INNOCENT? GUILTY? 12 Angry Men (1957) || Movie Commentary & Reaction || FIRST TIME WATCHING
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 июл 2024
- #12angrymen #moviecommentary #moviereaction #henryfonda #12angrymenreaction #classicmovies #12angrymen1957 #patreon
FIRST TIME WATCHING... 12 Angry Men!!! Enjoy!!!
0:00 Intro
1:42 Reaction
47:40 Discussion/Outro
PATREON is HERE!!!!
/ smallscreenreactions
Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to my Channel, leave a COMMENT down below, LIKE this video, and turn on NOTIFICATIONS!
Amazon Wish List!
www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls...
Venmo: @Ataft33
Cashapp: $SSR34
Follow Me On Instagram!
/ smallscreenreactions
Say Hello on Snapchat!
ataft33
Come and Chat on Twitter!
/ ssreact
*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. 
Развлечения
Henry Fonda is Jane Fonda’s father. He also has a son named Peter Fonda who is also an actor. Peter has a daughter named Bridget Fonda and she’s an actress.
Ed Begley is the father of Ed Begley Jr.
The jury foreman, played by Martin Balsam, was also in psycho a the private detective Arbogast.
Jack Klugman, the one from the slums, played Oscar Madison in the sitcom, the odd couple. He later played the title role in Quincy. He was a medical examiner who solved murders outside of the office.
E. G. Marshall, the guy who couldn’t remember the correct movie title, was the narrator on CBS Radio Mystery Theater in the 70s.
The baseball guy, Jack Warner, has been in several movies.
The guy who had never been in a jury before, John Fielder, was the voice of the Winnie the Pooh character, Piglet.
Henry Fonda is Jane Fonda's father abd Ed Begley is Ed Begley Jr's father.
Juror 2 is the voice of Piglet in Winnie The Pooh.
Jury foreman is in Psycho.
The juror from the slums is played by Jack Klugman who was one of the stars of the tv show The Odd Couple and the star of Quincy M.E.
Nice reaction. I'd like to clarify the air conditioning situation. This movie was filmed in 1956 or early in 1957. There weren't a lot of buildings that had air conditioning back then. It was set in an very old New York City courthouse. Installing air conditioning would be a major undertaking. It probably wasn't done in this particular courthouse for at least another 10 years. If you get chosen for jury duty, you may not have any choice to serve in a non-air conditioned room. I've had to report for jury duty in a building where both the air conditioning and the passenger elevators were out of order. The jury assembly room was on the third floor. And it was the middle of summer in Los Angeles, and the temperatures were in the 95-100 degree range. The only people to get a even the slightest break were those that were handicapped - they were taken up and down in the freight elevator.
As far as serving on a jury, I have served on juries twice. Once as an alternate, and once as the foreman. You definitely do not want to be an alternate, especially if none of the other jurors have cause to be dismissed. You have to pay as much attention as the regular jurors during the trial, but when the jury goes in to deliberate, you are stuck sitting in the courtroom. You are not allowed to participate in jury deliberations, and you are not allowed to leave. If a juror must be dismissed during deliberations, you may be the alternate selected (if they seat more than one alternate), then deliberations begin all over again. For the case I was on, no regular jurors left, so I had to sit there for a more than a day while the jury deliberated. I wasn't allowed to talk with anyone or even lunch with the other jurors. And the chairs were really uncomfortable. All I could do was read a book (this was before smartphones).
When I was the foreman, it was on a robbery case. If I remember correctly, there were 7 charges. Nobody was hurt during the commission of the robbery, just the threat of violence. I can tell you that there was no lack of excitement on this case or in the deliberations. You can get just as much excitement from other types of cases, without having to deal with a case that could potentially end in a death penalty or life term.
One of my most favorite movies of all time. Many of the cast were quite famous in their day. Thanks for this fun to watch reaction.
You are the only reactor that kept the watcher makers testimony, regarding the boys panic, when did it start.
1) THE KNIFE
The knife could have fallen out of the boy's pocket as he was leaving his apartment, heading to the movies.
That fits the timeline: The boy left his apartment at 11:30pm to go to the movies, and he said the knife fell through a hole in his pocket sometime between then - 11:30, when he left to go to the movies - and when he got back home at 3:10 in the morning.
"JUROR 4: Now what happened to the knife? He claims that it fell through a hole in his pocket on the way to the movies, sometime between 11.30 and 3.10, and that he never saw it again. ... No one in the house saw him go out at 11:30."
The knife could have fallen out of the boy's pocket right outside the apartment's front door, as the door was closing. He would not have heard it hit the floor because of the noise of the door closing. And if we assume he should have felt the knife fall past his ankle, the fact that he was twisting to close the door could also explain that - he thought what he felt was just his pants touching his ankle as he was twisting.
This scenario puts the knife at the scene of the crime to begin with. There is no need to try to explain how the knife got from someplace else to the particular apartment. For example, there is no need to try to explain how some stranger - who doesn't know the boy or the father, or where they live - found the knife blocks away on the street and just so happened to walk to the father's apartment.
Where the father lived was a slum so just about anyone - homeless people, drug dealers, pimps, robbers, home invaders, anyone - could have walked inside the building and found the knife on the floor right outside the father's door. It could even have been someone who lived in the same building and who hated the father (for example, because this other person knew the father used his fists to beat the son, beating the son all the time). This bum/thug/robber/neighbor finds the knife outside the door on the floor and says something ("sweet knife!") or makes some noise when picking it up and flipping it open. The father hears some noise outside his front door and opens it, only to be confronted with a bum/thug/robber/neighbor with an open switchblade knife: that person forces his way into the apartment and a fight ensues. The stabbing occurs ... with the bum/thug/robber/neighbor doing it the wrong way (from above, down and in, instead of upward and with an underhand motion, as the son probably would have done since he was very handy with knives).
There were no fingerprints on the knife (forensic DNA analysis was not available yet), so there was no forensic evidence showing the boy was holding the murder weapon when the stabbing occurred, or even that the boy ever held that particular knife. Heck, there isn't even any forensic evidence showing that the murder weapon was the same knife the boy bought: it could have been just a similar-looking knife, like the one juror 8 bought at a pawn shop just 2 blocks from the boy's place. The only evidence indicating the two knives were the same knife is that the friends identified the knife the police showed them as the one the boy had shown them the previous night. But without a serial number or something else definitive, no one could positively identify the two knives as being the same one, only that - from memory, from hours ago - the two looked very much alike. Even juror 3 (the final holdout) confused the knife juror 8 had bought with the knife used in the murder.
NOTE: Heck, it's not impossible that one of the boy's friends killed the father. The friend could have hated the boy's father, because the father used his fists to beat the son -- the friend's friend -- all the time. The friend could have waited for the boy to go to the movies, then knocked on the old man's door, rushed the old man, and stabbed him. The friend (1) could have just so happened to already have a knife similar to the one the boy bought that night, or (2) maybe when the friend saw the boy's knife that night he liked it, and after the boy left the group of friends, the friend went to a pawn shop and bought one similar to it, or (3) as above, the knife could have fallen out of the boy's pocket and the friend found it when he went to the father's door, picked it up, and then confronted the father.
The one holdout is Henry Fonda.
The one time I made it through all of the rest of the selection process to be on a jury, the defense attorney used one of his "freebie" eliminations in _voir dire_ to get rid of me without citing a cause ("peremptory challenge"). The *defense* attorney! I'm the biggest bleeding heart in the world -- if I was going to get eliminated without cause, I would have thought it would have been the prosecution who would have wanted to get me off of that jury. But nope! Apparently, I didn't look like a good bet to the defense for some weird reason.
An interesting game to play with this script is to try to decide how, if you were the director, you might adapt it to a mixed-sex cast. Which jurors would you decide to make female characters, and which would you keep as male? It's a far tougher exercise than one might at first expect.
Good choice of movie, if you want a movie where you will feel no need to shout at :). One of the compelling thing about this movie is the personalities of the jurors. I think most audience members would recognize each of these people, broadly speaking. They are real personalities, people we have all met through our lives at one time or another.
Yeah --- a murder case provides the greatest amount of potential entertainment. But that isn't the purpose of trails and jury deliberations.
Great reaction of a great movie! Thank you!
There are 3 strong pieces of evidence that the boy is guilty:
A) One eyewitness saw the killing one juror said in the movie "She remembered the most insignificant Details". Guessing about the indentations around her nose after such a statement is like asking "what? in water?" if someone tells you that he is a good swimmer.
B) Further No8 Henry Fonda proved that someone, even under pressure can remember 99% of things he saw even many days ago. The boy's alibi well he remembered 0%. I can't believe they sold us a victory as a defeat in this movie.
C) And the last but biggest deception in this movie, they even stated that the odds that someone else did the stabbing with exactly the same kind of knife "are a million to one". In no court in the world does a probability of one in a million lead to an acquittal based on reasonable doubt. If they believe in such a low probability then they cannot jump to such a conclusion and let him go without even revisiting that point. That's extremely sloppy at least.
A) What do you classified as insignificant details? Can she tell how many buttons had the victim across the street on his shirt? What color his shirt was? Maybe sure but we don’t know if these are the insignificant details for all we know they could ask if it was windy outside or how many trash cans were on the street that time.
B) In that same scene it was mentioned that the boy remembered the names of the movies and who played in them when he was asked during trial. Yea guy sitting in his chair misremembered the name and didn’t know who played in the movie when he wasn’t under stress. Boy was if we believe his words was thrown down the stairs by the detectives and then questioned by then with his dead father in next room. That is big difference.
C) It proves store keeper lied under oath about that knife saying it was one of the kind when you can buy it just for six bucks. Maybe if detectives done their job we could have more suspects that got that same knife but we don’t. Its same like you getting locked for shooting someone just because gun you have shoots same ammo. Without proper investigation you will be guilty too. His father was also criminal. Maybe someone picked pocketed that knife from his boy and use it to frame him for his revenge killing.
@@peterondrus7065 A) Something that would be talked about in court if it is unimportant or wrong and for sure would be discussed by Juror No8, which he didnt. We dont know the details, but the fact that No8 wasnt able to say anything against it is a pretty strong fact.
B) what was the point then to test non-sweating guy? Btw he knew 99% of what he did days ago, which for sure isnt a success for No8 like it was portrayed.
C) Storekeeper didnt lie, why did he lie? He doesnt kniw every knife on the planet. Point never was that this knife is unique. Yes unique would be better, but being rare is more than enough for being evidence, cause No8's theory doesnt work well if it is rare. He knew what he was looking for, but how did hhis real murderer knew? We are in a one in a million territory whicjh btw was mentioned too in the movie, but was forgotten, so that the movies makes sense a little.
@@PaulWinkle A) Juror No8 said nothing against it. But no one else use it to prove he is wrong. Like I said if some insignificant detail could maybe prove she was able to see clearly across the street strong argument could be made but we don’t know these details so we left to speculate.
B) Non-sweating guy. No4 i believe. Is basing his guilty verdict on testimony from detectives that say the boy could not remember the movies and he believes he could. After that test we can see he didn’t remember them correctly when he wasn’t under stress. He wasn’t throw down the stairs and interrogated with his dead relative in next room. You think under these circumstances can people answer you 100% correctly?
C) Maybe that killer knew that boy father and saw him buy that knife. Or when he was showing it to his friends and then stole it from him. After all there were no fingerprints. You leave this knife that can be linked to you but clean fingerprints?
@@peterondrus7065 A) Why does the jury speculate? Can they just speculate that the woman never uses sunglasses but on the other hand they ignore her testimony and the details in it and they even dont talk about it? Even you really believe the boy is not guilty, this point proves that the jury is argueing one sided. At the beginning they took the testimony as crystal clear, detailed and said boy is guilty and then at the end of the movie puff the testimony is no more. You have to confess that part is sloppy by the jury. And No8 is complaining the boys attorney was weak.
B) None sweater was under stress he had to go back days not only a few hours and he got it right 99%. One movie title and that one was even mostly correct. The wonder Misses Bainbridge or the miraculous Bainbridge, who cares, everything else was more than correct. And the boy he got NOTHING! 0%. How is that a win for Fonda??
C) The real killer followed the boy and was hoping he is gonna lose his knife? We are in the one in a millions again. And no, did not stole it from him, the boy himself testified that he lost it again only hours before the dad got killed, through a hole in his pocket. He bought it the same day and "lost" it hours before it happened. And on top of the one in a million again one in a million. We for sure do not need fingerprints anymore. No fingerprint is that precise like this bunch of impossibilities.
I add it here cause sometimes youtube deletes edited text. To clarify: It was said in the movie! - the probability that the real killer bought such a similar knife is one in a million and now you say he followed the boy and even had to wait for him to lose it through a hole in his pocket (boy said that in the movie too), that is just like one in a million. And even worse, this follow up and grabbing his newly lost knife happened only hours before the murder happend that is one in a million /cubed (mathematically)
Please try not to talk over the dialogue. Many reviewers stop the clip briefly to insert their thoughts. It’s difficult for us to follow the thread of the story line and have a reference point of your comments. Thanks.
They don't pause the movie, they either mute or cut out that part so you only hear them speaking. Since most reactors are showing them on Patreon (synched to their viewers) by pausing every time you want to comment, you lose the synchronization. Some will turn on subtitles for a point of reference.
I can’t hear what parts of the movie you are reacting to!
Stop talking over important dialogue & scenes.
Agreed. Yet, in all fairness, the first time through a movie a person doesn't know which moments are critical to the plot.
@@cjpreach That's what the pause button is for.
This is his reaction you're watching, not the movie. I only watch reactions to movies I've already seen.
actually the guy was guilty....
There's no definitive evidence he is...
Then you should be able to provide evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the boy killed his father. So why not present it?
Ugh listening to someone with the sniffles talk into a mike Eww
Hey SSR. This is a movie I've seen so often I have lost count. I almost know it by rote, but couldn't hear what you're reacting to because the sound is too low to hear it. And everyone has different edits. If you can repost it with the problem fixed I'll watch it them. Good luck.🧓🙉