I admire the fact that you did very little talking or commenting during the run of the movie. So many reactors I've watched seem to feel obligated to constantly remark on what's happening on-screen and running the risk of missing an important piece of dialog. Your silence took a bit of getting used to because of this, but it means you're invested in the story, an admirable quality in a reactor. I look forward to seeing more such reactions from you in the future. Keep up the good work.
ok, i can agree with the sentiment of what you said but not the sentence. saying a reactor was good because they didnt react to the thing they are doing a 'react' video to is missing the point i think. it is precisely their reactions, thoughts and comments on the material that we come to these videos for. react videos are not supposed to be a market substitute for the original. if all a viewer wants is parts of the movie with nothing transformative added then it could be seen as a violation of 'fair use'. if you just want a persons thoughts on the matter a 'review' video where they share their thoughts (before and) after watching it might be better suited. but i agree with the part where you dislike people talking while the movie is running and missing key elements. especially if the thing said was of no substance and clearly just to make the video fit within 'fair use'. its far better when they add their thoughts in a quick matter so they dont risk missing anything or even better than that, when they pause the video and comment on what their thoughts are.
This is why architects, scientists, and engineers are often rejected from juries because of their focus on logic and critical thinking as opposed to emotional appeals. They seek the truth rather than a side.
Right on. I’m an engineer, and I got rejected. One lawyer asked if I had an unconscious racial bias. I said that by definition, if I had a bias that was unconscious, I would not know about it. “Thank you, you may be excused.” I knew what answer he wanted to hear, but I answered the question asked logically, truthfully and honestly.
I'm an architect as was the character played by Peter Fonda. Smart movie making. Architects are trained to be problem-solvers and use out-of-the-box thinking.
It's always a joy to watch a new reaction to this classic masterpiece. I've watched "12 Angry Men" so many times that I can't help but notice every nuanced phrase and gesture - and it never gets old or stale.
In most states by 1957 (when this film was released), women were indeed eligible to attend juries. However, this would have been under an 'opt-in' policy - i.e. women would have to opt in to be considered eligible. And not many women did opt in actually. Jury duty was perceived a burden to women, rather than a right or privelege. In many a case they tried to argue that having no women on the jury was unconstitutional, but they all lost until Healy v Edwards (1973). Through the remainder of the 70s states changed their 'opt-in' policies to 'opt-out' policies which greatly improved the number of women eligible for jury duty. Allow me to welcome your baby reaction channel, I have a baby channel of my own I'm neglecting as we speak. Advice: Great film choices but you're better starting with topical films. For instance, 'Twisters' comes out on cinemas this week meaning 'Twister' (1996) would have been a good choice, guaranteeing more clicks by association. My first video was on Halloween (1978) around Halloween, but it took longer to edit than expected so I missed the 31st October which I was gutted about. For a new channel your framing is excellent, you know how to fill the frame. However I will add a wrinkle. Without the screen in the bottom right corner your composition within the frame is near-perfect. When the screen is there though, it overlaps you and that's entirely unnecessary. The space to your right (frame left) becomes negative space because of the film in the bottom right corner. If you were to move right (frame left) then the screen will not overlap you and the image will feel more comfortable to your viewers. Make use of that space. Also, you can keep the film in the bottom right, rather than cutting back to your room between footage - just blur the image, and this will keep the comfortable frame comfortable throughout. Anyway, hope that's helpful.
Your argument boils down to all channels should be exactly the same in order to maximize profit, but in the real world that's not how things work. I just subscribed, and I did so because I found certain things special and distinctive about the presentation. If everything had been exactly the same as the vast majority of reactors, I would not have subscribed or upvoted and likely also wouldn't have returned. It's about more than just what the person says or the fact that they're saying something in response. What makes it enjoyable _is_ the fact that each creator makes the whole video reflect their unique personality and style. That makes it into not just a reaction done for profit, but a shared experience. But if they were all the same, there'd only need to be one reactor, and eventually people would get bored with "reactions" and move on to other genres. So that one channel could never grow past a certain point.
Thank you! and, for anyone wanting more, Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the subject titled _Women in United States juries._ I won't leave an actual link, as youtube's algorithm bots (or whatever they're called) routinely scrubs comments containing urls :)
Great reaction! Just for fun look up the IMDB profiles on the actors here. The talent and success both before and after proves the cast here was stellar.
I wanted to give you a similar compliment, which shows you've certainly got it right :) Too many reviewers seem to think they need to put on some kind of performance, it's much more interesting being with someone who's enjoying the show and being themselves, and comments are spontaneous and sincere. And don't make the movie screen too small ;) Subscribed!
I like to point out that Joseph Sweeney was born in 1884 meaning his father grew up during the Civil War. My parents grew up during Sweeney's final years. So I'm just 3 generations away from the Civil War. Juror 2 was the voice of Piglet. The bigot was Ed Begley Jr's father. Lumet locked the actors in a small room to rehearse and build up the tension. A great and timeless film. It will still be worth watching in 100 years.
My dad, born in 1921, told me how he'd watch Union Army veterans parade on Memorial Day. His own father had fought as a doughboy and was severely wounded in WWI. Dad himself was in the Army Air Corps from August 1940 to the end of WW2. Quite a slice of time.
@@johannesvalterdivizzini1523 Time is deceptive. Apparently I'm over half a century old but I seem to think I'm 23 years old. Thanks for sharing. I never knew my grandfathers well. And I've seen pictures of gravestones for not so distant relatives who fought in the Civil War. My own father has no interest. So I'll need to do my own digging. Stay safe. 🙂
@@davidely7032 I'm 59, just turned on the 17th. Sometimes I feel that and (what I imagine to be) older. Most of the time I'm right with you about 23, but I look my age, so nobody can see what age I feel unless they know me. My dad who passed at 82 in 2016 acted like he was an excited idealistic 23 y.o. up until he got sick towards the end. He looked pretty ancient, but to hear him over the phone he sounded like George Bailey telling people his wild dreams of travel, his voice couldn't keep up with his head! I so miss him! [edited for typos]
European here. What most people (especially across the pond) don't realize is that the whole film is a hard-hitting statement against the death penalty. Because if we compare the facts at the beginning and the end, it quickly becomes obvious how easy it is to execute someone who is innocent. And such a miscarriage of justice cannot then be corrected...
Yes, indeed. That's why a jury is so important. Lawyers present the facts and the evidence but they lean heavily on they psychological tactics to make you believe what they want, even in the way they prep their witnesses. Being on a grand jury made me appreciate how vital a jury is. This movie is proof of that.
Nice message ok, but the setup is so wrong. First of all the boy is very likely a murderer and morally superior No8 who smuggled pseudo-evidence around the court into the jury room, says things like "I dont want to change your mind" and "I dont have anything brilliant" and "I only know as much as you do". He says all of this while having the illegal knife in his pocket. Not a very morally clean person I would assume. Actually he is liar and he puts himself above the whole process.
@@PaulWinkle How did you come up with this narrow plank? An illegal knife is a cause for concern for you in a country where, even back then, there were more firearms than inhabitants? The legal principle of proportionality means nothing to you, does it? And one more thing... As the past has clearly shown, it is not a mistake not to go along with every piece of crap from the Führer's headquarters... Klar soweit?
@@PaulWinkle You say the boy is very likely a murderer but the thing is: there is no conclusive evidence that 100% proves his guilt. And that was demonstrated thanks to the efforts of Juror N°8. He did not lie or put himself above the process, he simply took the time to consider the facts brought up in the trial which is what a juror is supposed to do. As for your comment about smuggling pseudo-evidence, ok but your argument is so wrong. The knife he presented is not evidence because it was not presented in the trial or connected to the case. As far as this jury is concerned, it's just a switch knife he bought, albeit illegally, on his own.
@@joshuabertrand937 There is conclusive evidence, eyewitness testimony which was ignored completly by the jury and for sure the fact that he lost his knife and someone else murdered the dad with a similar knife, that is circumstantial yes but very strong. The chances that sth like that happens is far beyond reasonable doubt. Just saying it is possible, is not a real category in court. And yes he albeit it illegally and the fact he smuggled it inside the jury is illegal too, just like the fact that he was lurking around the crime scene, not allowed too. And it is not allowed for a very good reason. It is not the job of the jury to play lawyer or prosecutor. A jury isnt even able to evaluate the results. The jury has to stick with all the things they heard and saw during the trial.
I'm German and would never have thought that the theme of “INHERIT THE WIND” would have such significance again. Residents of the USA who want to take the country back to the social Stone Age, and are successful in doing so in some states. Quote: "backwards, backwards". Simply unimaginable.
I’ve just given you your 200th ‘like’. I’m impressed. Enjoyed watching that with you. Too many ‘reactioners’ feel they have to talk waaayyyyy too much and pause the video waaayyyyy too much, but you were about perfect. A big plus is that you don’t incessantly criticise. You have an intelligent insight and you pick up on important points correctly and with good understanding. I always wait a few videos before I subscribe… you’ll probably get my subscription soon. 👍🏻
Every non-braindead person (that is aimed at someone named Paul) would have reasonable doubt about the eyewitness's claims. She claimed to be able to positively identify the killer, even though she witnessed the stabbing from 60 feet away, at midnight, while lying in bed trying to get to sleep, without wearing her glasses, while having to see through the windows of a passing elevated train, with only a three-second or so glance.
I seen this in the late 70s when I was a kid. It blew me away. I watched all of these gentlemen on different movies/TV shows and all of them were great.
They could touch the murder weapon because it was already presented as evidence during the trial. They do not need to safeguard it from fingerprints because the investigation was already done prior to the trial ever getting started.
Great choice for a reaction. Can’t believe I found you in your first 2weeks, but clearly it’s because you did this film. Pepper in old films, classic films, and I’m with you. There are so many great older films. It’s the reactors that ONLY watch more recent films full of fantasy, superheros and violence and CGI effect spectacles - those are reactors I can’t stay with. You’re off to a good start -I enjoyed this, keep it up!! “To Kill a Mockingbird”, Hitchcock films, Film Noir, Bogart, Kubrik films, Capra films, Mel Brooks, Brando, Hepburn, Cary Grant, Dustin Hoffman, the field is rich!
Fiedler's most hilarious role (imo) was of a security freak, Mr. Duke, on an episode of the _Odd Couple_ with Jack Klugman. (Season 2, episode 15; "Security Arms".) His line of "Who told you about those mirrors!!?" is hilariously memorable! Look it up and watch it if you aren't familiar, it's well worth it!
I love one room dramas. It peels away the layers and distractions and forces a focus on the core of storytelling itself. Reservoir Dogs, The Breakfast Club, The Man From Earth, all great stuff from different eras.
Hey, Sheila! This was originally a teleplay for a "Playhouse 90"-type show in the '50's which were basically filmed theatrical productions broadcast during the early days of American TV. Before formulaic sitcoms and dramas became TV staples, actual playwrights were tapped to provide original or adapted content of high quality. The story really works as a theatrical piece with 12 players in one setting. A few years later, the great Sidney Lumet (pronounced Loom-ET) directed it for film. Lumet is considered one of the quintessential New York directors like Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese and Spike Lee. The film is considered one of the greatest courtroom dramas ever made. It is my 11th favorite film of all time! I like how Fonda's chief antagonists are fire and ice: the bombastic Lee J. Cobb and the coolly logical E.G. Marshall. The cast was stacked with some of the best character actors of the day some of which had amazing careers like Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Jack Warden, Ed Begley and Robert Webber. However, it's live-wire Lee J. Cobb who steals the spotlight with his histrionics and rage! When he has his breakthrough and realizes why he's rushed to judgment, his collapse is shattering and brings me to tears every time. Henry Fonda's magnanimity as he helps him to his feet and gives him his coat is equally moving. Foreigner George Voskovec and the elderly Joseph Sweeney were holdovers from the TV production. A remake was made for cable TV with a black Mykelti Williamson portraying a reverse racist. Jack Lemmon had the Fonda role and George C. Scott had the Cobb role. Courtney B. Vance was the foreman, venerable Ossie Davis was the milquetoast, Armin Mueller-Stahl was the logical stockbroker, Dorian Harewood of "Hill Street Blues" was the slum escapee, James Gandolfini of "The Sopranos" was the blue collar guy, Tony Danza of "Who's the Boss?" was the sports guy, the legendary Hume Cronyn was the elderly gent, Edward James Olmos of "Battlestar Galactica" played the foreigner and William Petersen of "CSI" played the ad exec. Despite the heavy-hitters in the cast, it doesn't have the same power as the original. I feel some of the players would have been better served by being assigned different parts. The reverse racist angle was a clever one, though. Another remake was considered by adding women to the mix. The project was abandoned because the inclusion of female energy would change the dynamic of the story and the energy of the room.
Fonda's character is a fraud and This movie is highly manipulative, in favour of murderers. Best evidence is the interrogation between No8 Fonda and non-sweater-guy. He asked him about things that happened days ago, to simulate the stress level of the kid during his interrogation. Non-sweater-guy was 99% correct, he rememberd so many details unlike the boy who remembered NOTHING. And the movie really is telling us, that non-sweater guy failed. Really? If someone likes to be manipulated, if someone loves to set free murderers thats sick. I dont like this!
@@dupersuper1938 Non-sweater guy made a point, he remembered 99% of his stuff that happened days ago. No8 simulated the boys stress situation by adding days for non-sweater-guy. But in the end the movie told us, that No8 has made a point. No he didnt, non-sweater-guy made a big point. Manipulattive movie! And no one even said: Dude, your little interrogation here was a failure, you proved that nonsweater is right. The boy had nothing, 0% alibi at the movies!
@@PaulWinkle Number 8 very clearly had the point. Have you ever in your life encountered another poster who agreed with your...unique interpretation of this film?
An amazing reaction. Perhaps the best I've seen of this movie. It was wonderful to see you silent and contemplating. Many other commenters have said things that I would have already mentioned. The cinematography is deliberate and has been said to be the 11th actor in the room. The claustrophobia of the rain and the heat are real. Sidney Lumet was a genius. He starts off by shooting above shots and then mid shots and then you'll see that it's below. Originally, this was written for a CBS live television production. Live studio playhouses were so much more fascinating to watch. I haven't looked for it on here, and I will do so now. Henry Fonda is fantastic in this movie, but E.G. Marshall give the masterclass. Another fun fact. The man with the glasses is Henry Fiedler, who did a lot of voice acting. He voiced Piglet in Winnie the Pooh. He also was very powerful in the movie a Raisin in the Sun, which I suggest you react to very strongly. There's so much more I could say, but I was so happy to see a thoughtful and intelligent reaction, that I just had to fill in certain tidbits. If you notice at the end, there is a huge wide shot and we're reminded that the outside world exists. If you want to watch one of my favorite films, watch Lumet's Dog Day Afternoon. It's with Al Pacino and Michael Cazale.
Back then if someone said that they were going to lay you out it meant that they were going to hit you so hard that they were going to knock you out and you would be laying on the floor after they were finished with you and the reason why was that the man was upset that the other man was talking that way to someone that old and that he should show some respect to someone as old as that elderly man was.
Interestingly, women were first allowed on Juries in 1957, which is the same year this movie came out. But in some states, it didn't start to be the case until 1970s.
@@SheilaReactz Consider yourself lucky. Sometimes these grand juries go on for 6 months or more. And if you think jury selection is picky for a criminal case, it's even harder for a grand jury.
Great reaction and commentary. I've never served on a jury because I have a doctorate in law, and although I don't practice, I have taught law on the secondary and college level, wrote law class curriculum and was the law related education coordinator for NYC public schools. I'd be a juror with too much knowledge--something many lawyers wouldn't want.
The director, Sidney Lumet, took the camera shots from overhead to lower and lower as the film progressed. He also moved the walls in gradually to add to the close intensity of the jury room. Lee J. Cobb, Henry Fonda, Ed Begley, Joseph Sweeney in particular gave truly excellent performances.
I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this incredible film. There, simply, is not an element in it's making that should be be studied for technique. Every actor was an elite character actor is his time, and many went on to other fine roles, but for this moment in time, together they created a true classic.
I've been called 4 times. First time, they already had enough people so they let the rest of us go. Second time I served. It was a shooting case, and the whole thing had to be done in Spanish, through interpreters. We all knew he did it, but by the rules, we had to find him Not Guilty. He went down on a Federal drug charge later. Third time, I was seated, questioned and "excused". Fourth time, earlier this year, all the courts for that day were cancelled.
This was Sydney Lumets 1st great success.. He was 82, when his last movie premiered -"Before the Devil Knows You´re Dead". A dang masterpiece, definitely a classic, even if only few seem to know the movie.
Key question: What does the elderly juror know about what it's like to be elderly? The loud-mouthed juror wants to be called "sir" because "older," but has no respect for those older than he.
Thank you for your terrific reaction! My only comment about the movie itself, is that I've always hoped that Juror # 3's experience would move him to reconcile with his own son.
In 1937, woman federal jurors won official approval and in some states, including California, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania, participation on a jury was compulsory.
Sidney Lumet is one of the great directors of all time, and this is one of his best. Another movie by Lumet that I always recommend is Fail Safe from 1964...it also stars Henry Fonda. Other older movies that I suggest that were not made by Lumet are...To Kill a Mockingbird(1962), Inherit the Wind(1960), and Judgement at Nuremberg(1961)...all three are highly renowned courtroom dramas filmed in black and white.
Jack Klugman (the juror from the slums that used the knife underhanded) played Oscar Madison in the tv show “The Odd Couple”. In the 1997 version, Jack Lemmon (played Henry Fonda’s character) played Felix Unger in the movie version of “The Odd Couple”.
Sheila you're so quiet, grrl, and you come off as sweet too (both big pluses of course). I used to be a public defender and also clerked for a judge for a year before that, so I've seen many jury trials. I can tell you were a good juror. This is definitely, by far, my favorite legal drama and I love that it's in black and white. You're right about the effective cinematography, and of course the acting and writing are top notch! Good luck with the channel, Sheila, I just subbed.
Just one detail. They never state it's about racism. It's a conclusion we tend to go to these days, but the point is that there will always be 'those people' and that is not limited to skin colour. That's what makes this movie timeless.
One of the greatest movies when it comes to dialogue. There is nothing but dialogue and none of it is a feeler. Everything they say is important because it actually describes each character. You actually get to know these people.
Yes, the father's vote change to "not guilty" was portrayed in a sad light, but it was contained good -- the first step in healing his relationship with his son.
The camera work in this film is amazing. In the scene where the racist juror has a loud ranting, even the camera pulls back from him - just as all the other jurors are turning their backs on him.
When I was called for jury duty, I managed to talk my way out by speaking out in the courtroom. Why the judge allowed me to go on is beyond me, but I launched into a tirade against the entire jury system (How are we rank amateurs expected to do a better job examining the case than the pros?) and even placed a few jabs against the "slick defense attorney." As soon as I finished, I was allowed to go home.
To be honest, juror #8 introducing that second knife should have resulted in a mistrial. I've served on a couple of juries, one being a federal felony case in DC. The trial took only four hours, but we deliberated four days. Because we were going overnight, we got instructions _not_ to do any "investigating" on our own because that would be inadmissible in the jury room. In fact, I did do a bit for my own sake, but was careful not to mention it the next day in the jury room. Like this movie, our initial vote was 11:1 for guilty. I was very much like juror #4, holding logically to a particular piece of convincing evidence until the very last day...finally realizing it wasn't as solid as I thought it was.
This is a master and doctoral class on filmmaking shot in one room, and all these actors are some of the early icons of Hollywood think about it a movie shot in one room!!!
She is right. Producers and directors think that they must add additional action as a way to build suspense. But some of the greatest movies ever made have very little over the top action. They have great dialog. And that's about it. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Silence of the Lambs. Monty Python the Holy Grail. Are just a few that demonstrate this point. Monty Python the Holy Grail. Budget: 229,575 GBP. Domestic Box Office $4,162,392. The amount generated illustrates that you don't need a huge budget to produce a great movie.
Fantastic commentary, fantastic edit, fantastic post-film remarks. I've watched two reaction so far and I'm already a happy subscriber! I'll do "Taxi Driver" next! PS: Again, making connections: Lee J. Cobb, the angriest juror....he's also known for "On The Waterfront" starring young Marlon Brando, a couple of years after "Streetcar". That's one of the "big" Brando movies (although I prefer "Streetcar"!) Anyways, really love your style and approach! As far as I'm concerned: don't change a thing! Just don't burn out, always keep it fun for yourself! (And never listen to a troll!😉)
you just picked up a new subscriber ... wish you the best ... love to see younger people watching the movies i grew up with and actually enjoy them ... good luck , may God bless you and yours
“Them” referred to people who lived in the slums, regardless of their race. Don’t forget one of the jurors was from the slums. Bigotry is not limited to race and it’s obvious that several of the jurors were bigoted against poor people. They thought slum dwellers were inferior to them.
I've seen this movie many times, it's interesting to see it from a younger persons perspective and recognizing the way the term "Them" was used, over and over. I enjoyed your reaction and I Subbed and gave you a Thumbs Up. I've been up for Jury Duty several times and been a witness in several more and the responsivity for being accurate and honest is a task that is not to be taken lightly.
In 1997 they remade the movie with a racially diverse cast. That created some dynamics that were not present in 1957. There are many many international versions -demonstrating its wide appeal. 17:48
Oh my gosh, you did this one! I just discovered you through "Godfather" and was telling you to watch "Dog Day Afternoon" after you watch "Godfather Part 2" because it stars Al Pacino and John Cazale and came out the following year. But now I'll add: "Dog Day Afternoon" was directed by Sidney Lumet! Who directed this! So even more reason to watch that one! Lumet is one of the great directors! And in the 70s, he did "Dog Day Afternoon" and "Network" back to back, two masterpieces, just like this one. Definitely put those on your list! Ok, watching this now!
I watch a lot of reactors and you did a great job.keep it up,especially with classic films. If you want another with great story,writing,acting,and cinematography,try On the waterfront with Marlon Brando and Lee j. Cobb.
Good luck on your new channel. I subscribed. There are movies that will definitely get you views, like the Shawshank Redemption, Alien, Die Hard or the Terminator but you do what's interesting to you. 😊
Your reaction was superb. You talked very little, and unlike many people did not miss much of the significant dialog and action. You are super observant and probably make a great juror!
Great reaction Sheila! I've just become a new subscriber. I really enjoyed watching your reaction to this classic movie, and also how you minimized your comments throughout the film. I also served on a jury a few years ago, an aggravated assault case, and this film pretty much paralleled what I went through. Not to this extreme but as far as listening to opinions, facts, and evidence it is spot on. And I would definitely serve on another jury if called upon. Anyway thanks for your awesome reaction and I'm looking forward to your journey into the Silverscreen! 🎥🍿😊
At the time this movie was made in 1957, women could be on the jury of all states except three. I guess they chose to have only men for this particular television play turned movie because 12 angry jurors doesn’t sound as good as 12 angry men
this story works best with all men, debating about the fate of another man. if women were there, the dynamic would shift considerably, tension would be lost.
"Glengarry Glen Ross" is another mostly filmed in one room classic, with a great ending. I highly recommend it..I'm sorry, it's another all male cast, though..Don't let that scare you off..Too good not to see..The dialog and acting are top-notch..Good luck with your channel!
Hi Shelia, since you enjoyed this movie, I would like to recommend a similar movie where most of the dialogue takes place in a single room. The movie is Conspiracy, a 2001 movie made for HBO. The story is loosely based upon notes of a meeting that occurred during WW2, where a group assigned by the German government met to discuss Hitlers final solution concerning their Jewish population. It is a shocking and heartbreaking film. If you don't have Max, it can be rented from Fandango.
You have NO IDEA how refreshing it is to find you! I see you are new to this game. It is wonderful that you didn't talk through the entire film. Of course, it is interesting to hear your opinons and reactions. That is what (imo) these channels are about. It is infuriating when a "reactor"
A classic movie indeed, all the jurors acting later in famous movies or tv shows. Been on two juries myself, and another notice for next week. On a personal note, you seem a lovely, classy lady.
My only criticism would be that in the editing, you cut out salient comments in each scene that help to establish who the characters are as people. Apart from that, i appreciate how quiet you were in really listening to the dialogue.
You're very beautiful and this is a great movie! I too was once on a jury....but the case was over quickly! The prosecution gave up, said they couldn't meet the burden of proof. Which seemed logical to me because I thought the guy was innocent already... Have you seen In the Heat of the Night? Very few people have reacted to it on here. It stars Sydney Poitier as a Philadelphia police detective who visits his mother in a very racist town. On his way back on the train, they have a murder in the town, and a cop is sent to find suspicious people, so he arrests Sydney Poitier for Waiting For a Train While Black. The Sheriff yells at him and calls him the n-word before realizing that he is a police detective. Sydney Poitier ends up solving the murder, but the killer isn't who we thought he was! There's a famous scene in the movie that's the first time a black guy slapped a white guy in a movie....they go to a rich plantation owner's house, and ask him if the suspect had been there, and rich white guy slaps Poitier in the face, and Poitier slaps him back, MUCH HARDER! The white guy cries from having been slapped so hard and says "there was a time when I could have had you shot." And Poitier storms out in anger. It's a good movie, and they made a TV series of it in the 90s, I used to watch it in high school (I graduated 1996). 🙂
Don't know if someone mentioned it. In the original stage play the son of juror 3 didn't punch him but he tried to stab him. That is why he acts like the possible executioner.
Hello Sheila! I just saw your channel right now. Gonna check your reaction because this movie changed my life! The Jurer 8th is true hero for me and after watched this I tried to be like him. The worst type of person for me is the Jurer 7th who seeks the ball game. By the way If you need recommendation of movie names I have plenty like this one. Take care lady.
Hello Sheila. First time I've seen you and I think your reaction was very good for this classic movie. You paid close attention to the storyline, the characters and the cinematography. You had minimal speaking only on the major points. I do not like over talking on issues not pertinent to the story. Good Job.👍 I'm Subscribed.
The story took place in New York, which had opened up jury duty in 1937. We are just supposed to accept a huge statistical coincidence that 12 white men were accepted as jurors in New York City (extremely unlikely even then). It's not realism, and it's not even really about the law. The story is about how12 white men of different backgrounds come together to solve a problem. The dynamics.
I admire the fact that you did very little talking or commenting during the run of the movie. So many reactors I've watched seem to feel obligated to constantly remark on what's happening on-screen and running the risk of missing an important piece of dialog. Your silence took a bit of getting used to because of this, but it means you're invested in the story, an admirable quality in a reactor. I look forward to seeing more such reactions from you in the future. Keep up the good work.
I agree with this remark completely. A very thoughtful reaction - much appreciated 😊
Totally agree.
Heard!!
I agree 100%. A job well done by Sheila.
ok, i can agree with the sentiment of what you said but not the sentence.
saying a reactor was good because they didnt react to the thing they are doing a 'react' video to is missing the point i think. it is precisely their reactions, thoughts and comments on the material that we come to these videos for.
react videos are not supposed to be a market substitute for the original. if all a viewer wants is parts of the movie with nothing transformative added then it could be seen as a violation of 'fair use'.
if you just want a persons thoughts on the matter a 'review' video where they share their thoughts (before and) after watching it might be better suited.
but i agree with the part where you dislike people talking while the movie is running and missing key elements. especially if the thing said was of no substance and clearly just to make the video fit within 'fair use'.
its far better when they add their thoughts in a quick matter so they dont risk missing anything or even better than that, when they pause the video and comment on what their thoughts are.
This is why architects, scientists, and engineers are often rejected from juries because of their focus on logic and critical thinking as opposed to emotional appeals. They seek the truth rather than a side.
Right on. I’m an engineer, and I got rejected. One lawyer asked if I had an unconscious racial bias. I said that by definition, if I had a bias that was unconscious, I would not know about it. “Thank you, you may be excused.” I knew what answer he wanted to hear, but I answered the question asked logically, truthfully and honestly.
Neil Degrasse Tyson has two stories of being rejected for jury duty.
I'm an architect as was the character played by Peter Fonda. Smart movie making. Architects are trained to be problem-solvers and use out-of-the-box thinking.
It's always a joy to watch a new reaction to this classic masterpiece. I've watched "12 Angry Men" so many times that I can't help but notice every nuanced phrase and gesture - and it never gets old or stale.
The acting talent in this movie will likely never be seen again.
All of these actors went on to long accomplished acting careers. ❤
In most states by 1957 (when this film was released), women were indeed eligible to attend juries. However, this would have been under an 'opt-in' policy - i.e. women would have to opt in to be considered eligible. And not many women did opt in actually. Jury duty was perceived a burden to women, rather than a right or privelege. In many a case they tried to argue that having no women on the jury was unconstitutional, but they all lost until Healy v Edwards (1973). Through the remainder of the 70s states changed their 'opt-in' policies to 'opt-out' policies which greatly improved the number of women eligible for jury duty.
Allow me to welcome your baby reaction channel, I have a baby channel of my own I'm neglecting as we speak.
Advice: Great film choices but you're better starting with topical films. For instance, 'Twisters' comes out on cinemas this week meaning 'Twister' (1996) would have been a good choice, guaranteeing more clicks by association. My first video was on Halloween (1978) around Halloween, but it took longer to edit than expected so I missed the 31st October which I was gutted about.
For a new channel your framing is excellent, you know how to fill the frame. However I will add a wrinkle. Without the screen in the bottom right corner your composition within the frame is near-perfect. When the screen is there though, it overlaps you and that's entirely unnecessary. The space to your right (frame left) becomes negative space because of the film in the bottom right corner. If you were to move right (frame left) then the screen will not overlap you and the image will feel more comfortable to your viewers. Make use of that space. Also, you can keep the film in the bottom right, rather than cutting back to your room between footage - just blur the image, and this will keep the comfortable frame comfortable throughout.
Anyway, hope that's helpful.
Your argument boils down to all channels should be exactly the same in order to maximize profit, but in the real world that's not how things work. I just subscribed, and I did so because I found certain things special and distinctive about the presentation. If everything had been exactly the same as the vast majority of reactors, I would not have subscribed or upvoted and likely also wouldn't have returned.
It's about more than just what the person says or the fact that they're saying something in response. What makes it enjoyable _is_ the fact that each creator makes the whole video reflect their unique personality and style. That makes it into not just a reaction done for profit, but a shared experience. But if they were all the same, there'd only need to be one reactor, and eventually people would get bored with "reactions" and move on to other genres. So that one channel could never grow past a certain point.
Thank you! and, for anyone wanting more, Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the subject titled _Women in United States juries._ I won't leave an actual link, as youtube's algorithm bots (or whatever they're called) routinely scrubs comments containing urls :)
@@PolferiferusII Unless they're URLs to other RUclips videos. Those seem to stay.
25:42 "Lay you out" means you punch someone so hard they're knocked out. As in, "Lay you out on the ground".
Great reaction! Just for fun look up the IMDB profiles on the actors here. The talent and success both before and after proves the cast here was stellar.
I wanted to give you a similar compliment, which shows you've certainly got it right :)
Too many reviewers seem to think they need to put on some kind of performance, it's much more interesting being with someone who's enjoying the show and being themselves, and comments are spontaneous and sincere. And don't make the movie screen too small ;)
Subscribed!
I appreciate that, thanks for watching!
I like to point out that Joseph Sweeney was born in 1884 meaning his father grew up during the Civil War. My parents grew up during Sweeney's final years. So I'm just 3 generations away from the Civil War. Juror 2 was the voice of Piglet. The bigot was Ed Begley Jr's father. Lumet locked the actors in a small room to rehearse and build up the tension. A great and timeless film. It will still be worth watching in 100 years.
My dad, born in 1921, told me how he'd watch Union Army veterans parade on Memorial Day. His own father had fought as a doughboy and was severely wounded in WWI. Dad himself was in the Army Air Corps from August 1940 to the end of WW2. Quite a slice of time.
@@johannesvalterdivizzini1523 Time is deceptive. Apparently I'm over half a century old but I seem to think I'm 23 years old. Thanks for sharing. I never knew my grandfathers well. And I've seen pictures of gravestones for not so distant relatives who fought in the Civil War. My own father has no interest. So I'll need to do my own digging. Stay safe. 🙂
@@davidely7032 I'm 59, just turned on the 17th. Sometimes I feel that and (what I imagine to be) older. Most of the time I'm right with you about 23, but I look my age, so nobody can see what age I feel unless they know me. My dad who passed at 82 in 2016 acted like he was an excited idealistic 23 y.o. up until he got sick towards the end. He looked pretty ancient, but to hear him over the phone he sounded like George Bailey telling people his wild dreams of travel, his voice couldn't keep up with his head! I so miss him! [edited for typos]
European here. What most people (especially across the pond) don't realize is that the whole film is a hard-hitting statement against the death penalty. Because if we compare the facts at the beginning and the end, it quickly becomes obvious how easy it is to execute someone who is innocent. And such a miscarriage of justice cannot then be corrected...
Yes, indeed. That's why a jury is so important. Lawyers present the facts and the evidence but they lean heavily on they psychological tactics to make you believe what they want, even in the way they prep their witnesses. Being on a grand jury made me appreciate how vital a jury is. This movie is proof of that.
Nice message ok, but the setup is so wrong. First of all the boy is very likely a murderer and morally superior No8 who smuggled pseudo-evidence around the court into the jury room, says things like "I dont want to change your mind" and "I dont have anything brilliant" and "I only know as much as you do". He says all of this while having the illegal knife in his pocket. Not a very morally clean person I would assume. Actually he is liar and he puts himself above the whole process.
@@PaulWinkle How did you come up with this narrow plank? An illegal knife is a cause for concern for you in a country where, even back then, there were more firearms than inhabitants? The legal principle of proportionality means nothing to you, does it? And one more thing... As the past has clearly shown, it is not a mistake not to go along with every piece of crap from the Führer's headquarters...
Klar soweit?
@@PaulWinkle You say the boy is very likely a murderer but the thing is: there is no conclusive evidence that 100% proves his guilt. And that was demonstrated thanks to the efforts of Juror N°8. He did not lie or put himself above the process, he simply took the time to consider the facts brought up in the trial which is what a juror is supposed to do. As for your comment about smuggling pseudo-evidence, ok but your argument is so wrong. The knife he presented is not evidence because it was not presented in the trial or connected to the case. As far as this jury is concerned, it's just a switch knife he bought, albeit illegally, on his own.
@@joshuabertrand937 There is conclusive evidence, eyewitness testimony which was ignored completly by the jury and for sure the fact that he lost his knife and someone else murdered the dad with a similar knife, that is circumstantial yes but very strong. The chances that sth like that happens is far beyond reasonable doubt. Just saying it is possible, is not a real category in court. And yes he albeit it illegally and the fact he smuggled it inside the jury is illegal too, just like the fact that he was lurking around the crime scene, not allowed too. And it is not allowed for a very good reason. It is not the job of the jury to play lawyer or prosecutor. A jury isnt even able to evaluate the results. The jury has to stick with all the things they heard and saw during the trial.
If you like courtroom dramatics, you’ll probably also enjoy the excellent “INHERIT THE WIND” (1960)
I'm German and would never have thought that the theme of “INHERIT THE WIND” would have such significance again. Residents of the USA who want to take the country back to the social Stone Age, and are successful in doing so in some states. Quote: "backwards, backwards". Simply unimaginable.
I’ve just given you your 200th ‘like’. I’m impressed. Enjoyed watching that with you. Too many ‘reactioners’ feel they have to talk waaayyyyy too much and pause the video waaayyyyy too much, but you were about perfect. A big plus is that you don’t incessantly criticise. You have an intelligent insight and you pick up on important points correctly and with good understanding. I always wait a few videos before I subscribe… you’ll probably get my subscription soon. 👍🏻
Every non-braindead person (that is aimed at someone named Paul) would have reasonable doubt about the eyewitness's claims. She claimed to be able to positively identify the killer, even though she witnessed the stabbing from 60 feet away, at midnight, while lying in bed trying to get to sleep, without wearing her glasses, while having to see through the windows of a passing elevated train, with only a three-second or so glance.
I seen this in the late 70s when I was a kid. It blew me away. I watched all of these gentlemen on different movies/TV shows and all of them were great.
They could touch the murder weapon because it was already presented as evidence during the trial. They do not need to safeguard it from fingerprints because the investigation was already done prior to the trial ever getting started.
And they mentioned that the fingerprints had already been wiped from it when they recovered it at the crime scene.
Great choice for a reaction. Can’t believe I found you in your first 2weeks, but clearly it’s because you did this film. Pepper in old films, classic films, and I’m with you. There are so many great older films. It’s the reactors that ONLY watch more recent films full of fantasy, superheros and violence and CGI effect spectacles - those are reactors I can’t stay with. You’re off to a good start -I enjoyed this, keep it up!! “To Kill a Mockingbird”, Hitchcock films, Film Noir, Bogart, Kubrik films, Capra films, Mel Brooks, Brando, Hepburn, Cary Grant, Dustin Hoffman, the field is rich!
I love how you pay attention to everyone and everything that was going on in the movie
John Fiedler, ths soft spoken bald guy with the glasses, was the voice of Piglet in Winnie the Pooh.
Fiedler's most hilarious role (imo) was of a security freak, Mr. Duke, on an episode of the _Odd Couple_ with Jack Klugman. (Season 2, episode 15; "Security Arms".) His line of "Who told you about those mirrors!!?" is hilariously memorable! Look it up and watch it if you aren't familiar, it's well worth it!
Your reactions are unique in a good way. You're so chill and make sensible observations.
I appreciate that, thanks for watching!
I love one room dramas. It peels away the layers and distractions and forces a focus on the core of storytelling itself. Reservoir Dogs, The Breakfast Club, The Man From Earth, all great stuff from different eras.
That's called a chamber play... Greetin's from Europe
Hey, Sheila! This was originally a teleplay for a "Playhouse 90"-type show in the '50's which were basically filmed theatrical productions broadcast during the early days of American TV. Before formulaic sitcoms and dramas became TV staples, actual playwrights were tapped to provide original or adapted content of high quality. The story really works as a theatrical piece with 12 players in one setting. A few years later, the great Sidney Lumet (pronounced Loom-ET) directed it for film. Lumet is considered one of the quintessential New York directors like Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese and Spike Lee. The film is considered one of the greatest courtroom dramas ever made.
It is my 11th favorite film of all time!
I like how Fonda's chief antagonists are fire and ice: the bombastic Lee J. Cobb and the coolly logical E.G. Marshall.
The cast was stacked with some of the best character actors of the day some of which had amazing careers like Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Jack Warden, Ed Begley and Robert Webber. However, it's live-wire Lee J. Cobb who steals the spotlight with his histrionics and rage!
When he has his breakthrough and realizes why he's rushed to judgment, his collapse is shattering and brings me to tears every time.
Henry Fonda's magnanimity as he helps him to his feet and gives him his coat is equally moving.
Foreigner George Voskovec and the elderly Joseph Sweeney were holdovers from the TV production.
A remake was made for cable TV with a black Mykelti Williamson portraying a reverse racist. Jack Lemmon had the Fonda role and George C. Scott had the Cobb role. Courtney B. Vance was the foreman, venerable Ossie Davis was the milquetoast, Armin Mueller-Stahl was the logical stockbroker, Dorian Harewood of "Hill Street Blues" was the slum escapee, James Gandolfini of "The Sopranos" was the blue collar guy, Tony Danza of "Who's the Boss?" was the sports guy, the legendary Hume Cronyn was the elderly gent, Edward James Olmos of "Battlestar Galactica" played the foreigner and William Petersen of "CSI" played the ad exec. Despite the heavy-hitters in the cast, it doesn't have the same power as the original. I feel some of the players would have been better served by being assigned different parts. The reverse racist angle was a clever one, though.
Another remake was considered by adding women to the mix. The project was abandoned because the inclusion of female energy would change the dynamic of the story and the energy of the room.
Hitchcock made a film in 1930 involving a jury trial and there were three women on the jury. Women were allowed on juries long before 1957.
Well... Hitchcock, was British. I don't know the film, but it's very possible, that the movie was done in Britain...
It really should have been called 11 Angry Men because Henry Fonda was reasonable and didn't jump to conclusions.
Juror #4 also. He's my favorite because he uses logic to back up his arguments.
Fonda's character is a fraud and This movie is highly manipulative, in favour of murderers. Best evidence is the interrogation between No8 Fonda and non-sweater-guy. He asked him about things that happened days ago, to simulate the stress level of the kid during his interrogation. Non-sweater-guy was 99% correct, he rememberd so many details unlike the boy who remembered NOTHING. And the movie really is telling us, that non-sweater guy failed. Really? If someone likes to be manipulated, if someone loves to set free murderers thats sick. I dont like this!
Though most were irritable due largely to the heat, only a few got really angry.
@@dupersuper1938 Non-sweater guy made a point, he remembered 99% of his stuff that happened days ago. No8 simulated the boys stress situation by adding days for non-sweater-guy. But in the end the movie told us, that No8 has made a point. No he didnt, non-sweater-guy made a big point. Manipulattive movie! And no one even said: Dude, your little interrogation here was a failure, you proved that nonsweater is right. The boy had nothing, 0% alibi at the movies!
@@PaulWinkle Number 8 very clearly had the point. Have you ever in your life encountered another poster who agreed with your...unique interpretation of this film?
An amazing reaction. Perhaps the best I've seen of this movie. It was wonderful to see you silent and contemplating.
Many other commenters have said things that I would have already mentioned. The cinematography is deliberate and has been said to be the 11th actor in the room. The claustrophobia of the rain and the heat are real.
Sidney Lumet was a genius. He starts off by shooting above shots and then mid shots and then you'll see that it's below.
Originally, this was written for a CBS live television production. Live studio playhouses were so much more fascinating to watch. I haven't looked for it on here, and I will do so now. Henry Fonda is fantastic in this movie, but E.G. Marshall give the masterclass.
Another fun fact. The man with the glasses is Henry Fiedler, who did a lot of voice acting. He voiced Piglet in Winnie the Pooh. He also was very powerful in the movie a Raisin in the Sun, which I suggest you react to very strongly.
There's so much more I could say, but I was so happy to see a thoughtful and intelligent reaction, that I just had to fill in certain tidbits. If you notice at the end, there is a huge wide shot and we're reminded that the outside world exists.
If you want to watch one of my favorite films, watch Lumet's Dog Day Afternoon. It's with Al Pacino and Michael Cazale.
Love these fun facts, thanks for sharing and thanks for checking out my reaction, I'll add your movie to my list.
Back then if someone said that they were going to lay you out it meant that they were going to hit you so hard that they were going to knock you out and you would be laying on the floor after they were finished with you and the reason why was that the man was upset that the other man was talking that way to someone that old and that he should show some respect to someone as old as that elderly man was.
Interestingly, women were first allowed on Juries in 1957, which is the same year this movie came out. But in some states, it didn't start to be the case until 1970s.
0:15 "I recently just did this."
You were on trial for murder? Congratulations, you must have been found innocent. 🙂
😁 I was on a grand jury for a month! It was brutal but also very fascinating. I think everyone should do it at least once.
@@SheilaReactz Consider yourself lucky. Sometimes these grand juries go on for 6 months or more. And if you think jury selection is picky for a criminal case, it's even harder for a grand jury.
Great reaction and commentary. I've never served on a jury because I have a doctorate in law, and although I don't practice, I have taught law on the secondary and college level, wrote law class curriculum and was the law related education coordinator for NYC public schools. I'd be a juror with too much knowledge--something many lawyers wouldn't want.
The director, Sidney Lumet, took the camera shots from overhead to lower and lower as the film progressed. He also moved the walls in gradually to add to the close intensity of the jury room. Lee J. Cobb, Henry Fonda, Ed Begley, Joseph Sweeney in particular gave truly excellent performances.
I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this incredible film. There, simply, is not an element in it's making that should be be studied for technique. Every actor was an elite character actor is his time, and many went on to other fine roles, but for this moment in time, together they created a true classic.
I've been called 4 times. First time, they already had enough people so they let the rest of us go. Second time I served. It was a shooting case, and the whole thing had to be done in Spanish, through interpreters. We all knew he did it, but by the rules, we had to find him Not Guilty. He went down on a Federal drug charge later.
Third time, I was seated, questioned and "excused". Fourth time, earlier this year, all the courts for that day were cancelled.
This was Sydney Lumets 1st great success.. He was 82, when his last movie premiered -"Before the Devil Knows You´re Dead". A dang masterpiece, definitely a classic, even if only few seem to know the movie.
Key question: What does the elderly juror know about what it's like to be elderly?
The loud-mouthed juror wants to be called "sir" because "older," but has no respect for those older than he.
Thank you for your terrific reaction! My only comment about the movie itself, is that I've always hoped that Juror # 3's experience would move him to reconcile with his own son.
In 1937, woman federal jurors won official approval and in some states, including California, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania, participation on a jury was compulsory.
Sidney Lumet is one of the great directors of all time, and this is one of his best. Another movie by Lumet that I always recommend is Fail Safe from 1964...it also stars Henry Fonda.
Other older movies that I suggest that were not made by Lumet are...To Kill a Mockingbird(1962), Inherit the Wind(1960), and Judgement at Nuremberg(1961)...all three are highly renowned courtroom dramas filmed in black and white.
I watched this movie back in 2007 on a hot summer night
Jack Klugman (the juror from the slums that used the knife underhanded) played Oscar Madison in the tv show “The Odd Couple”. In the 1997 version, Jack Lemmon (played Henry Fonda’s character) played Felix Unger in the movie version of “The Odd Couple”.
This has been my favorite film for many, many years. The acting is so compelling.
Sheila you're so quiet, grrl, and you come off as sweet too (both big pluses of course). I used to be a public defender and also clerked for a judge for a year before that, so I've seen many jury trials. I can tell you were a good juror. This is definitely, by far, my favorite legal drama and I love that it's in black and white. You're right about the effective cinematography, and of course the acting and writing are top notch! Good luck with the channel, Sheila, I just subbed.
Just one detail. They never state it's about racism. It's a conclusion we tend to go to these days, but the point is that there will always be 'those people' and that is not limited to skin colour. That's what makes this movie timeless.
Are you British or Canadian? I ask because of what we as Americans consider an "extra" u.
@@timcarr6401 German
@@Dreamfox-df6bg Ah ha. None of the above.
One of the greatest movies when it comes to dialogue. There is nothing but dialogue and none of it is a feeler. Everything they say is important because it actually describes each character. You actually get to know these people.
Yes, the father's vote change to "not guilty" was portrayed in a sad light, but it was contained good -- the first step in healing his relationship with his son.
The camera work in this film is amazing. In the scene where the racist juror has a loud ranting, even the camera pulls back from him - just as all the other jurors are turning their backs on him.
Today, telling someone you're going to "lay them out" can be deemed a threat to do bodily harm to that person and you'll wind up i jail.
Did you notice that juror had been looking after the old man from the beginning? Helping with his chair, watching for him in the restroom, et cetera.
Jury Duty ends up being a fascinating and terrifying study of humanity. Its reasoning, why and how it reasons.
If there was a woman on the jury,,it wouldn't be 12 angry men
spit out me coffee, ro many rabbit holes to crawl down with this one, lol.
Great job as a new reactor.
When I was called for jury duty, I managed to talk my way out by speaking out in the courtroom. Why the judge allowed me to go on is beyond me, but I launched into a tirade against the entire jury system (How are we rank amateurs expected to do a better job examining the case than the pros?) and even placed a few jabs against the "slick defense attorney." As soon as I finished, I was allowed to go home.
Director - "I'd like to gather some A-list actors for this film."
Producer - "How many?"
Director - "All of them."
To be honest, juror #8 introducing that second knife should have resulted in a mistrial. I've served on a couple of juries, one being a federal felony case in DC. The trial took only four hours, but we deliberated four days. Because we were going overnight, we got instructions _not_ to do any "investigating" on our own because that would be inadmissible in the jury room. In fact, I did do a bit for my own sake, but was careful not to mention it the next day in the jury room. Like this movie, our initial vote was 11:1 for guilty. I was very much like juror #4, holding logically to a particular piece of convincing evidence until the very last day...finally realizing it wasn't as solid as I thought it was.
This is a master and doctoral class on filmmaking shot in one room, and all these actors are some of the early icons of Hollywood think about it a movie shot in one room!!!
She is right. Producers and directors think that they must add additional action as a way to build suspense.
But some of the greatest movies ever made have very little over the top action. They have great dialog. And that's about it.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
Silence of the Lambs.
Monty Python the Holy Grail.
Are just a few that demonstrate this point.
Monty Python the Holy Grail.
Budget: 229,575 GBP.
Domestic Box Office $4,162,392.
The amount generated illustrates that you don't need a huge budget to produce a great movie.
Fantastic commentary, fantastic edit, fantastic post-film remarks. I've watched two reaction so far and I'm already a happy subscriber! I'll do "Taxi Driver" next! PS: Again, making connections: Lee J. Cobb, the angriest juror....he's also known for "On The Waterfront" starring young Marlon Brando, a couple of years after "Streetcar". That's one of the "big" Brando movies (although I prefer "Streetcar"!) Anyways, really love your style and approach! As far as I'm concerned: don't change a thing! Just don't burn out, always keep it fun for yourself! (And never listen to a troll!😉)
you just picked up a new subscriber ... wish you the best ... love to see younger people watching the movies i grew up with and actually enjoy them ... good luck , may God bless you and yours
“Them” referred to people who lived in the slums, regardless of their race. Don’t forget one of the jurors was from the slums.
Bigotry is not limited to race and it’s obvious that several of the jurors were bigoted against poor people. They thought slum dwellers were inferior to them.
Sydney Lumet's (pronounced Lu-May) directing and camera movements/angles just brilliant!
I've seen this movie many times, it's interesting to see it from a younger persons perspective and recognizing the way the term "Them" was used, over and over. I enjoyed your reaction and I Subbed and gave you a Thumbs Up. I've been up for Jury Duty several times and been a witness in several more and the responsivity for being accurate and honest is a task that is not to be taken lightly.
In 1997 they remade the movie with a racially diverse cast. That created some dynamics that were not present in 1957. There are many many international versions -demonstrating its wide appeal. 17:48
Wife appeal, crap remakes… so much for the DIE nonsense 🤷🏻♂️
The 1997 version was pretty good. Not as good as the original, but a decent movie.
Oh my gosh, you did this one! I just discovered you through "Godfather" and was telling you to watch "Dog Day Afternoon" after you watch "Godfather Part 2" because it stars Al Pacino and John Cazale and came out the following year. But now I'll add: "Dog Day Afternoon" was directed by Sidney Lumet! Who directed this! So even more reason to watch that one! Lumet is one of the great directors! And in the 70s, he did "Dog Day Afternoon" and "Network" back to back, two masterpieces, just like this one. Definitely put those on your list! Ok, watching this now!
on my top 50 list. this movie made me think about a lot when I saw it
as a kid.
I watch a lot of reactors and you did a great job.keep it up,especially with classic films. If you want another with great story,writing,acting,and cinematography,try On the waterfront with Marlon Brando and Lee j. Cobb.
It was illegal for the store owner to possess and sell switchblades. Perhaps that's why he said that this was the only one he sold -- er, saw.
Good luck on your new channel. I subscribed. There are movies that will definitely get you views, like the Shawshank Redemption, Alien, Die Hard or the Terminator but you do what's interesting to you. 😊
Good one, Sheila! Yeah, this one makes you think. Thanks for sharing it.
Thanks for watching!!
This was a great reaction to one of the greatest pieces of cinematic art. Thank you 👍👍👏👏🎉🎉❤
This was the way it was , pre civil rights , pre Miranda , '65 , '66.
This is one of the best movies ever made
Easily one of the top 5 best movies ever made.
Your reaction was superb. You talked very little, and unlike many people did not miss much of the significant dialog and action. You are super observant and probably make a great juror!
Thank you so much!
Great reaction Sheila! I've just become a new subscriber. I really enjoyed watching your reaction to this classic movie, and also how you minimized your comments throughout the film. I also served on a jury a few years ago, an aggravated assault case, and this film pretty much paralleled what I went through. Not to this extreme but as far as listening to opinions, facts, and evidence it is spot on. And I would definitely serve on another jury if called upon. Anyway thanks for your awesome reaction and I'm looking forward to your journey into the Silverscreen! 🎥🍿😊
not even Lee J. Cobb's character wants to hear Ed Begley's character rant. That says something...
At the time this movie was made in 1957, women could be on the jury of all states except three.
I guess they chose to have only men for this particular television play turned movie because 12 angry jurors doesn’t sound as good as 12 angry men
this story works best with all men, debating about the fate of another man. if women were there, the dynamic would shift considerably, tension would be lost.
"Glengarry Glen Ross" is another mostly filmed in one room classic, with a great ending. I highly recommend it..I'm sorry, it's another all male cast, though..Don't let that scare you off..Too good not to see..The dialog and acting are top-notch..Good luck with your channel!
I love David Mamet. I saw Glengarry Glen Ross with Brian Dennehy way back when.
However, it wasn't a one-room affair.
@@proofprof50 I said "Mostly filmed in one room."
Hi Shelia, since you enjoyed this movie, I would like to recommend a similar movie where most of the dialogue takes place in a single room. The movie is Conspiracy, a 2001 movie made for HBO.
The story is loosely based upon notes of a meeting that occurred during WW2, where a group assigned by the German government met to discuss Hitlers final solution concerning their Jewish population. It is a shocking and heartbreaking film.
If you don't have Max, it can be rented from Fandango.
Love this movie.
This movie is in my personal top 5 of all time. It stands the test of time.
You have NO IDEA how refreshing it is to find you! I see you are new to this game. It is wonderful that you didn't talk through the entire film. Of course, it is interesting to hear your opinons and reactions. That is what (imo) these channels are about. It is infuriating when a "reactor"
Thanks so much!!
A classic movie indeed, all the jurors acting later in famous movies or tv shows. Been on two juries myself, and another notice for next week. On a personal note, you seem a lovely, classy lady.
Thank you!!
My only criticism would be that in the editing, you cut out salient comments in each scene that help to establish who the characters are as people.
Apart from that, i appreciate how quiet you were in really listening to the dialogue.
You're very beautiful and this is a great movie! I too was once on a jury....but the case was over quickly! The prosecution gave up, said they couldn't meet the burden of proof. Which seemed logical to me because I thought the guy was innocent already...
Have you seen In the Heat of the Night? Very few people have reacted to it on here. It stars Sydney Poitier as a Philadelphia police detective who visits his mother in a very racist town. On his way back on the train, they have a murder in the town, and a cop is sent to find suspicious people, so he arrests Sydney Poitier for Waiting For a Train While Black. The Sheriff yells at him and calls him the n-word before realizing that he is a police detective. Sydney Poitier ends up solving the murder, but the killer isn't who we thought he was!
There's a famous scene in the movie that's the first time a black guy slapped a white guy in a movie....they go to a rich plantation owner's house, and ask him if the suspect had been there, and rich white guy slaps Poitier in the face, and Poitier slaps him back, MUCH HARDER! The white guy cries from having been slapped so hard and says "there was a time when I could have had you shot." And Poitier storms out in anger.
It's a good movie, and they made a TV series of it in the 90s, I used to watch it in high school (I graduated 1996). 🙂
Have not seen Heat in the Night but I'll add it to my watchlist! Thanks for the rec!
Don't know if someone mentioned it. In the original stage play the son of juror 3 didn't punch him but he tried to stab him. That is why he acts like the possible executioner.
The original was actually the 1954 broadcast teleplay (which is available on RUclips). It was done then as a stage play and the movie followed that.
It's like watching a deer in headlights
Nice job Sheila! Looking forward to more reactions!
Thank you!! 😁
"murder in the first degree"
"I recently just did this"
😯
Hahah! Jury Duty! 😁
Good job young lady
Hello Sheila! I just saw your channel right now. Gonna check your reaction because this movie changed my life! The Jurer 8th is true hero for me and after watched this I tried to be like him. The worst type of person for me is the Jurer 7th who seeks the ball game. By the way If you need recommendation of movie names I have plenty like this one.
Take care lady.
Hello Sheila.
First time I've seen you and I think your reaction was very good for this classic movie.
You paid close attention to the storyline, the characters and the cinematography.
You had minimal speaking only on the major points. I do not like over talking on issues not pertinent to the story.
Good Job.👍
I'm Subscribed.
Hello, have you seen the movie Tarzan The Fearless 1933?
Your reaction was considered, intelligent and without constant interruption - you're as smart as a pin!😀
I think it's all men because the title wouldn't work if it weren't. 😁
My favorite movie
theres a ladies room in the room.
The story took place in New York, which had opened up jury duty in 1937. We are just supposed to accept a huge statistical coincidence that 12 white men were accepted as jurors in New York City (extremely unlikely even then). It's not realism, and it's not even really about the law. The story is about how12 white men of different backgrounds come together to solve a problem. The dynamics.
As you were impressed so was I. You have a new subscriber.
As we say in Texas; y'all be safe.
Please take the time to watch and react to Alfred Hitchcock's movie "Rear Window"
Loved your reaction
Enjoyed your reaction ❤