How this movie lost out to bridge on the river Kwai is insane,I've seen it, just another war movie, good-yeah,but come on,the intensity here is powerful, one of my top 10 ever!!!!
A pure classic. Never get tired of watching. Brilliant study in human attitude, behaviour, prejudice, ignorance, humility - everything. And the acting!
It's interesting how 7 is generally considered the worst of the characters, even worse than 3 and 10. And the film seems to agree with this opinion when 11 and 3 are equally disgusted with his indifference. It seems people agree that men with evil convictions are still men, while a man-child is no man at all. Every actor is perfect, but I think Warden's role was the toughest to pull off--the clown everyone despises. He doesn't sit in the middle by accident because he doesn't stand for anything.
I wouldn't sent someone to the chair on a whim and on a 10 seconds decision vote either. I mean, heck, even if he did it, he wouldn't deserve it, the kid just got brutalised his whole life, shesh were these guys immoral.
The great thing is that the buy in question is probably guilty, but it doesn't matter. The point is that one cannot be certain based on the evidence, thus a guilty conviction cannot be given. This is a pillar of the Western legal system. It doesn't matter what we think personally; all that matters is the hard evidence. In my opinion, this film should be something that everyone watches at least once.
The boy was guilty and everybody knew it inclusive the one who voted not guilty. The reason why he defended the boy was cuz he didn’t wanted him be sentenced to death. He knew that the boys crime didn’t deserve death sentence cuz it was many circumstances that led to that crime.
I like the allusions to American race-relations without actually specifying what ethnicity the defendant, victim, & witness were. All while the jury is entirely made up of middle-aged white men, one of them holds explicit prejudice while another is vehemently opposed to such convictions but out of the entire jury only one man is willing to spend his time of day to give the discarding of that young man's life any second thought, which says something about group think & how a legal system can fail us despite checks & balances in place. Kudos to all the actors who carried this simple drama picture by their sheer acting skills!
I think it’s illegal for a juror to bring his or her own evidence into the jury room so Juror number eight Henry Fonda when he brings a exact replica knife into the jury room that’s illegal and probably would have resulted in a mistrial.
The script is excellent, the choice of actors is superb, the pacing and editing is flawless and the direction by Lumet with his camera techniques is exquisite. A genuine masterpiece!
They're all superb. For script and acting the movie is easily in my Top 10. The one actor who has his character nuance down perfect is Jack Warden, Klugman is next.
the one thing that seems unrealistic is the case preparation.it looks like a pretty flimsy case was made by the prosecution.in the real world i would guess the D.A. would need much more solid evidence (inc. DNA now) to even charge someone with murder.
I wonder if the performers in this movie looked back on it and realized what a great thing it was to be in this movie, for many probably the best thing in his career.
After watching the movie I still don't know which way I'd vote as a juror. While I (mostly) disregard the eyewitness accounts - especially the old man's - the knife is damning piece of evidence. While it is not one of a kind - juror #8 demonstrated that - is still pretty rare and the kid had it that same evening and a few hours later his knife (or a very similar one) is sticking in his father's chest. No explanation on the whereabouts of his knife, no alibi.... The only thing speaking for him is 'no fingerprints on the knife' but he certainly could have wiped it. He certainly could have wiped it even in a panic (BTW, that way the old guy's testimony makes sense again. The boy took some time to wipe the knife, so the old guy had more than just the 15s to get to the door ....) and later on with a calmer mind decided that the least suspicious thing to do was to come home (I mean, how suspicious would it be not to come home the night your dad was murdered. He was a bit unlucky that the knife was identified as his...) I believe he did it, I am not certain he did it but have no idea whether I am convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Then you'd have to vote not guilty, since you clearly have a reasonable doubt. It's not about perfect certainty, and the defense is not required to say a single word on its client's behalf- it's ENTIRELY the responsibility of the prosecution to prove guilt BEYOND a reasonable doubt- which this trial clearly did not. Many people argue that it's more important to keep a killer off the street than to uphold the letter of the law in a case like this. Dead wrong: even the worst of murderers is less dangerous than the loss to society of the inalienable right to a fair trial by jury.- one of the things we stand to lose when fascism finally consumes this country. Try convincing a typical reactionary Trumpite of that. Good luck...
@@thomassmith-s4i "...since you clearly have a reasonable doubt." Just stating this as if it were fact does not make it true! What makes you think that my doubt is reasonable since I am clearly not so confident on which side of the edge I come down?
@@tom-qj6uw Never forget; it is infinitely worse to send an innocent man to his death (or to extended imprisonment) than it is to let a guilty man free. If you disagree with that statement, that is your right: but: would you disagree with it if you wee the innocent man wrongly imprisoned or on death row???
I thought it was great that in the TV series of “The Odd Couple” starring Jack Klugman and Tony Randall, they used the story line of this movie in one of their episodes!! Good stuff
12 Angry Men (1957) f'u"l'l M'o'V'i"E 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞 ➽ bit.ly/3h03LD5 -All Subtitle Available Stream Now ➣ is.gd/tspjk2 download : is.gd/tspjk2 !💖🖤❤️今後は気をライブ配信の再編ありがとうです！この日のライブ配信は、かならりやばかったですね！１万人を超える人が見ていたもん（笑）やっぱり人参最高！まさかのカメラ切り忘れでやら1かしたのもドキドキでした,. 💖🖤在整個人類歷史上，強者，富人和具有狡猾特質的人捕食部落，氏族，城鎮，城市和鄉村中的弱者，無`'守和貧窮成員。然而，人類的生存意願迫使那些被拒絕，被剝奪或摧毀的基本需求的人們找到了一種生活方式，並繼續將其DNA融入不斷發展的人類社會。. 說到食物，不要以為那些被拒絕的人只吃垃圾。相反，他們學會了在被忽視的肉類和蔬菜中尋找營養。他們學會了清潔，切塊，調味和慢燉慢燉的野菜和肉類，在食品:"""""` √™ Lorsqu'une pilule qui donne aux utilisateurs cinq minutes de super pouvoirs inattendus arrive dans les rues de la Nouvelle-Orléans, un adolescent marchand et un policier local doivent faire équipe avec un ancien soldat pour √™ faire tomber le groupe responsable de sa fabrication. √™"""thanks"""
@@m3mario That’s debatable because a greater likelihood of punishment would deter potential criminals, including potential murders, from committing crimes in the first place.
That's not the point and movie does not take stance if accused/suspect is guilty or not. It is about importance of due process, presumption of innocence and system working as it should. Thorough examination, being judged by jury of his peers.
12 Angry Men (1957) ~Fúll~MöVíĒ~ ☑️ playherethemovie.blogspot.com/tt0050083/plays All Subtitle √™ Lorsqu'une pilule qui donne aux utilisateurs cinq minutes de super pouvoirs inattendus arrive dans les rues de la Nouvelle-Orléans, un adolescent marchand et un policier local doivent faire équipe avec un ancien soldat pour faire tomber le groupe responsable de sa fabrication."'"'" !💖🖤❤️今後は気をライブ配信の再編ありがとうです！この日のライブ配信は、かならりやばかったですね！１万人を超える人が見ていたもん（笑）やっぱり人参最高！まさかのカメラ切り忘れでやら1かしたのもドキドキでした,. 💖🖤在整個人類歷史上，強者，富人和具有狡猾特質的人捕食部落，氏族，城鎮，城市和鄉村中的弱者，無`'守和貧窮成員。然而，人類的生存意願迫使那些被拒絕，被剝奪或摧毀的基本需求的人們找到了一種生活方式，並繼續將其DNA融入不斷發展的人類社會。. 說到食物，不要以為那些被拒絕的人只吃垃圾。相反，他們學會了在被忽視的肉類和蔬菜中尋找營養。他們學會了清潔，切塊，調味和慢燉慢燉的野菜和肉類，在食品:"""""'''
If a film can be called perfect then 12 Angry Men is exactly that. A object in film art at its absolute best. Direction and acting is a tour de force of 20th century cinema. One of the greatest films ever made.
#10 also uses phrases like "you know", "aren't they?" and "didn't we" as if what he's saying is a fact everyone can agree on, despite it being quite unreliable due to it being biased
This is the greatest film ever made in my humble opinion. Everything about it is perfect. Every single thing. Tight script that does a great job exploring the concept of reasonable doubt. The acting was terrific; every single juror's character is memorable and they all make meaningful contributions to the discussion, good or bad. The camera work, editing, music is all great. I can't sing enough praises for this film. Also one of the most riveting films I've ever seen. I find myself glued to the screen from beginning to end. Not a single moment in the film I find myself even slightly bored. And it has repeat value. I can watch it over and over again and it only gets better with each viewing. Masterpiece. 10/10
I watched and analysed the language of this movie sporadically for many years but love comments like this that make me notice something I hadn’t before:)
@@anasmansouri5659 He explains that it's up to the eleven of them to convince Juror #8 that they're the ones who are right, but in the end, it's Juror #8 who convinces them that he was right all along.
😅😅😅
Trump is juror 3
How this movie lost out to bridge on the river Kwai is insane,I've seen it, just another war movie, good-yeah,but come on,the intensity here is powerful, one of my top 10 ever!!!!
There is a 1997 remake also really good movie
Wokeism in 1957. He was guilty.
“Everyone has a breaking point” is an amazing line to ready the viewer to what’s about to happen.
A pure classic. Never get tired of watching. Brilliant study in human attitude, behaviour, prejudice, ignorance, humility - everything. And the acting!
Henry Fonda was directed by John Ford and Sidney Lumet, both great directors, but with dissimilar approaches when it came to actors.
11 guilty 1 not guily . . . What we do now? . . . . I guess we talk
8:18 damn
Add value by disagreeing so both sides are discussed.
It's interesting how 7 is generally considered the worst of the characters, even worse than 3 and 10. And the film seems to agree with this opinion when 11 and 3 are equally disgusted with his indifference. It seems people agree that men with evil convictions are still men, while a man-child is no man at all. Every actor is perfect, but I think Warden's role was the toughest to pull off--the clown everyone despises. He doesn't sit in the middle by accident because he doesn't stand for anything.
I know a bitch when i see one!!! 😂
Great actors
No frills just great talent a great story realism at it's best. 👍
This movie before the mothers fuckers rainbows, hollywood is worse and worse from titanic and getting fucked and fucked after rainbows people
I wouldn't sent someone to the chair on a whim and on a 10 seconds decision vote either. I mean, heck, even if he did it, he wouldn't deserve it, the kid just got brutalised his whole life, shesh were these guys immoral.
I wouldn’t say immoral it’s just that the evidence seemed at the time to stack against the kid
⚡⚡⚡😮😮😲⚡⚡⚡ Zap him. ZAP HIM!
The great thing is that the buy in question is probably guilty, but it doesn't matter. The point is that one cannot be certain based on the evidence, thus a guilty conviction cannot be given. This is a pillar of the Western legal system. It doesn't matter what we think personally; all that matters is the hard evidence. In my opinion, this film should be something that everyone watches at least once.
The boy was guilty and everybody knew it inclusive the one who voted not guilty. The reason why he defended the boy was cuz he didn’t wanted him be sentenced to death. He knew that the boys crime didn’t deserve death sentence cuz it was many circumstances that led to that crime.
Could be a theory it's possible
I like the allusions to American race-relations without actually specifying what ethnicity the defendant, victim, & witness were. All while the jury is entirely made up of middle-aged white men, one of them holds explicit prejudice while another is vehemently opposed to such convictions but out of the entire jury only one man is willing to spend his time of day to give the discarding of that young man's life any second thought, which says something about group think & how a legal system can fail us despite checks & balances in place. Kudos to all the actors who carried this simple drama picture by their sheer acting skills!
This movie wouldn’t exist if Jurry Nullification was known across the country.
I think it’s illegal for a juror to bring his or her own evidence into the jury room so Juror number eight Henry Fonda when he brings a exact replica knife into the jury room that’s illegal and probably would have resulted in a mistrial.
Good point. To my understanding, he would not have been allowed to make the demonstration with the steps.
The script is excellent, the choice of actors is superb, the pacing and editing is flawless and the direction by Lumet with his camera techniques is exquisite. A genuine masterpiece!
Henry Fonda and Al Pacino two of the finest Italian American actors in history
6:19 I have no personal feelings about this... Oh yeah right!!
He presented facts. You can't refute facts. I'm as sentimental as the next guy, I know he's only 18, but he's still gotta pay for what he done.
This film is worth every rewatch
They're all superb. For script and acting the movie is easily in my Top 10. The one actor who has his character nuance down perfect is Jack Warden, Klugman is next.
6:18 SPOILERS SO NO SCROLLING DOWN IF YOU DON'T WANT GET SPOILED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biggest lie Jury 3 has ever told.
the one thing that seems unrealistic is the case preparation.it looks like a pretty flimsy case was made by the prosecution.in the real world i would guess the D.A. would need much more solid evidence (inc. DNA now) to even charge someone with murder.
You can throw out all the other evidence, the woman saw him do it!
Baltimore [Orioles] fan "like being hit in the head with a crowbar once a day"...some things haven't changed since 1957 lmao
The Birds is coming.
I respect Juror #5 for saying “I could be wrong”. That’s a good thing to say, it shows you have the humility to know that you can make mistakes.
Humility and mistakes- two things which Donald Trump would never admit to...
It was actually #6, 5 asked to skip his turn :)
✋Guilty🤚
I wonder if the performers in this movie looked back on it and realized what a great thing it was to be in this movie, for many probably the best thing in his career.
Fonda said in the 1970's, that of all the movies he made, he was proud of maybe 7 or 8, this being one of them. The Ox-Bow Incident was another.
What makes a great movie great? Story? Performers? Director? This one has all of that.
Did anybody see the sequel 12 Hungry Men?
Superb acting by all of them
After watching the movie I still don't know which way I'd vote as a juror. While I (mostly) disregard the eyewitness accounts - especially the old man's - the knife is damning piece of evidence. While it is not one of a kind - juror #8 demonstrated that - is still pretty rare and the kid had it that same evening and a few hours later his knife (or a very similar one) is sticking in his father's chest. No explanation on the whereabouts of his knife, no alibi.... The only thing speaking for him is 'no fingerprints on the knife' but he certainly could have wiped it. He certainly could have wiped it even in a panic (BTW, that way the old guy's testimony makes sense again. The boy took some time to wipe the knife, so the old guy had more than just the 15s to get to the door ....) and later on with a calmer mind decided that the least suspicious thing to do was to come home (I mean, how suspicious would it be not to come home the night your dad was murdered. He was a bit unlucky that the knife was identified as his...) I believe he did it, I am not certain he did it but have no idea whether I am convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Then you'd have to vote not guilty, since you clearly have a reasonable doubt. It's not about perfect certainty, and the defense is not required to say a single word on its client's behalf- it's ENTIRELY the responsibility of the prosecution to prove guilt BEYOND a reasonable doubt- which this trial clearly did not. Many people argue that it's more important to keep a killer off the street than to uphold the letter of the law in a case like this. Dead wrong: even the worst of murderers is less dangerous than the loss to society of the inalienable right to a fair trial by jury.- one of the things we stand to lose when fascism finally consumes this country. Try convincing a typical reactionary Trumpite of that. Good luck...
@@thomassmith-s4i "...since you clearly have a reasonable doubt." Just stating this as if it were fact does not make it true! What makes you think that my doubt is reasonable since I am clearly not so confident on which side of the edge I come down?
@@tom-qj6uw Never forget; it is infinitely worse to send an innocent man to his death (or to extended imprisonment) than it is to let a guilty man free. If you disagree with that statement, that is your right: but: would you disagree with it if you wee the innocent man wrongly imprisoned or on death row???
I thought it was great that in the TV series of “The Odd Couple” starring Jack Klugman and Tony Randall, they used the story line of this movie in one of their episodes!! Good stuff
12 Angry Men (1957) f'u"l'l M'o'V'i"E 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞 ➽ bit.ly/3h03LD5 -All Subtitle Available Stream Now ➣ is.gd/tspjk2 download : is.gd/tspjk2 !💖🖤❤️今後は気をライブ配信の再編ありがとうです！この日のライブ配信は、かならりやばかったですね！１万人を超える人が見ていたもん（笑）やっぱり人参最高！まさかのカメラ切り忘れでやら1かしたのもドキドキでした,. 💖🖤在整個人類歷史上，強者，富人和具有狡猾特質的人捕食部落，氏族，城鎮，城市和鄉村中的弱者，無`'守和貧窮成員。然而，人類的生存意願迫使那些被拒絕，被剝奪或摧毀的基本需求的人們找到了一種生活方式，並繼續將其DNA融入不斷發展的人類社會。. 說到食物，不要以為那些被拒絕的人只吃垃圾。相反，他們學會了在被忽視的肉類和蔬菜中尋找營養。他們學會了清潔，切塊，調味和慢燉慢燉的野菜和肉類，在食品:"""""` √™ Lorsqu'une pilule qui donne aux utilisateurs cinq minutes de super pouvoirs inattendus arrive dans les rues de la Nouvelle-Orléans, un adolescent marchand et un policier local doivent faire équipe avec un ancien soldat pour √™ faire tomber le groupe responsable de sa fabrication. √™"""thanks"""
I'm not a big fan of old black and white movies, but I really enjoyed this one.
I always use this movie as an introducer for those who are put off by old movies.
Either this one or Psycho
@Vick JR Hitchcock oldies also serve the purpose well. And the Billy Wilder oldies!
Every dialogue the Foreman says starts with a Say ya
✋ Guilty.
This movie probably saved the life of so many innocent people.
Underrated comment
Probably also let a lot of guilty people go free.
@@georgeofhamilton so much better than an innocent person go to jail to die or for the rest of their life.
@@m3mario That’s debatable because a greater likelihood of punishment would deter potential criminals, including potential murders, from committing crimes in the first place.
That's not the point and movie does not take stance if accused/suspect is guilty or not. It is about importance of due process, presumption of innocence and system working as it should. Thorough examination, being judged by jury of his peers.
12 Angry Men (1957) ~Fúll~MöVíĒ~ ☑️ playherethemovie.blogspot.com/tt0050083/plays All Subtitle √™ Lorsqu'une pilule qui donne aux utilisateurs cinq minutes de super pouvoirs inattendus arrive dans les rues de la Nouvelle-Orléans, un adolescent marchand et un policier local doivent faire équipe avec un ancien soldat pour faire tomber le groupe responsable de sa fabrication."'"'" !💖🖤❤️今後は気をライブ配信の再編ありがとうです！この日のライブ配信は、かならりやばかったですね！１万人を超える人が見ていたもん（笑）やっぱり人参最高！まさかのカメラ切り忘れでやら1かしたのもドキドキでした,. 💖🖤在整個人類歷史上，強者，富人和具有狡猾特質的人捕食部落，氏族，城鎮，城市和鄉村中的弱者，無`'守和貧窮成員。然而，人類的生存意願迫使那些被拒絕，被剝奪或摧毀的基本需求的人們找到了一種生活方式，並繼續將其DNA融入不斷發展的人類社會。. 說到食物，不要以為那些被拒絕的人只吃垃圾。相反，他們學會了在被忽視的肉類和蔬菜中尋找營養。他們學會了清潔，切塊，調味和慢燉慢燉的野菜和肉類，在食品:"""""'''
If a film can be called perfect then 12 Angry Men is exactly that. A object in film art at its absolute best. Direction and acting is a tour de force of 20th century cinema. One of the greatest films ever made.
Thank God there were no Cell Phones back then!
I love how Juror #8 looks #10 directly in the eye sitting down while #10 fidgets and walks around
#10 also uses phrases like "you know", "aren't they?" and "didn't we" as if what he's saying is a fact everyone can agree on, despite it being quite unreliable due to it being biased
8:13 A cold blooded call out by Juror 8 on Juror 10’s bigotry.
Love how he doesn't even bother hiding it. He just admits that Juror 8 is very perceptive.
@@midnalazuli793 - no, "smart" in this context used to mean smug or sanctimonious
More like Juror 10's contradiction
This is the greatest film ever made in my humble opinion. Everything about it is perfect. Every single thing. Tight script that does a great job exploring the concept of reasonable doubt. The acting was terrific; every single juror's character is memorable and they all make meaningful contributions to the discussion, good or bad. The camera work, editing, music is all great. I can't sing enough praises for this film. Also one of the most riveting films I've ever seen. I find myself glued to the screen from beginning to end. Not a single moment in the film I find myself even slightly bored. And it has repeat value. I can watch it over and over again and it only gets better with each viewing. Masterpiece. 10/10
You captioned my thoughts about this film so well ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️I agree, it’s the best film in existence I rate it 12/10!!!
Ideologically, I 100% truthfully agree.
5:25 I love how Juror #12 basically summarized the whole plot of the movie but in reverse.
I watched and analysed the language of this movie sporadically for many years but love comments like this that make me notice something I hadn’t before:)
What did mean by that i didn't understand
@@anasmansouri5659 He explains that it's up to the eleven of them to convince Juror #8 that they're the ones who are right, but in the end, it's Juror #8 who convinces them that he was right all along.