler died June 2005. Jack Warden died July 2006.)
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 Fonda) 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 Fiedler), the aggressive call company director (Lee J. Cobb), the authoritative broker (E.G. Marshall), the self-conscious slum dweller (Jack Klugman), the solid, dependable painter (Edward Binns), the selfish salesman (Jack Warden), the calm, collected architect (Fonda), the thoughtful, observant older man (Joseph Sweeney), the racially bigoted garage owner (Ed Begley), the East European watchmaker (George Voskovec) 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 Fonda is eminently suitable and excellently believable 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. 9, 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. Cobb 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 '12 Angry Men' became household names. Henry Fonda continued his distinguished career until his death in 1982, as well as fathering Jane and Peter. Lee J. Cobb 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 Klugman was 'Quincy' whilst John Fiedler voiced Piglet in the 'Winnie The Pooh' films and cartoons.
Of the twelve, only John Fiedler, Jack Klugman and Jack Warden* are still alive. Although around the eighty mark, they are all still acting. The film was still available on video last year and it is shown on t.v. fairly frequently. I cannot recommend it too highly!
(*John Fiedler died June 2005. Jack Warden died July 2006.)
Juror #4 is why this is a great film
CubsandCulture7 February 2022
Warning: Spoilers
The film is considered a classic because of the heroism and humanitarianism of Juror #8, because of the film's great direction of keeping such a small space visually fresh and because well it's a darn good story. I think a lot of people think the film is about an innocent man being freed by a jury that was initially hobbled by prejudice and vindictiveness. I.e. Juror #10 is a bigot, Juror #3 was trying to convict because of personal demons around his son. That is the first impression the film gives. But the film is a lot more nuanced than that. Instead, the film is about a man-who probably did commit the crime-being freed because the state failed to met its evidential burden. The first take on the film is a moral polemic, the second take is compelling legal drama.
Juror #4-the calm, always reasonable and engaged stockbroker brought to life by e.g. Marshall-is where the second take comes from in my mind. Had every single juror who was in the "guilty" camp to the bitter end been bigoted, unreasonable the film would be poorer for it. Instead Juror #4 *sincerely* believes in the defendants' guilt *until* the core of the case is dealt with. I.e. The eye witness. The character is the best arguer and while he is clearly engaged by the proceedings he is not emotional, personal. Juror #4 is the best juror qua juror because he demonstrates the virtue of reasonableness. This character is why the final film is so great and nuanced.
While Juror #8 is the hero of *this* story Juror #4 is the model we should strive to follow if called to serve.
Juror #4-the calm, always reasonable and engaged stockbroker brought to life by e.g. Marshall-is where the second take comes from in my mind. Had every single juror who was in the "guilty" camp to the bitter end been bigoted, unreasonable the film would be poorer for it. Instead Juror #4 *sincerely* believes in the defendants' guilt *until* the core of the case is dealt with. I.e. The eye witness. The character is the best arguer and while he is clearly engaged by the proceedings he is not emotional, personal. Juror #4 is the best juror qua juror because he demonstrates the virtue of reasonableness. This character is why the final film is so great and nuanced.
While Juror #8 is the hero of *this* story Juror #4 is the model we should strive to follow if called to serve.
The over-used term "classic movie" really comes into its own here!
uds312 August 2002
This once-in-a-generation masterpiece simply has no equal. The late 90's TV remake was quite adequate though totally unnecessary and in the upshot proved simply that updating a film for updating's sake is really an exercise in futility. Even had it BEEN as good - so what?
There could be few, if ANY film-goers reading this who are unaware of the plotline and in any event many others have re-hashed this for you. The brilliance of the film is evident in so many aspects. To begin with, the ability to not only sustain interest but to command the viewer's attention for basically its entire running time within a setting of principally just one room, borders on the inspired. Whether or not that would actually work with TODAY'S audiences is another discussion! What we have here are twelve everyday Mr Joe Blows, summoned together on a jury panel to decide a defendant's guilt or innocence with regards to a murder charge. If you were to gather unto yourselves ANY twelve jurors at random, you would most likely be able to pinpoint the Henry Fonda, Lee Cobb, E. G. Marshall, Jack Warden etc etc amongst them! Their very "ordinariness" is where the film succeeded. Everyone can identify with at least ONE of those characters. Whether or not he may WANT to is a different matter. The thinker, the sensitive man, the arrogant bully, the opportunist, the mentally challenged loudmouth, the slimeball, the emotionally withdrawn, the sheep etc - they're all here! Welcome to society folks! I dislike society in the main - doubtless a reason I found this film to be such a revelation..even when I was barely into my teens!
12 ANGRY MEN also pinpoints the shortcomings of the law, how "truth" can be so intrinsically left-field and unintentionally flawed. Lumet, working within a minimal budget here, delivers unstinting brilliance in both direction, character portrayal and script interpretation. He had of course superb acting talent at his disposal although some of the most memorable performances are from the lesser players. Some have denounced Fonda's role as being acceptable rather than awesome. I think however he was to a great degree playing himself here, not to an audience. His, is a study in deliberation and logic not show-pony stuff, but hell that never WAS Fonda was it?
This is a great great movie, as is evidenced by the extremely high user-vote worldwide. IF you haven't seen it - you really should do something about that!
There could be few, if ANY film-goers reading this who are unaware of the plotline and in any event many others have re-hashed this for you. The brilliance of the film is evident in so many aspects. To begin with, the ability to not only sustain interest but to command the viewer's attention for basically its entire running time within a setting of principally just one room, borders on the inspired. Whether or not that would actually work with TODAY'S audiences is another discussion! What we have here are twelve everyday Mr Joe Blows, summoned together on a jury panel to decide a defendant's guilt or innocence with regards to a murder charge. If you were to gather unto yourselves ANY twelve jurors at random, you would most likely be able to pinpoint the Henry Fonda, Lee Cobb, E. G. Marshall, Jack Warden etc etc amongst them! Their very "ordinariness" is where the film succeeded. Everyone can identify with at least ONE of those characters. Whether or not he may WANT to is a different matter. The thinker, the sensitive man, the arrogant bully, the opportunist, the mentally challenged loudmouth, the slimeball, the emotionally withdrawn, the sheep etc - they're all here! Welcome to society folks! I dislike society in the main - doubtless a reason I found this film to be such a revelation..even when I was barely into my teens!
12 ANGRY MEN also pinpoints the shortcomings of the law, how "truth" can be so intrinsically left-field and unintentionally flawed. Lumet, working within a minimal budget here, delivers unstinting brilliance in both direction, character portrayal and script interpretation. He had of course superb acting talent at his disposal although some of the most memorable performances are from the lesser players. Some have denounced Fonda's role as being acceptable rather than awesome. I think however he was to a great degree playing himself here, not to an audience. His, is a study in deliberation and logic not show-pony stuff, but hell that never WAS Fonda was it?
This is a great great movie, as is evidenced by the extremely high user-vote worldwide. IF you haven't seen it - you really should do something about that!
Gripping and Irresistable
marcelbenoitdeux8 April 2022
1957! 65 years ago and look at it, just look at it. This is Sidney Lumet's first feature film, up to this moment he had built his reputation on television. This was also the only film that Henry Fonda ever produced. He must have trusted Sidney Lumet very much and God was he right. Lumet concocts a masterful, choreographic coup. Within the four wall of the jury room the sense of claustrophobia, propels the drama forward in such a way that it's enough to catch a few minutes of the film to be totally hooked. Henry Fonda is superb and the rest of the cast a who's who of New York stage actors. From Jack Warden to Jack Klugman, from Lee J Cobb to E G Marshall. In my book, flawless.
One of the great theatrical examples of what makes for superb drama.
mark.waltz20 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Theater at its best is practically impossible to get down on film correctly. When Hollywood gets it right, they create a work of art. In this case, they did it simply, without frills, casting actors who looked real and fell into their individual parts like kids into a swimming pool on a hot summers day. It's the hottest day of the year, and these twelve men must decide the fate of an accused killer. But twelve men means twelve personalities, twelve temperaments, twelve political views, twelve religious opinions and twelve preconceived notions. As the temperature swells, so does the temperament.
Having been a very reluctant jury foreman, I find myself seeing eye to eye with the shyness of the man forced to lead the proceedings. Everybody looks at you to get the ball rolling and hopefully get out of there as quickly as possible. Martin Balsam, as the foreman, tries to remain dignified and not be overly in control, losing that to one of the jurors who looks at the case in a completely different way than the others. Twelve personalities means plenty of neuroses, and in a very short time, seeing what's really going on in the minds of strangers whom you'll never see again.
This trial involves young John Sacova, accused of killing his own father, and the twelve men must decide whether he gets the chair or not. These men, only identified through their juror number, are completely different, and it's obvious from the start that some of them (John Fiedler in particular) vote guilty because they think they have to. Only one (Henry Fonda) votes not guilty, and of course, one of them says, "There's always one." There are the aggressive ones certain of guilt, empathetic ones who would like to see the charges reduced, and those who view all young people from certain areas as scum regardless of their situation. At 60 years old, this film shows the same prejudices we face today, yet shows that there is always someone not about to follow the crowd simply because something strikes them as off. It is Fonda who will pretty much control the room, although he does it in a subtle way where nobody realizes that he's pretty much taken over.
While jury's have changed in 60 years (allowing women to serve being the most obvious change), what hasn't changed in the conflict of trying to understand the truth and to agree with 11 other people about it. Fonda goes against what would be allowed today by acting on his own and visiting the neighborhood of the crime, but his passion in figuring out the truth is very admirable. He is quiet in his determination, making this typical Fonda but one that fills his soul with humility and integrity.
Under the direction of novice Sidney Lumet, the entire cast is outstanding. Familiar faces from all walks of show business each get their chance to shine. Jack Klugman, Ed Begley, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, to name a few. I could easily write something about each of them, but it's worth checking them all out yourself. The one juror who really makes an impression in creating his character is Lee J. Cobb as the very aggressive juror who is hiding behind similarities to the case, having had a contentious relationship with his son that sparks his instant sense that the defendant is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. He was deservedly nominated for a Golden Globe (as was Fonda), but the Oscars only acknowledged the film, director and script for nominations.
Each jury is its own story, and from city to city, nothing changes but the type of case and the date.
Having been a very reluctant jury foreman, I find myself seeing eye to eye with the shyness of the man forced to lead the proceedings. Everybody looks at you to get the ball rolling and hopefully get out of there as quickly as possible. Martin Balsam, as the foreman, tries to remain dignified and not be overly in control, losing that to one of the jurors who looks at the case in a completely different way than the others. Twelve personalities means plenty of neuroses, and in a very short time, seeing what's really going on in the minds of strangers whom you'll never see again.
This trial involves young John Sacova, accused of killing his own father, and the twelve men must decide whether he gets the chair or not. These men, only identified through their juror number, are completely different, and it's obvious from the start that some of them (John Fiedler in particular) vote guilty because they think they have to. Only one (Henry Fonda) votes not guilty, and of course, one of them says, "There's always one." There are the aggressive ones certain of guilt, empathetic ones who would like to see the charges reduced, and those who view all young people from certain areas as scum regardless of their situation. At 60 years old, this film shows the same prejudices we face today, yet shows that there is always someone not about to follow the crowd simply because something strikes them as off. It is Fonda who will pretty much control the room, although he does it in a subtle way where nobody realizes that he's pretty much taken over.
While jury's have changed in 60 years (allowing women to serve being the most obvious change), what hasn't changed in the conflict of trying to understand the truth and to agree with 11 other people about it. Fonda goes against what would be allowed today by acting on his own and visiting the neighborhood of the crime, but his passion in figuring out the truth is very admirable. He is quiet in his determination, making this typical Fonda but one that fills his soul with humility and integrity.
Under the direction of novice Sidney Lumet, the entire cast is outstanding. Familiar faces from all walks of show business each get their chance to shine. Jack Klugman, Ed Begley, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, to name a few. I could easily write something about each of them, but it's worth checking them all out yourself. The one juror who really makes an impression in creating his character is Lee J. Cobb as the very aggressive juror who is hiding behind similarities to the case, having had a contentious relationship with his son that sparks his instant sense that the defendant is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. He was deservedly nominated for a Golden Globe (as was Fonda), but the Oscars only acknowledged the film, director and script for nominations.
Each jury is its own story, and from city to city, nothing changes but the type of case and the date.
Should be in everyone's top ten list of greatest films of ALL TIME.....
Freddy_Levit11 January 2005
........Films rarely get this uplifting and brilliant. I cannot think of the last time I 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 Lumet 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 Fonda) 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 Lumet 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 Fonda and Lee J. Cobb 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 that 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 Fonda 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 viewing for anyone who loves film. It sums up everything I 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 Lumet's honor......
"Is it possible?" - Juror #8/Henry Fonda
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 Fonda) 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 Lumet 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 Fonda and Lee J. Cobb 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 that 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 Fonda 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 viewing for anyone who loves film. It sums up everything I 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 Lumet's honor......
"Is it possible?" - Juror #8/Henry Fonda
Lays it on a little thick
RoundTripTicket21 May 2023
I'm going to be contrary. The movie is about as preachy as you can get. The 12 jurors are all cartoonish stereotypes, locked into their predictable characters. The unlikeable characters, of course, all make vacuous, absurd arguments for there position, while yelling and gesticulating. The characters we're supposed to like all make calm, reasonable arguments.
The morality is laid out in stark black and white. No grey, no ambiguity, no difficult choices. Me, I like a movie with a dilemma, and some "lesser of two evils" choices. Each character should also be a mixture of good and bad and grey.
Don't you get tired of Hollywood clonking you over the head with a moral lesson? Especially when Hollywood isn't any better than the rest of us.
The morality is laid out in stark black and white. No grey, no ambiguity, no difficult choices. Me, I like a movie with a dilemma, and some "lesser of two evils" choices. Each character should also be a mixture of good and bad and grey.
Don't you get tired of Hollywood clonking you over the head with a moral lesson? Especially when Hollywood isn't any better than the rest of us.
What a Character-Study Is Meant to Be.
tfrizzell8 June 2002
Intense courtroom drama which has 12 very different people, all males, struggling with a murder case involving a young Puerto Rican boy that seems cut-and-dried. However, juror Henry Fonda does not believe it to be as sure-fire as it appears. He votes not guilty and what follows is a chain of events that will test the views, beliefs and thoughts of the other 11 members. Fonda is great, but Lee J. Cobb steals every scene (and that is not easy to do in a film like this). Ed Begley, Martin Balsam, Jack Warden, Jack Klugman, Joseph Sweeney, E.G. Marshall and John Fiedler are among the other individuals caught in a situation that is much more difficult than it appears on the surface. An excellent character-study that should be studied and embraced by all present and future film-makers. 5 stars out of 5.
Terrific drama with some of the greatest actors in cinematic history
Smells_Like_Cheese29 December 2006
Gosh, I don't know how many times I studied this play and performed it in high school, not to mention how many television shows had an episode that was inspired by 12 Angry Men. It was always a great drama because of the raw human emotions that were so true and remain timeless, this play will never be dated. I couldn't wait to see this movie when I saw it at the video store and it was the first movie I slipped into the DVD player. First off, I was incredibly impressed with the credits, we not only had Henry Fonda, we had Lee J. Cobb in the cast! This movie was so well performed and such a treasure, god, I couldn't ever say any words to justify it. I've done this a million times, but here is another summary of what 12 Angry Men is all about.
12 jurors are about to make a decision about a murder case, over all it seems like an open and shut case with tons of evidence that would make any good man look guilty, an 18 year old boy is about to be put to death if convicted. 11 of the men vote guilty, only one vote holds them back and they have to discuss the trial once again due to one vote being not guilty. Jurour #8 refuses to just jump to conclusions and brings up incredible possibilities that can always make a man think of "reasonable doubts", one by one the jurors begin to see the points he is making, except for one stubborn #3 who would rather just pull the switch to the chair himself.
12 Angry Men is a timeless tale that could either be told very badly, i.e. 7th Heaven, or incredibly well and bring out terrific performances like Henry and Lee did. Actually, the whole cast was terrific, there wasn't a performance that was off key, movies like this are so needed in Hollywood today, it was so simple, but added so much for a 30 minute play. Please, if you have any taste, you will truly enjoy 12 Angry Men and have a great appreciation for it!
10/10
12 jurors are about to make a decision about a murder case, over all it seems like an open and shut case with tons of evidence that would make any good man look guilty, an 18 year old boy is about to be put to death if convicted. 11 of the men vote guilty, only one vote holds them back and they have to discuss the trial once again due to one vote being not guilty. Jurour #8 refuses to just jump to conclusions and brings up incredible possibilities that can always make a man think of "reasonable doubts", one by one the jurors begin to see the points he is making, except for one stubborn #3 who would rather just pull the switch to the chair himself.
12 Angry Men is a timeless tale that could either be told very badly, i.e. 7th Heaven, or incredibly well and bring out terrific performances like Henry and Lee did. Actually, the whole cast was terrific, there wasn't a performance that was off key, movies like this are so needed in Hollywood today, it was so simple, but added so much for a 30 minute play. Please, if you have any taste, you will truly enjoy 12 Angry Men and have a great appreciation for it!
10/10
Good script, great dialogs and a set of actors who would be the envy of the world
jomipira1 September 2003
This is one of those movies where everything could go wrong. The story is as simple as it can be: 12 men are jurors on a open and shut murder trial, but one man thinks that another persons life deserves at least some thought on the matter and votes not guilty. From this point on we have 12 actors and a closed room. This could be the most boring film ever made. Lumet however is a master of mise-en-scene and provides a tense movie that keeps you locked on from the word "go". The dialogs are great and supported by incredibly talented actors. Joel Schumacher in Phone Booth needed to see this movie and draw a few ideas on how to make a character built, dialog driven movie. A must see for everyone.
Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant!!
TheLittleSongbird10 June 2010
There are a few wonderful courtroom dramas out there, Anatomy of a Murder, To Kill a Mockingbird and Witness for the Prosecution immediately springing to mind. 12 Angry Men is so brilliant, it could very well be the definitive courtroom drama on film. Sidney Lumet's direction is masterly, and although the action takes place on one set(an actual New York drawing room) there are a huge variety of innovative camera angles and visual set-ups. The screenplay is sophisticated and smart, and the story is compelling and intelligent. The film is also brilliantly made, and the acting is superb. Henry Fonda especially dominates the film, with an integrity that makes his character so wonderful, but the other actors are wonderful as well, Ed Begley, Jack Warden, John Fiedler, Lee J Cobb, Rudy Bond et al. are all impeccable support to Fonda. Overall, brilliant courtroom drama. 10/10 Bethany Cox
2 thumbs up!
FrenchEddieFelson25 February 2019
Flawless
Marwan-Bob5 January 2020
Simple, yet brilliant
cjyork-0342329 March 2020
This film is investing from start to finish. None of the performances feel like actors playing characters, but instead as people who just happen to be being filmed. The dialogue is phenomenal, the camerawork is absolutely phenomenal, the heat and claustrophobia of the environment sets in right away and gradually gets more and more intense. This film is absolutely phenomenal, and I would recommend it to absolutely anybody who enjoys film as an art form.
An absolute must for anyone who considers themselves a film buff
planktonrules13 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of the greatest films ever made...period. Much of this can be attributed to the exceptional writing and much of this can be attributed to the amazing performances in one of the best ensemble casts in film history. In fact, anyone who considers themselves a film buff or a serious student of film cannot say so unless they have seen this film. I also wish all young directors and writers were forced to watch the film as it demonstrates the power of excellent writing and acting. Imagine...a film that is great that does NOT have special effects, was filmed in black and white, and 99% of which takes place in one small room.
Aside from Henry Fonda, all the other actors are a virtual "who's who" of supporting character actors from the 1950s--and all were at the top of their game in this film. Unfortunately, the film has been parodied and copied so many times that the film's originality has been blunted. Oddly, one of the parodies of this plot came from the TV show "The Odd Couple"--which starred Jack Klugman who was ALSO in 12 ANGRY MEN! See this film. And, if it turns out you don't like it, then I suggest you see a psychiatrist!!!
Aside from Henry Fonda, all the other actors are a virtual "who's who" of supporting character actors from the 1950s--and all were at the top of their game in this film. Unfortunately, the film has been parodied and copied so many times that the film's originality has been blunted. Oddly, one of the parodies of this plot came from the TV show "The Odd Couple"--which starred Jack Klugman who was ALSO in 12 ANGRY MEN! See this film. And, if it turns out you don't like it, then I suggest you see a psychiatrist!!!
A Classic not to be Missed
misha-wilkin17 March 2003
The plot of12 Angry Men revolves around the murder trail of a Latino boy who is accused of killing his father. The conviction of the boy would mean a death sentence and the destiny of the boy's life is in the hands of twelve male jurors of ranging personalities. The case seems open and shut with a murder weapon and several witnesses to place the boy at the scene of the crime. For eleven of the jurors the decision is apparent that the boy is guilty but for one juror, Mr. Davis (Henry Fonda), the boy's life should entail some discussion to eliminate any reasonable doubt the jurors may have. As the film progresses the personalities of the jurors become apparent and many underlying issues influence the guilty decision chosen by the majority of the jurors.
The underlying issues are the complexity of the personalities of the jurors and the reasons why they have the motivation to feel and act the way they do. As the case unfolds further, more is learned about each juror individually. The personalities range from being a short-tempered loud mouth to a straight- laced accountant who never breaks a sweat. As the movie progresses much more is learned of the characters that exposes the intricacy of human nature and people's different personality traits.
This film is an excellent example of movie making that does not require elaborate sets to entertain the viewer. The majority of the film takes place in a jury room with the men never leaving the room from their deliberation responsibilities. The cast and dialogue make this film memorable and the film has some clear moral issues that are addressed. The main issue is that not everything is as it seems. With further analysis the understanding of a situation becomes more concrete enabling the men to make a solid decision that affects a young man's life. 12 Angry Men is a classic film that should not be missed.
The underlying issues are the complexity of the personalities of the jurors and the reasons why they have the motivation to feel and act the way they do. As the case unfolds further, more is learned about each juror individually. The personalities range from being a short-tempered loud mouth to a straight- laced accountant who never breaks a sweat. As the movie progresses much more is learned of the characters that exposes the intricacy of human nature and people's different personality traits.
This film is an excellent example of movie making that does not require elaborate sets to entertain the viewer. The majority of the film takes place in a jury room with the men never leaving the room from their deliberation responsibilities. The cast and dialogue make this film memorable and the film has some clear moral issues that are addressed. The main issue is that not everything is as it seems. With further analysis the understanding of a situation becomes more concrete enabling the men to make a solid decision that affects a young man's life. 12 Angry Men is a classic film that should not be missed.
Great actors; somewhat preachy script; still worth watching
knutsenfam25 August 2005
I won't repeat the details of the plot as many comments above summarize the plot and even the 12 jurors in depth...
Briefly, Fonda's character challenges the rest of the 12 man jury to take time to reexamine the evidence before they send a very young man to the mandatory death sentence.
A fair challenge. Even tho the case (as one juror argues ) seem so "open and shut".
Here, the best thing about the film (to me) is the use of logic. Why? As the 12 men examine each bit of proof, they discover several possible logical flaws or false assumptions. Sound too dry? Not the way it is presented.
My criticism is that Fonda's character is just too perfect, too right and (for most of the movie) too free from perspiration, unlike the rest in that hot jury room.
Fonda early questions some jurors as to whether there's any possibility for error. If he said "It's possible" one more time, I was going to scream. (I remember various evil characters getting off on slim technicalities...! ) But fortunately, his questioning leads others to question evidence and to find REAL doubt that the testimony, etc. is valid.
Their use of logic to pick out the evidentiary flaws is fascinating. Thus, this is still an excellent movie worth watching!
Briefly, Fonda's character challenges the rest of the 12 man jury to take time to reexamine the evidence before they send a very young man to the mandatory death sentence.
A fair challenge. Even tho the case (as one juror argues ) seem so "open and shut".
Here, the best thing about the film (to me) is the use of logic. Why? As the 12 men examine each bit of proof, they discover several possible logical flaws or false assumptions. Sound too dry? Not the way it is presented.
My criticism is that Fonda's character is just too perfect, too right and (for most of the movie) too free from perspiration, unlike the rest in that hot jury room.
Fonda early questions some jurors as to whether there's any possibility for error. If he said "It's possible" one more time, I was going to scream. (I remember various evil characters getting off on slim technicalities...! ) But fortunately, his questioning leads others to question evidence and to find REAL doubt that the testimony, etc. is valid.
Their use of logic to pick out the evidentiary flaws is fascinating. Thus, this is still an excellent movie worth watching!
quickly goes astray
onepotato23 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
For decades now, films about 'social issues' have been problematic; making conscientious viewers believe they've thought deeply about a noble cause, and getting them to applaud themselves for embracing some progressive value that they probably already support*. This movie, in considering the responsibility of jury duty, neglects a finer point (& a larger idea) which remains undramatised; the process of American justice is not designed to declare people innocent... it only concludes whether the prosecution succeeded or failed at proving a person guilty; this is reflected by the very specific terms, Guilty and Not Guilty. A suspect is freed when the prosecution hasn't made its case, not when the suspect is proved innocent. No one is ever declared "innocent." The difference is important (occasionally Not Guilty and Innocent are equivalent, but innocence is generally a higher standard). The jurors of '12 Angry Men' are confused about many things, but none moreso than this. The movie never clarifies this point. It would help these gentlemen immensely.
At both ends of the spectrum - lynch mob to gee-whiz pushovers - the jury here utilizes thought-processes which are toxic to justice. The jerks are too interested in hanging. The 'bleeding hearts' - in the films parlance - are way too engaged in actively dismissing the whole case, not in merely detecting reasonable doubt. At one point Fonda has been able to discredit evidence (which is OK - a discovery supports this) and use a dicey method to disregard so much witness testimony (which is frankly, bizarre) that he might just as well start denying there was a victim, or that a crime occurred at all. "What if the victim isn't dead?" and "What if there was no body?" are only slightly more unreasonable than a few of his crazy, trial-negating suppositions.
It remains a good idea for a movie. There are strong points (a moment when E.G. Marshall, as the reasonable opposition, quietly concedes is particularly powerful), and it's directed and shot well, but the script is so off-course that by the time the film ends most viewers will feel content that an innocent life has been saved, a moral determination not supported by the film, which is neutral concerning culpability. Worse, the offscreen case rings dramatically hollow when reassembled from the details we do get; it suggests some kind of flimsy, polemical courtroom, 'What on earth did these lawyers debate, if it wasn't the crime details? Was this a 4-minute trial?' I'm sure this movie had an impact on viewers likely to be called to jury duty, who WOULD prefer to wind things up so they could get to a ball game, but it does end up affirming that 12 people off the street are usually ignorant, and without some enlightened golden-boy on your jury (and a dramatic structure to reign them in) will hang your sorry ass.
In a shocking example of tunnel-vision, the movie neglects to note that this nifty trick of persuasion might also be deployed by the morally un-righteous. To wit, couldn't just as interesting a scenario be imagined in which a juror whose motives are secretly nefarious, and who is intentionally trying to undermine the process, achieve the same reversal and get someone executed? Could one clever sociopath with a quick mind get a jury to reverse its verdict? That's a creepy, equally promising possibility which viewers aren't supposed to consider, but which is inherent in the premise, and which should have troubled a McCarthy-era audience. I think I'd actually like this movie if Fonda's moral value was left intentionally vague in the end, but it isn't. His righteousness is endorsed by heraldic music on the soundtrack and just so there's no mistaking his virtue, he walks away in a glowing white suit.
This is only a good argument, not a good film. If you're the kind of viewer who prefers that there's no work to do to find a films meaning or your own nobility (Do you like To Kill a Mockingbird?), this is for you. There's no meaning to find, because none of it is hidden. It's all important on the surface. There isn't movie I love that's this overt with its meaning. 12 Angry Men is a nobility machine. Viewers are fed through it, and come out the other end righteous.
(* Grapes of Wrath, Ox-Bow Incident, To Kill a Mockingbird, Call Northside 777, all of Jodie Fosters issue films, all of Kevin Costners issue films, etc.)
At both ends of the spectrum - lynch mob to gee-whiz pushovers - the jury here utilizes thought-processes which are toxic to justice. The jerks are too interested in hanging. The 'bleeding hearts' - in the films parlance - are way too engaged in actively dismissing the whole case, not in merely detecting reasonable doubt. At one point Fonda has been able to discredit evidence (which is OK - a discovery supports this) and use a dicey method to disregard so much witness testimony (which is frankly, bizarre) that he might just as well start denying there was a victim, or that a crime occurred at all. "What if the victim isn't dead?" and "What if there was no body?" are only slightly more unreasonable than a few of his crazy, trial-negating suppositions.
It remains a good idea for a movie. There are strong points (a moment when E.G. Marshall, as the reasonable opposition, quietly concedes is particularly powerful), and it's directed and shot well, but the script is so off-course that by the time the film ends most viewers will feel content that an innocent life has been saved, a moral determination not supported by the film, which is neutral concerning culpability. Worse, the offscreen case rings dramatically hollow when reassembled from the details we do get; it suggests some kind of flimsy, polemical courtroom, 'What on earth did these lawyers debate, if it wasn't the crime details? Was this a 4-minute trial?' I'm sure this movie had an impact on viewers likely to be called to jury duty, who WOULD prefer to wind things up so they could get to a ball game, but it does end up affirming that 12 people off the street are usually ignorant, and without some enlightened golden-boy on your jury (and a dramatic structure to reign them in) will hang your sorry ass.
In a shocking example of tunnel-vision, the movie neglects to note that this nifty trick of persuasion might also be deployed by the morally un-righteous. To wit, couldn't just as interesting a scenario be imagined in which a juror whose motives are secretly nefarious, and who is intentionally trying to undermine the process, achieve the same reversal and get someone executed? Could one clever sociopath with a quick mind get a jury to reverse its verdict? That's a creepy, equally promising possibility which viewers aren't supposed to consider, but which is inherent in the premise, and which should have troubled a McCarthy-era audience. I think I'd actually like this movie if Fonda's moral value was left intentionally vague in the end, but it isn't. His righteousness is endorsed by heraldic music on the soundtrack and just so there's no mistaking his virtue, he walks away in a glowing white suit.
This is only a good argument, not a good film. If you're the kind of viewer who prefers that there's no work to do to find a films meaning or your own nobility (Do you like To Kill a Mockingbird?), this is for you. There's no meaning to find, because none of it is hidden. It's all important on the surface. There isn't movie I love that's this overt with its meaning. 12 Angry Men is a nobility machine. Viewers are fed through it, and come out the other end righteous.
(* Grapes of Wrath, Ox-Bow Incident, To Kill a Mockingbird, Call Northside 777, all of Jodie Fosters issue films, all of Kevin Costners issue films, etc.)
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
