12 Angry Men (1957) - 🤯📼First Time Film Club📼🤯 - First Time Watching/Movie Reaction & Review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Watch the original movie here:
amzn.to/3ZxgLGg
👍💲30% of all Super Chats go to YT. If you’d like to donate/tip Emily and Matthew directly, follow the link: 👍💲
streamlabs.com...
🎨🎬Movie Palette - 15% Off Promo Code: SUMM15 🎬🎨
www.moviepalette.com
Want to mail us something?
P.O. Box 320536
Flowood, MS 39232
(We both wear XL t-shirts 😉)
• Website: summerlincreat...
• Our Patreon: / justsummreactions
• Follow us on social media and check out our other projects: linktr.ee/poss...
• Submit your movie suggestions here: forms.gle/TtQ5...
• Take a look at “The List” here: docs.google.co...
Equipment used in this video:
Canon XA11 Professional Camcorder amzn.to/3Hl0bPL
Audio-Technica ATH-M20x Studio Monitor Headphones (used during editing) amzn.to/3qe5VD1
Blue Yeti USB Mic amzn.to/3dxF8Mk
Music credit:
Show Your Moves by Kevin MacLeod
Link: incompetech.fi...
License: creativecommons...
Voice Over Under by Kevin MacLeod
Link: incompetech.fi...
License: creativecommons...
Elevator Music by: bensound.com
Aries Beats - Kids (STRANGER THINGS MUSIC inspired 80s Synthwave Soundtrack)
Music / Instrumental by Aries Beats / @ariesbeats
*Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT INTENDED. All rights belong to their respective owners.
A room full of fantastic actors given great dialog to deliver. That's all this movie needs to keep you fully engaged.
yep these guys were legendary actors who have been in many t.v.shows and movies
It really puts the overblown stupidly high budget VFX spectacle films in perspective doesn't it?
Actor wages aside this film would have been made on a shoe string budget and it remains one of the classic films of all time.
Amen!
I agree, this is peak movie engagement.
A splendid movie, absolutely splendid.
This is my favourite film and I had not heard about any of the actors. But I watched people analyse 12 angry men and now I realise the context of how good these actors were
I have been looking forward to the 2 of them reacting to this movie for a long, long time! 😊
"Dudes can get so angry over the dumbest things. No, I'm kidding, I'm sorry." But you're not wrong! 😅
Well she's wrong, it is a "human" thing. Even more generally a brain thing, anything with a brain can do it, the more complex the brain, the dumber the things being angry about can be, so she's incorrect to limit it to just men.
I appreciate the fire and compassion Emily had throughout this entire reaction. this is the kinda stuff I'm subscribed for! bravo, ma'am!
Something I found interesting was without saying it, the police/detectives were also biased and made assumptions. I'm sure that when the police questioned the woman about what she saw she was most likely wearing glasses but they never questioned if she was wearing her glasses when it happened, nor did that info make it into the police report. Also if they did any real digging into the neighborhood it's very possible they could have found the same knife that Davis found. They just saw a dead man, a kid with a history and assumed him to be guilty.
Wtf? No car chases? No explosions? No superhero’s?
Here is another bit of trolling by Paul Winkle.
Paul Winkle said, "Jurors as far as I know have to take what was stated in court, not to make their own investigations in the little room. They are not qualified"
I said, "Paul WInkle, where in court did it say she wore sunglasses?"
Paul replied, "@TonyTiger6521 It was stated, the angry guy said it"
That wasn't in court. That was in the room where the jury deliberated. So now Paul is allowing things said not in court but in the jury room, after just saying you can't do that.
Paul is a troll. Nothing more.
Jurors are not allowed to consider information or draw conclusions that are not part of the trial record. They are not supposed to conduct their own investigations, gather additional evidence, or make decisions based on personal beliefs or biases. Their role is to be impartial and to make a decision based on the evidence and the law presented to them in court.
a member of the Supreme Court of the US used to use this movie as instruction on how juries are not supposed to behave as there are several things done which would almost certainly cause a mistrial. Try reading "Good Film, Bad Jury" by Charles D. Weisselberg of the Chicago Law Review.
@@PaulWinkle Can you show us where a jury instruction, law, or similar says if a juror realizes a material fact that was not brought up in court during the trial, that that fact cannot be taken into account during jury deliberation?
@@PaulWinkle You have failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the boy is guilty. You lose.
@@PaulWinkle From "Handbook for Trial Jurors Serving in the US District Courts"
"Jurors are expected to use all the experience, common sense and common knowledge they possess. "
Common sense, common knowledge, and personal experience (at least for many of us) - based on the marks on the sides of her nose - tells us that the woman wore glasses.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger From "Handbook for Trial Jurors Serving in the US District Courts"
"The Sixth Amendment’s guarantee
of a trial by an impartial jury requires that a
jury’s verdict must be based on nothing else
but the evidence and law presented to them
in court. "
Dimples on a nose in court, is what? Evidence? In which direction? However buying a knife near the crime scene and dragging it into the jurors room? Mistrial!
"Individual jurors should never inspect
(either in person or via Internet websites) the
scene of an accident or of any event in the
case."
One juror was the detective in The Exorcist. Another was one of the actors in The Odd Couple. More were in famous roles. Henry Fonda was in everything. 😏
Also directed by Lumet is Q&A Starring Timothy Hutton, Armand Assante and I think one of Nick Nolte's best performances.
I always thought it would be funny to watch the people not in that room, who just heard all that testimony from eye witnesses, to have the jury come back 12-0 Not Guilty.
I also like to imagine that the defendant WAS guilty and that one juror basically poisoned the well, making all these arguments for the defendant outside the courtroom where the prosecutor couldn't redirect and witnesses couldn't be questioned. Like we saw in My Cousin Vinny, sometimes the glasses are reading glasses.
If evidence doesn't survive, then the claim is thrown out. And, lets say for arguments sake, the kid did do it. Either
a) He doesn't do it again, so no reason to convict, it won't bring a dead person to life, and only kills someone else.
b) He does do it again, and is caught, so he faces death again.
In my Top 10 All Time Movies 👏🏻👏🏻👍👍😍🇬🇧
This is perhaps the most flawless movie I have ever seen where no matter being 95% of it being set in one room, it is 100% captivating.
I feel like that about “Silence of the Lambs” as it pertains to Sir Anthony Hopkins’ performance. He was shot in such a small frame for the majority of his scenes, yet he acted that role with complexity and intensity like nobody’s business!
It is, I suggested it few times already. I would bet Emily would like it. I would reccomend her Savage Streets, completely different movie, but I think she would like it too@@DoremiFasolatido1979
It's set in one room because ..... it was a famous Broadway play, lol. Seems obvious.
Henry Fonda was the producer of the film. Normally, he hated to see himself in dailies, but here he had to go to the rushes... at first. After the first day, he took Sidney Lumet aside, whispered, "It's perfect," and left the screening room. He didn't come back; he trusted Lumet enough to get the film right after seeing those dailies.
This movie is gold! 12 angry men and 1 angry woman lol. Glad she was so passionate about the story, hope she enjoyed it as much as it upset her
12 angry men and 1 angry woman, that got a chuckle out of me
I love that she just immediately got invested and was absolutely the 13th juror. 😂 If she'd been in the room it would have taken about 5 minutes for everyone to be yelled into changing their mind!
From "Handbook for Trial Jurors Serving in the US District Courts"
"The Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a trial by an impartial jury requires that a jury’s verdict must be based on nothing else but the evidence and law presented to them in court. "
It is so strange, those 12 men, who ended up being "hereos" broke the law so many times in their little room. No8 pulling out evidence he never was authorised to present. Or assuming that the woman with nose dimples has to be blind. Just an assumptions by the jurors, but it was never a topic in court (sixth amendment for sure). When ppl start to argue that the law doesn't apply to themselves, it is getting dangerous. Laws are there for no reason? Maybe to prevent self-proclaimed experts starting experiments thinking that 30 seconds are 41 seconds. They even got that wrong! Movie title should: "12 obtuse idiots"
Thought the same!
@@bettrhalf8006 To be yelled into changing their opinion. New law in the US? Internet ppl yell until their emotional needs are fullfilled...great.
Tonight's movie is 12 Angry Men and one pissed off woman.
With Emily telling us how you use a switchblade. "pffft/Under the ribs" makes me fear for Matthew;s life :)
I don’t think of Juror #12 as “dumb”. I think he’s the kind of guy who has difficulty processing information when it’s not laid out in sequence.
He’s a vital character to have because that’s also how a lot of film viewers are.
And jurors.
This was Sidney Lumet's first feature film, the beginning of a great career in the movies. His 1982 film, The Verdict, starring Paul Newman, is another great courtroom drama. Also wonderful is the sprawling police drama, Prince of the City. Henry Fonda was one of America's greatest actors. He is wonderful in such films as the fun screwball comedy The Lady Eve and the classic drama The Grapes of Wrath.
My fave Henry Fonda performance has to be Once Upon a Time in the West. That whole cast was brilliant.
I wish some reactor would bite the bullet and watch Grapes of Wrath. Fonda's performance is one for the ages. But even more important, viewers learn history, important and still very relevant history. Might even inspire some to read Steinbeck's book, which told the story the way Hollywood was unwilling to...
Lee J Cobb’s turn as Juror 3 is my favorite portrayal of any role, by any actor, ever. I first saw this when I was 14, and I remember thinking that I finally understood what people meant by saying that a supporting actor "stole the show".
I think George C Scott played the role just a hair better in the 1997 version, but that's a King Kong vs Godzilla comparison. And it was the only point at which the 1997 version came close to this 1957 version.
@@kirkdarling4120 Godzilla will always win over King Kong, come on.
He played it so well, selling his role as an antagonist throughout the entire movie, and you've convinced yourself that you hate him and he is despicable. Then comes the last five minutes and that final monologue of his, and he is instantly turned into a sympathetic character
This is such a powerful film. It's a shame some people would never watch it because it is in black and white. So glad you enjoyed it!
I wish they cut out the final outside scene with Fonda and the old man. Absolutely pointless.
Yes, John Fiedler was Piglet! Good call. I've seen this film countless times and it never gets old. One of America's greatest playwrights, one of our greatest directors, and twelve of the world's greatest actors of their time at the top of their games. Some of their kids are famous today: Peter and Jane Fonda, Ed Begley, Jr. . . The credits of the twelve actors could fill volumes. Yes, the original version is best. The remake's cinematography is nowhere near as excellent. Go back and look at how many group shots are composed like a painting, with everyone's face visible. Just astonishing. I encourage that viewers look up the other films of these actors. Jack Klugman's Twilight Zone episodes are amazing. But why does no one ever react to "To Kill a Mockingbird"?
*"But why does no one ever react to "To Kill a Mockingbird"?"*
That's a good question. I've suggested it to many.
Also Fielder as J. Noble Daggett in the original "True Grit".
@@gregall2178- personally I think it perhaps the best film ever made. I wish more would.
I loved the TZ episode where Klugman was a pool player.
Or On the Waterfront, where Lee J. Cobb gets to act against Brando's greatest performance, all due respect to his greatness in Godfather.
The fact that Henry Fonda's character is an architect is super important. Architect's are HYPER focused on *small* details, because even the smallest screw up can cause a tragedy of monumental scale.
This is a masterpiece. Sidney Lumet did a wonderful job adapting this play and all these actors are just what this play needed :)
Many years later a "remake" was filmed and it's not bad but it does really pale compared to this 1957 version. It's a Classic, and if not then it should be :)
I'm glad you enjoyed it so much. This was my dad's favourite film and he passed away just a few months ago. He used to watch it whenever he could, especially the last few months before he passed. It always brings back his memories when I see anyone watching it.
I’m sorry for your loss. May your Dad rest in peace.
This is my favorite movie to watch first time reactions to. And you did not disappoint! It's like seeing the movie again for the first time. Thank you!
I think I'm going to rename this movie 12 Angry Men, and 1 Angry Emily! I loved your reaction and how invested you were with the story.
Sweet Jesus....Emily knows exactly how to use a switchblade 🥺
😇
I appreciate the immigrant juror most. He breathes new life into the meaning of justice and democracy for those to whom the idea has become commonplace and tedious.
C’est un des jurés les plus attachants avec le vieil homme ❤
And that idea shouldn't be taken for granted because it can be taken away.
One of absolute favorite movies. I'm so happy Emily was immediately into it.
Sorry your edit didn't include the moment at the end when Henry Fonda helps Lee J. Cobb to put his suit coat on. Among my favorite moments in this overall great, great film. A brilliant yet simple way to convey something deeper and having significant intention but happening between male characters who wouldn't jibe with voluntary, "mushy" public emotion. Also a nice 'pressure release' to close the movie, given all the story's "anger."
"Now sit down and don't open your mouth again."
And if you notice, Juror #10 doesn't say another word for the remainder of the film.
It was such a great ensemble performance...it's why the movie didn't win any acting Academy Awards...Lee J Cobb, IMO, should have won the award for Best Supporting Actor. The range of emotions, the depth of his character really was a fine performance in that role...a very hard role to sell.
I was a juror on a criminal trial once....and every single one of us thought the guy was guilty as sin....However, the prosecution didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. We all voted NOT GUILTY...but man....we all thought he was beyond guilty.
The greatest reaction video of all time as the movie does all the talking. So engrossed in the movie that Matt is silent and Emily can mostly only say "Yes". "Egggggxactly". Loved it, guys, thanks!
Great engrossing movie, to this day. And gotta love the camera work that progressively goes from up above to down below over the course of the movie, getting closer and more boiled up with the jurors as the deliberating goes on.
Phenomenal film, glad you're checking it out. Inherit the Wind is another courtroom drama from this era that you should certainly watch.
this man wishes to be afforded the same rights as a sponge
@@runrunrun_runaway2607 So many great lines in that movie. 😊
I love this movie - the actors, the dialog, the tension, everything about it. A true classic!
You folks should definitely check out Lumet's 1964 nuclear war thriller Fail Safe...he used many of the same filming techniques in that as he did in this one.
You are correct that John Fiedler was the voice of Piglet. He is also known for being on the Bob Newhart Show.
One of the greatest movies ever made. And it's all in one room, and taken place within 24 hours. Damn I love movies like that.
Thank you for your reaction video!
Fantastic that you have grasped the challenge, the deep meaning, the relevance and the value of this masterpiece; even if you have hidden a bit your emotional involvement...
This film should be shown to all young people in high school to make them understand the importance of arguments, facts and realistic evaluation!
The film has never been more importand than now, when you look at the status of the USA.
Thank you from Germany!
You guys are great!
Emily took one look at that kid's face in the opening credits and decided he was not guilty LOL!
We all have our biases in one way or another, including you Emily.
For me the best juror was juror number 4 (glasses guy, who never sweats). He was only ever interested in the facts. He wasn't swayed by emotional arguments from anyone. All he was interested in was the actual facts.
The worst guy in the room was juror number 7 (baseball guy) he literally did not care one way or another. Were they letting a guilty man go free or Were they condemning an innocent man? - Either way he didn't care, he just wanted to go to the baseball game! Even Juror No4 (angry guy) was initially voting guilty because he genuinely thought the kid did it (same with the "racist" juror, he genuinely thought the kid did it) but he eventually changed his mind when the evidence came in to question.
The Baseball guy never once based his vote on wether the kid actually did it or not. All of the other jurors who voted guilty at the outset, did so because they genuinely believed the accused was guilty.
However a bias is why we insist "unless proven guilty". Or do you want a bias for someone to be dead and consider that as bad as a bias for someone to be alive?
@@markhackett2302 I've no idea what you're on about.
@@Mantis_Toboggan_MD. No idea why you felt compelled to tell me. I can't do anything about it. Try not being dumb, maybe?
That dude with the glasses who don't sweat is my MVP in this movie. He is the type of person I hope to be, nothing but the facts, no emotional attachment, no over reacting, no lying to gain something. The truth is all that matters and he allows himself to change his mind with the times and is not intimidated by anyone, not the bully, not the r@cist, no one.
And still he was convinced to a wrong decision in the end.
@@PaulWinklenope , he was convinced based on personal experience with eyeglasses, that the woman who also wore glasses more than likey wouldn’t wear them to bed , and therefore wouldn’t have had them on when she saw the murder, which was at night and through a train car window. He was then convinced that there was a reasonable doubt that what she said she saw may be incorrect.
He could not be convinced to a wrong decision, because the prosecution had not proven guilt. We don’t know if the boy was guilty. But we were given enough reasonable doubt , to believe it is possible that he is not guilty, not to say he isinnocent, just not guilty. They are two different things.
@@walterlane3956 Nobody wears sunglasses in bed. Correct.
@@PaulWinkle so we’re just going to ignore where they talk about how she could also wear eyeglasses? Was it ever determined for a fact that she only wore sunglasses?
@@PaulWinkle A court of law is not about being "wrong" its about being convinced or having reasonable doubt. If you have any doubt, then you can never be "right" no matter what verdict you choose.
Seems Emily has the exact same opinions, views and fervor as myself when it comes to Juries lol... funny seeing someone parroting what ive said to others in the past, almost verbatim.
Although no one ever wants to be on a Jury (and most Juries are for cases that really are mind numbing), ive been on 4 in the last 20 years, and my first one was a 5 week long white collar fraud case that ended up on a hung jury when one of the other jurors changed their vote from guilty to no guilty over night on the last day 'on a feeling', lets just say it soured the proceedings BIG time... and i gotta say its an exhausting experience, each time (even the short ones, its just you get to see a side of strangers and emotions you normally never do). This movie displays the most typical stereotypes of juror you WILL find on a jury, in both genders... although they dont often get heated like this.
The ultimate civic duty... its a pain, its an inconvenience... but it has to be respected and taken to the utmost seriousness, as a corner stone right of our society.
In my opinion, this is one of the five or six best movies I've ever seen. It's essentially perfect. 10/10.
No, it isn't perfect at all. For example at around the 12:24 mark in this video below:
ruclips.net/video/g1VFfVsZt7w/видео.html
Jurors are not allowed to being in evidence that was not presented in the trial. Juror number 8 did that when he bought the same knife and used it in order to claim the defendant could be innocent. That can cause a mistrial if it was found out.
@@JohnGraves1985 I'm not saying it's perfect in accurate presentation of the law. I'm saying it's a (near-)perfect dramatic film.
My English class in the 10th grade read through this play. I was Juror 4 (the analytical hold-out). I was enthralled just reading the play. The movie managed to be even better!
One of the best courtroom dramas ever made.
Nominated for 4 Oscars including Best Picture, but lost to The Bridge On The River Kwai.
3 Oscars
I think it should have won, The Bridge On the River Kwai is certainly a good movie, but one won’t be eager to see it so many times as 12 Angry Men !
Greetings from France 🇫🇷
@@francoisevassy6614 I have re-watched Kwai many times...I've only seen this one in full once.
this is one of my favorite movies. I loved watching Emily get fired up and yell back at the screen. Its amazing that in this day and age with all the CGI green screen, car chases, and explosions in movies today that a well written, intimate little film with great acting can still hold our attention and be very entertaining. Thank you both again for a wonderful reaction video.
one of the best and probably cheapest movie ever made
One of my favorite films of all time! Just goes to show you don't need flashy CGI to make an excellent piece of art. The writing, acting, cinematography, and direction is flawless!
The problem with the flashy CGI films is that art is no longer even close to a consideration most of the time.
Disney is hiring up promising up and coming directors for MCU and SW projects only to put a leash around their neck and micro manage everything - it's just sad.
Masterpiece. 10/10 for me. It gave me a full appreciation for the responsibility of being a juror, well before I was of age to be one. So I am actually thankful for this movie because unlike many of my co-workers and friends..... I never once ever thought to try to get out of Juror duty because of trivial personal inconveniences, as it would be disrespectful to not perform this function as an American citizen.
This movie brings a not-so-fond memory back to me. Our high school drama club performed the stage play, but because girls were mixed in, it was called "12 Angry Men and Women." However, there was a small role of the Court Reporter that was played by a girl named Sophia. She wasn't pretty or popular, so in an act of teenaged cruelty, the production was called "12 Angry Men and Women and Sophia." This was very funny to everyone, including myself... until I grew up and recognized the fact that we were assholes. It became even more shameful when I learned she and her husband worked at ground zero after 9/11 because they were EMT's.
I'm simply grateful for having matured enough to recognize my own bad behavior.
After watching Runaway Jury, I'm suspicious of Henry Fonda's character.
We had to watch this in law studies. Brilliant movie. Very simple in its premise, but a valid depiction of the responsibility of being a juror. Glad you appreciated it. It’s an important movie.
Too bad juror number 8 did what he was not supposed to do, he used evidence (The knife he bought at a store) that was not presented in the trial to claim the defendant could be innocent.
@@JohnGraves1985 yes. That was taught in the class.
@@JohnGraves1985 Too bad you are ignorant that a judge should have stopped it first, because THAT is what SHOULD have happened, but did.
Totally rad reaction!
I never get tired of watching this movie.
There's so many heavyweight actors in this BUT Lee J. Cobb steals the freakin' show!
The first time I showed this to my wife, she had almost the same type of responses that Emily has.
Keep up the great work!!!
Many blessings to you and yours.
You really can't beat these old classics x
Oh gosh...I am not normally a fan of live premieres, but I might have to come and watch this one. I don't think I could continue to do other things while you folks are reacting to THIS movie...I would just be thinking I was missing out on something really really good. Even knowing that I was gonna be able to watch the video anytime after the premiere was done would not assuage the massive case of FOMO I would be having.
Nope...it is decided...I must watch the premiere...I cannot wait a moment longer than is necessary to see this reaction!💯😁
oh man, this film kills me! The polish on this thing is insane, and btw most of Sidney Lumet's films and stories are this humanistic and focused on real social issues. I have to admit, as a trans man I get doomer sometimes about deeply ingrained prejudices that people are too scared to let go of. it seems like it just gets easier and easier for people to believe the easy, false narratives about minorities and women, but this movie is so good it genuinely makes me feel hopeful that those ideas can be challenged successfully.
For me, this is one of the best films ever made. No special effects, no breathtaking locations, only the story and the acting skills of those involved make this film what it is. If you can create an atmosphere in such a small setting that captivates an audience until the end, then you know that you have mastered your craft.
Also, it's great that a 66 year old black and white film can still get such a strong reaction even now. It's the beauty of cinema.
Extended version of a TV movie , have not seen it, but i bet it was just that jury room part and nothing else, it was TV so production cost were kept minimal, as its done in theatre , and on TV you need room for few soap ads too 🙂
I get called nearly every year for jury duty, but I've only been called to serve once. It was a robbery of an ice cream man. It turned out to be more nerve wracking than I imagined it would be. I think all the jurors were in it and wanted to deliver the correct verdict. I'm sure beyond a reasonable doubt we did. I love this movie and glad you watched it. There are a lot of fantastic older movies out there that aren't seen that often anymore and it's a shame.
I was called for jury duty as well. It started out as a first degree murder but then the D.A. changed it to second degree murder. We had to listen to the 9-11 call, listened and watched a 12 year old boy testify against his father. I think the most disturbing thing to see was the father glaring at his own son when the boy testified.
Such a perfectly simplistic plot, with phenomenal actors. It is lightning in a bottle. Never watch the remake as much as I love the actors who play in that film it was never duplicated.
This film's dialogue has so many BOOM! MIC DROP! moment's it's insane. Should be required viewing.
The clincher for me that Juror 8 was NOT a "bleeding heart" is when he tells the foreman to take another vote and if no one else votes not guilty, he will go along with the guilty verdict. He was totally willing to change his vote.
1:41 "calm down angry man."
i hope emily will randomly say this forever.
A top 5 movie for me.
2:55: "I'm sorry, is that a child?"
You are meant to feel sorry for the poor little murderer. This movie has an agenda. And later one when that clown brings a knife into the jury room. That's illegal. You CANNOT introduce evidence in the jury room. Automatic mistrial and admonishment from the judge. Very, very unrealistic movie -- even for the times. But a great movie nonetheless.
Fun fact: No one on Earth knows what happened to the "actor" play played the murdering little thug. He disappear after this one movie appearance and has not been heard from since.
It is a mistrial with the knife.but the jury never told the judge or bailiff.
Everybody was fantastic... but i always come back to Lee J. Cobb. He gave the performance of a lifetime there. So intense but so human, you can see the insecurities and doubts in his performance, even if he is trying to say how sure he is.
YESSS!!! The correct version to react to ❤
Henry Fonda may have causrd a misteial by bringing the knife. He isn't supposed to do his own investigation. Today tge knife wouldn't make it past security.
One of the greatest films ever made. The premise seems simple, but who would have thought that watching 12 guys argue about a case for 90 minutes could be so riveting. And it's a masterclass in movie-making, the way it keeps getting more and more claustrophobic with lower angles, and closeups throughout, until the camera goes to a high, wide angle once again at the end so the viewer can breathe.
Lee J. Cobb (juror #3) brought his A game here, and he was a real heavyweight when it comes to acting. Warden, Balsam, Begley, Fonda - all tremendous actors. And long takes too (although for long takes, Touch of Evil is still top dog).
Now that noirvember is coming up, how about watching some classic film noir? The Maltese Falcon (1941), This Gun for Hire (1942), The Big Sleep (1946), The Naked City (1948, restored version), Touch of Evil (1958, the 1998 edit that follows Welles' 52-page memo on how he wanted it edited).
"I mean, they are born liars.."
Emily: "Here we go ..."
That's the only valid reaction.
One of the few movies from the 1950s that I love. Emily, you are I were sharing the same brain watching this! Thanks for doing this one!
FINALLY! Of all the reactions I've seen on here, someone finally recognized John Fiedler as the voice of Piglet!
I think the 1957 version of 12 Angry Men is the best version, but it's not the original. The original 12 Angry Men was first broadcast on a tv show called Studio One in 1954. You can watch it on RUclips if you want to compare the two.
It's the original movie/theatrical version
The first time I heard about this movie was through a buddy of mine! All they told me was that it was a 90 minute black and white film about 12 guys sitting in a room debating on if a kid on trial was guilty or not. Just from that sentence alone, I thought it sounded like one of the most boring movies ever made. A while later, it was on tv and there was nothing else to watch so I decided to check it out. By the time it finished, I was blown away by how amazing it was! Not only is it one of the greatest movies of all time but it’s my personal favorite! Glad you two reacted to this. You’re the best!!
Bravo !
Les vieux films nous réservent d’excellentes surprises.
Amitiés de France 🇫🇷
Quincy on the jury, and they didn't even call on his expertise.
This film came to mind when I watched DUNE. When the Fremen are said to be "dangerous and unreliable," I mockingly said, "Oh, there're some GOOD about 'em, too. I've known a COUPLE who were okay."
Such a good movie
What a murderers row of actors - the best of both stars and character actors! Pair it with a super screenplay and it doesn't get any better!!
Think my favourite of the cast is the Glasses Juror/Number 4. He is not personally biased, nor nasty about it. He is simply leaned towards logic and the second he realizes that the witness didn't have her glasses, his whole demeanor changes. You can see it in his face, his eyes....that is one of the greatest bits of facial acting I have seen, though his voice doesn't change by much. Also, he tells off the Racist juror after he lets him spout his tirade to not open his mouth again.
I especially liked that contrary to others he never dismissed the arguments the "defenders" brought up. His line "He did an excellent job" was a good example of that. He just weighted those arguments and thought they were not enough. Until they were.
@@windsaw151 I will add that he shows annoyance whenever Juror 3(the Angry Father)kept using his arguments and following up with "And theres your answer..." .
Also, the scene with Juror 8(the hero)pressuring him with questions and making him sweat for the first time is fantastic.
@@phousefilms Glasses Juror, you would have noted if you were logical and dispassionate, only changed opinion when something he was personally aquainted with was proved. Stabbing? COULD NOT have been the boy, the fellow street kid who knew how switchblades worked, knew it wasn't the kid, but the GLASSES WEARING juror didn't accept it as valid because he didn't personally know how a blade was used. Only when testimony about how glasses were actually used was the GLASSES WEARING juror convinced that the evidence was unsound, because they knew how glasses were used.
Note how Juror 3 is one of the earliest that turns their back on juror 10 in his racist diatribe, even before Juror 5.
Some interesting facts. Joseph Sweeney, the eldest juror,,was born in 1884. His father grew up during the Civil War. Our parents and grandparents grew up during Sweeney's final years. So we are just 3 or 4 generations away from the Civil War. The actor who voiced Piglet was the meek juror. Ed Begley Jr's father was the bigot. Sidney Lumet locked the actors in the small space and had them run lines for hours to ratchet up the tension. Few people notice that the scene hardly changes throughout the film.
I am a French 68 year old woman and my great-grandfather was born in 1827, under Charles X, the last king of France ⚜️, you are right : we are closer to the past that we can figure !
I love old movies, the Golden Age of Hollywood deserves this qualification.
@@francoisevassy6614 Merçi. Je suis un francophone mais mas français et terrible. Néanmois, merci beaucoup pour votre mots.
@@davidely7032 ❤️
Please watch the original Star Trek movies. 🖖😌
I concur...but maybe they have both already seen them? Do we know that either of them has not seen all of those?
@@iKvetch558 they are still on “the list”
@@martinbraun1211 Ah...got it...thanks. 👍
The next Henry Fonda movie you should consider watching is “The Oxbow Incident”. - an absolute classic. You’ll love it. ✌️
One of the best films ever made…the writing/story/direction are all excellent…the acting performances, absolutely superb!
If you want to watch another great Henry Fonda movie, my favorite one of his is Mister Roberts. It also stars Jack Lemmon and is a drama/comedy. As an old Sailor, son of a Sailor, Mister Roberts also tugs at my heart strings.
Have you seen him in Hitchcock’s « The Wrong Man » ?
It was shot one year earlier, maybe it influenced Fonda into producing 12 Angry Men ?
Based on a true story, an excellent underrated movie.
Paul Winkle, who says the boy is definitely guilty, has been saying to me for months that the knife fight in "Rebel Without a Cause" is a crusher for the defense. But it's not, at all.
Anyone can watch the "Rebel Without A Cause" knife-fight scene on RUclips. The best video is titled "Rebel Without a Cause (1955) - The Knife Fight Scene (5/10) | Movieclips" and the channel is Movieclips.
1) During the knife fight scene, at least 13 stabs/jabs/thrusts are attempted with switchblades, and *all of them* are attempted with an "underhanded" motion/grip: that is, the way a switchblade knife should be used, not the way a normal knife would be.
2) From the beginning of the knife fight - from the first point where both fighters have their switchblades open (0:33) - to the end - (where the winner throws down his knife (2:02)), it lasts for 1:29 seconds, which is 89 seconds. There are 2 fighters with their knives open through nearly all of that, so I will multiply that by 2: switchblades are open for about 178 seconds. Of that time, only 1 fighter at any point holds his switchblade the wrong way - that is, the way a person would hold a normal knife - and that lasts for only about 5 seconds (1:25 to about 1:30). 5 seconds is less than 3% of the total time.
To recap:
1) 100% of the 13+ stabs/jabs/thrusts are done the correct way for a switchblade.
2) For less then 3% of the time is a switchblade held the wrong way (i.e., the way a normal knife would be held), and no stab/jab/thrust is done with it when held the wrong way.
THIS IS PAUL'S CRUSHING EVIDENCE, THAT OBLITERATES THE DEFENSE!! PROOF THAT THE BOY IS GUILTY!! THE CRUSHER THAT HE'S BEEN YELLING ABOUT FOR MONTHS!! LOL!!!
I think this movie is a masterclass in exposition. I think you could even argue 3/4 of the movie was exposition given so masterfully that you as an audience member only want to lean in and say, " tell me more."
In real life the addition of the second knife would have been a mistrial.
One of my fav. of all time. So many great actors in this.
Good catch on the voice of Piglet.
If you go look up this cast it is legendary. I don't know if you could assemble a similar cast today without it costing big bucks.
One of the greatest films ever made.
It's because of films like this classic, that so many people, myself included, regard what's being produced today is such utter crap! The Art of Screenwriting and Direction is almost dead.
Bravo !
Never saw this movie, but love what I did see here
All 12 men were angry, but most were able to contain it.
I've seen both and both are phenomenal casts but I do prefer the '57 version and am glad you watched it first.
So looking forward to this one. One of the all-time greats.
Another good movie that concerns the court system is "Anatomy of a Murder" with Jimmy Stewart.
I'm not a lawyer but its my understanding for our court system to work, a defense attorney must advocate for his client to the best of his/her ability no matter how they feel about their client if they take the case. I doubt a lawyer would have taken one of "their" cases. Not sure about public defenders though. They are assigned clients but ethically I think they would be bound to present their best case.
And if you ever do a lawyer tv series, the old "Perry Mason" series is recommended.
One last thing: a diverse cast would make sense in a remake of the movie. Seeing a rabid feminist frothing at the mouth about a man's guilt because she was left at the alter might make a good twist or a black guy being blinded to a cop's possible innocence because of his prior mistreatment from another cop in his past would make for some neat drama to get people think. Anyway good job.
What a great movie! Finally...
A superb film, with a great director, Sidney Lumet. Excellent camera work, giving multiple close ups and angles, which brought a gritty realism to the story. Lee J Cobb put in a brilliant performance as juror number 3. I also immensely enjoyed EG Marshall’s performance as the calm and logical thinking juror number 4. One of the all time great dramatic films.
Based on your comments about this movie taking place in one room with a single group of actors, I would highly suggest the movie "Glengarry Glen Ross" from 1992. It takes place almost entirely in an single office space and has amazing performances by some top-notch actors.
Jack Lemmon was in that... as well as the remake of this 😀
This is probably my favorite movie. It's certainly top three. Everything about it is absolutely perfect.
Juror number 4 is my favorite character, even though he's technically an antagonist. He was the most reasonable man in the room. He wasn't swayed by emotional appeals, but you could see whenever Henry Fonda or someone else made a good argument, he would spend a second looking down at the table having a good think. When he was arguing his point, he explained his positions with rational arguments, and responded to the arguments made by another.
When Henry Fonda is making arguments, he often directly speaks to Juror number 4, because he recognizes also that Juror 4 is his opposite number from a debate standpoint, and the most likely to respond (Juror number 3 being a lost cause).