A pure classic. Never get tired of watching. Brilliant study in human attitude, behaviour, prejudice, ignorance, humility - everything. And the acting!
I watched and analysed the language of this movie sporadically for many years but love comments like this that make me notice something I hadn’t before:)
@@anasmansouri5659 He explains that it's up to the eleven of them to convince Juror #8 that they're the ones who are right, but in the end, it's Juror #8 who convinces them that he was right all along.
The thing I love the most about Fonda in this film is that never in any of the movie does he ever say "You should only listen to me." He admits several times he could be wrong and the boy could very well be guilty.
Exactly, in my opinion it's his humility and compassion that makes him such an amazing character. For me personally he represents the kindness and empathy that any person can have for others
Not only was it not up to Honda to introduce the knife that wasn’t admitted as evidence to the jurors, it is not allowed and would certainly be grounds for appeal.
That's right - turns out he has nothing but personal feelings. He feels that his own son has, in a sense, killed him by walking away from him. So he wants revenge by sending this other boy to the chair.
exactly- and yet for that guy, personal feeling about father-son relationships was EVERYTHING... A perfect case for which a juror should have recused himself for personal bias- something virtually no juror ever does.
I just realized that when they first voted, the five Jurors who didn't immediately raise their hands were also the first five Jurors to change their votes.
What makes this movie so riveting, aside from the great story? For me it's the superb casting. Henry Fonda, Lee J Cobb, Marty Balsam, Jack Warden, EG Marshall, Jack Klugman.
And George Voskovic, as the immigrant, who know more about what it means to be an American than the loud-mouthed self-styled "patriot. As Archie Bunker used to sing, "those were the days" when America really was great...
If a film can be called perfect then 12 Angry Men is exactly that. A object in film art at its absolute best. Direction and acting is a tour de force of 20th century cinema. One of the greatest films ever made.
Juror #8 is my favorite protagonist in any movie. Most likely because he's just so damn realistic. He doesn't save the world or some shit. All he does is stand up to his peers. But in real life, that's about the most admirable act a man can realistically do at any moment without preparation. It's a TRUE, 100% likely display of good character that I totally believe could occur in our world. It's inspiring.
He's doing it in full admittance that he may be wrong, but that as a jury their obligations are to examine the case as it was presented to them and show whether nor not there is a reasonable doubt to the guilt of the accused. Admittedly some of the things (at least one in particular) that happened during this deliberation would result in this particular case ending in a mistrial, but that's pretty much all done in the realm of creative fiction in a way to examine the flaws and strengths of our judicial system
Fantastic character. Ordinary man who exudes bravery in a seemingly simple way; he could very well be wrong but still musters up the courage to go against every other juror in the room, enduring ridicule in the process. You're right, perhaps the most admirable thing a man can do is stand up for what he believes is right in the face of adversity.
He's an architect. Analytical in the way he deconstructed the case, breaking down the evidence to the fine points. And then he put it all back together when he presented it to the other jurors.
This is the greatest film ever made in my humble opinion. Everything about it is perfect. Every single thing. Tight script that does a great job exploring the concept of reasonable doubt. The acting was terrific; every single juror's character is memorable and they all make meaningful contributions to the discussion, good or bad. The camera work, editing, music is all great. I can't sing enough praises for this film. Also one of the most riveting films I've ever seen. I find myself glued to the screen from beginning to end. Not a single moment in the film I find myself even slightly bored. And it has repeat value. I can watch it over and over again and it only gets better with each viewing. Masterpiece. 10/10
I thought it was great that in the TV series of “The Odd Couple” starring Jack Klugman and Tony Randall, they used the story line of this movie in one of their episodes!! Good stuff
The script is excellent, the choice of actors is superb, the pacing and editing is flawless and the direction by Lumet with his camera techniques is exquisite. A genuine masterpiece!
Great movie - excellent acting - could easily watch it again. I just wish we could have seen the look on the accused's face when he learned he learned the verdict...but then the movie wasn't really about him!
I thought that too. I wonder if John Savoca (who played him) is still alive. Jack Klugman was the last man standing of the 12. I was born in the year the film was released and am 63 now, so I guess Savoca would be around 81.
@Eric Kirk Interesting point. Jack Warden’s character (I think) is even less sympathetic than Cobb’s and seems to be evaded because he is so detached but you’re right, his acting is great.
@@EmilyHartley25989No. He comes at it honestly, having heard the evidence and arrived at a guilty verdict. The Lee J Cobb character allowed personal feelings into the jury room
Based on the evidence I think the defendant was guilty but I also think they were right to vote not guilty. When they realized the witnesses eye sight was in question, it was a reasonable enough doubt.
The knife was still left on the body but the fingerprints cleaned off the handle. Incompatible with both a hot blood murder and a cold blood murder (why leave the knife if you think about fingerprints ?). The most likely case would be : one of the defendant's friends (possibly around 1 foot taller than he is, due to the knife's angle through the body), who saw the knife and for some reason wanted to murder the defendant's father, bought the same knife to frame him for the murder.
@@Duke_of_Lorraine Your theory may be correct. However, the defendant saying he was at the movies during the killing was a questionable excuse. He couldn't remember the names of the movies and no one at the theatre remembered seeing him.
@@canadianfortrump4057 had he planned the murder, it's not a hard information to get. He could even have bought the tickets without actually going to see the movie, if he wanted an alibi.
I actually thought Fonda’s argument at 9:40 was pretty weak. You can’t sweep aside physical abuse like that, and it would provide a reasonable motive. We see it all the time with domestic violence cases. Juror #4 makes a good counter when he says it may have been one time too many.
I wonder if the performers in this movie looked back on it and realized what a great thing it was to be in this movie, for many probably the best thing in his career.
(3:11) ..'we're talking about somebody's life here - we can't decide in five minutes, supposing we're wrong?'.BTW just as an aside, it is April 2019, and I am just at the moment..on jury duty.. This is hugely thought provoking for me, today....
Juror Hawkins, you should have worn 50's clothing and dark glasses through out your case, to give you that black and white view on the court room ( like the film) , then stand up against the majority when deliberating and said " We're talking about someones life here! ". Then someone reminds you " This case is just a parking fine" ..........lol.
After watching the movie I still don't know which way I'd vote as a juror. While I (mostly) disregard the eyewitness accounts - especially the old man's - the knife is damning piece of evidence. While it is not one of a kind - juror #8 demonstrated that - is still pretty rare and the kid had it that same evening and a few hours later his knife (or a very similar one) is sticking in his father's chest. No explanation on the whereabouts of his knife, no alibi.... The only thing speaking for him is 'no fingerprints on the knife' but he certainly could have wiped it. He certainly could have wiped it even in a panic (BTW, that way the old guy's testimony makes sense again. The boy took some time to wipe the knife, so the old guy had more than just the 15s to get to the door ....) and later on with a calmer mind decided that the least suspicious thing to do was to come home (I mean, how suspicious would it be not to come home the night your dad was murdered. He was a bit unlucky that the knife was identified as his...) I believe he did it, I am not certain he did it but have no idea whether I am convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Then you'd have to vote not guilty, since you clearly have a reasonable doubt. It's not about perfect certainty, and the defense is not required to say a single word on its client's behalf- it's ENTIRELY the responsibility of the prosecution to prove guilt BEYOND a reasonable doubt- which this trial clearly did not. Many people argue that it's more important to keep a killer off the street than to uphold the letter of the law in a case like this. Dead wrong: even the worst of murderers is less dangerous than the loss to society of the inalienable right to a fair trial by jury.- one of the things we stand to lose when fascism finally consumes this country. Try convincing a typical reactionary Trumpite of that. Good luck...
@@user-sx7wo1yl7y "...since you clearly have a reasonable doubt." Just stating this as if it were fact does not make it true! What makes you think that my doubt is reasonable since I am clearly not so confident on which side of the edge I come down?
@@tom-qj6uw Never forget; it is infinitely worse to send an innocent man to his death (or to extended imprisonment) than it is to let a guilty man free. If you disagree with that statement, that is your right: but: would you disagree with it if you wee the innocent man wrongly imprisoned or on death row???
I have to remind myself this was around for 40 years before the remake which I saw first; essentially the same script, I love the character actors and their timing better. I find the differences odd and yet this is the big classic of the two.
They're all superb. For script and acting the movie is easily in my Top 10. The one actor who has his character nuance down perfect is Jack Warden, Klugman is next.
Even though juror 5 grew up in a slum like the accused they honestly should’ve suspected that it was juror 9 that changed his vote because of how he said he didn’t mind discussing the case more and how he stood up to juror 10 when he was talking badly about kids/people from slums.
I think it’s illegal for a juror to bring his or her own evidence into the jury room so Juror number eight Henry Fonda when he brings a exact replica knife into the jury room that’s illegal and probably would have resulted in a mistrial.
It's interesting how 7 is generally considered the worst of the characters, even worse than 3 and 10. And the film seems to agree with this opinion when 11 and 3 are equally disgusted with his indifference. It seems people agree that men with evil convictions are still men, while a man-child is no man at all. Every actor is perfect, but I think Warden's role was the toughest to pull off--the clown everyone despises. He doesn't sit in the middle by accident because he doesn't stand for anything.
@@m3mario That’s debatable because a greater likelihood of punishment would deter potential criminals, including potential murders, from committing crimes in the first place.
That's not the point and movie does not take stance if accused/suspect is guilty or not. It is about importance of due process, presumption of innocence and system working as it should. Thorough examination, being judged by jury of his peers.
The great thing is that the buy in question is probably guilty, but it doesn't matter. The point is that one cannot be certain based on the evidence, thus a guilty conviction cannot be given. This is a pillar of the Western legal system. It doesn't matter what we think personally; all that matters is the hard evidence. In my opinion, this film should be something that everyone watches at least once.
#10 also uses phrases like "you know", "aren't they?" and "didn't we" as if what he's saying is a fact everyone can agree on, despite it being quite unreliable due to it being biased
I like the allusions to American race-relations without actually specifying what ethnicity the defendant, victim, & witness were. All while the jury is entirely made up of middle-aged white men, one of them holds explicit prejudice while another is vehemently opposed to such convictions but out of the entire jury only one man is willing to spend his time of day to give the discarding of that young man's life any second thought, which says something about group think & how a legal system can fail us despite checks & balances in place. Kudos to all the actors who carried this simple drama picture by their sheer acting skills!
How this movie lost out to bridge on the river Kwai is insane,I've seen it, just another war movie, good-yeah,but come on,the intensity here is powerful, one of my top 10 ever!!!!
the one thing that seems unrealistic is the case preparation.it looks like a pretty flimsy case was made by the prosecution.in the real world i would guess the D.A. would need much more solid evidence (inc. DNA now) to even charge someone with murder.
The boy was guilty and everybody knew it inclusive the one who voted not guilty. The reason why he defended the boy was cuz he didn’t wanted him be sentenced to death. He knew that the boys crime didn’t deserve death sentence cuz it was many circumstances that led to that crime.
I wouldn't sent someone to the chair on a whim and on a 10 seconds decision vote either. I mean, heck, even if he did it, he wouldn't deserve it, the kid just got brutalised his whole life, shesh were these guys immoral.
Just the beginning‼️🤣. Love this movie. Narsestic in action. Is he guilty, leave it to a jury beyond reasonable doubt. This is why I don't trust a Jury!
So was the kid guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, possibly not. But did the kid actually kill his father, most probably. As juror #6 says “supposin’ you talk us all out of this, and, uh, the kid really did knife his father?” I guess this is why the movie is so great, because they made it such a razor thin call. A really amazing ending would have been if the last holdout was logical E G Marshall instead of angry Lee J Cobb and he slowly turns the juror back to voting guilty. Then Hank finally realizing the bleeding heart error of his ways breaks down and moans “Guilty, guilty!” And they send the kid off to the chair.
KG Smith interesting- it is the reasonable doubt the movie is discussing. This movie is still important- considering the numbers of convicted people are being released because they were actually innocent
What has Trump delivered for the common man? The tariffs are hurting America's manufacturing sector, coal mines are being shut down at a faster rate than ever before, his tax plan gives all the benefits to the super-rich and leaves the common man footing the bill, affordable health care is being torpedoed so fewer people over time will have access to it, and all he seems to give a crap about is a stupid wall that he promised during the campaign, even though it's just about the most cost-ineffective solution for dealing with illegal immigration that exists. Trump hasn't the slightest regard for the common man. He's never been one, he's never associated with one, and by what we've seen of his presidency so far, he never had any intention of working for them. He works for himself, in those brief moments when he works at all.
+steve b Trump is the biggest liar that ever took office. The number of lies he tells on average each week is higher than any US elected official in history. Fact-checking Trump and the excrement that flows from his lips has become a full-time job for those who've undertaken that task. His inflammatory speeches like the one he just gave at CPAC work like Hitler's speeches at the Nuremberg rallies, designed to separate people's brains from reality and shape them into useful tools of his will. "The Left" are merely a nebulous target of mindless hate now, much like "The Jews" are and were. Trump is doing _active harm_ to our country's reputation and values, using emergency powers to bypass the system of checks and balances, cozying up to murderous dictators while pushing away democratic allies, and actively INSTIGATING a level of political polarization not seen since the Civil War, making a repeat of that bloodbath seem closer than ever before. The PRESIDENT OF OUR COUNTRY should not be doing ANY of these things.
![Young Nudy - John Wayne (feat. Metro Boomin) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NY8HnYYo2fo/mqdefault.jpg)
A pure classic. Never get tired of watching. Brilliant study in human attitude, behaviour, prejudice, ignorance, humility - everything. And the acting!
5:25 I love how Juror #12 basically summarized the whole plot of the movie but in reverse.
I watched and analysed the language of this movie sporadically for many years but love comments like this that make me notice something I hadn’t before:)
What did mean by that i didn't understand
@@anasmansouri5659
He explains that it's up to the eleven of them to convince Juror #8 that they're the ones who are right, but in the end, it's Juror #8 who convinces them that he was right all along.
The thing I love the most about Fonda in this film is that never in any of the movie does he ever say "You should only listen to me." He admits several times he could be wrong and the boy could very well be guilty.
Exactly, in my opinion it's his humility and compassion that makes him such an amazing character. For me personally he represents the kindness and empathy that any person can have for others
Agreed
One of the great classic movies of all time! I agree Dimensioneer and JonGon
Not only was it not up to Honda to introduce the knife that wasn’t admitted as evidence to the jurors, it is not allowed and would certainly be grounds for appeal.
On my last visit there I went in so the opening scene makes it more meaningful now
Downright one of the best movies ever made.
Certainly up there as one of the 20 greatest Films of all time Period!
06:18 the last guy who changed his vote said in the very beginning that he doesn't have any personal fellings to this, this is so good written.
That's right - turns out he has nothing but personal feelings. He feels that his own son has, in a sense, killed him by walking away from him. So he wants revenge by sending this other boy to the chair.
@@martm216 exactly.
@@martm216exactly, very interesting
exactly- and yet for that guy, personal feeling about father-son relationships was EVERYTHING... A perfect case for which a juror should have recused himself for personal bias- something virtually no juror ever does.
I think Reginald Rose based his screenplay in large part on a jury he was on many years earlier.
I just realized that when they first voted, the five Jurors who didn't immediately raise their hands were also the first five Jurors to change their votes.
Midna Lazuli I noticed that too, I like the consistency of the characters
This film is an all-time classic for a reason...
Good eye! I hadn't noticed it.
They took pity on the boy and were not a bigot
Holy fuck you’re right how did I not see that?
12 Angry Men one of my favorite movies of all time
Same here
@@ayubmatadar1136
Nah it's the best movie ever.
Not one of the best, but the BEST
It’s the same thing with me, it’s in my top 10
Same
What makes this movie so riveting, aside from the great story? For me it's the superb casting. Henry Fonda, Lee J Cobb, Marty Balsam, Jack Warden, EG Marshall, Jack Klugman.
Ed Begley is right there with them.
E G Marshall is epic in this movie. I such a measured, subtle performance
Powerhouse Actors from a time that we will never see again ever PERIOD!!!!!
And George Voskovic, as the immigrant, who know more about what it means to be an American than the loud-mouthed self-styled "patriot. As Archie Bunker used to sing, "those were the days" when America really was great...
If a film can be called perfect then 12 Angry Men is exactly that. A object in film art at its absolute best. Direction and acting is a tour de force of 20th century cinema. One of the greatest films ever made.
12 ANGRY MEN is a classic in every sense of the word.
It's not a classic....its a masterpiece
@@shanetsung3558 Agreed.
I watched this movie on a South Korean TV when I was 11 years old. Since then it is one of the best movies I have ever seen.
This is the kind of film when you see it, you hold onto it dearly
Juror #8 is my favorite protagonist in any movie. Most likely because he's just so damn realistic. He doesn't save the world or some shit. All he does is stand up to his peers. But in real life, that's about the most admirable act a man can realistically do at any moment without preparation. It's a TRUE, 100% likely display of good character that I totally believe could occur in our world. It's inspiring.
He's doing it in full admittance that he may be wrong, but that as a jury their obligations are to examine the case as it was presented to them and show whether nor not there is a reasonable doubt to the guilt of the accused. Admittedly some of the things (at least one in particular) that happened during this deliberation would result in this particular case ending in a mistrial, but that's pretty much all done in the realm of creative fiction in a way to examine the flaws and strengths of our judicial system
Fantastic character. Ordinary man who exudes bravery in a seemingly simple way; he could very well be wrong but still musters up the courage to go against every other juror in the room, enduring ridicule in the process. You're right, perhaps the most admirable thing a man can do is stand up for what he believes is right in the face of adversity.
He's an architect. Analytical in the way he deconstructed the case, breaking down the evidence to the fine points. And then he put it all back together when he presented it to the other jurors.
This is the greatest film ever made in my humble opinion. Everything about it is perfect. Every single thing. Tight script that does a great job exploring the concept of reasonable doubt. The acting was terrific; every single juror's character is memorable and they all make meaningful contributions to the discussion, good or bad. The camera work, editing, music is all great.
I can't sing enough praises for this film. Also one of the most riveting films I've ever seen. I find myself glued to the screen from beginning to end. Not a single moment in the film I find myself even slightly bored. And it has repeat value. I can watch it over and over again and it only gets better with each viewing.
Masterpiece. 10/10
You captioned my thoughts about this film so well ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️I agree, it’s the best film in existence I rate it 12/10!!!
Ideologically, I 100% truthfully agree.
I thought it was great that in the TV series of “The Odd Couple” starring Jack Klugman and Tony Randall, they used the story line of this movie in one of their episodes!!
Good stuff
The script is excellent, the choice of actors is superb, the pacing and editing is flawless and the direction by Lumet with his camera techniques is exquisite. A genuine masterpiece!
Great movie - excellent acting - could easily watch it again. I just wish we could have seen the look on the accused's face when he learned he learned the verdict...but then the movie wasn't really about him!
I thought that too. I wonder if John Savoca (who played him) is still alive. Jack Klugman was the last man standing of the 12. I was born in the year the film was released and am 63 now, so I guess Savoca would be around 81.
@@hauntboy unfortunately...it looks like he died in 2005
Yes, the boy's role is sort of a MacGuffin--something that plot revolves around but in the end has no real significance.
The acting level is spot on 👌
8:13 A cold blooded call out by Juror 8 on Juror 10’s bigotry.
Love how he doesn't even bother hiding it. He just admits that Juror 8 is very perceptive.
@@midnalazuli793 - no, "smart" in this context used to mean smug or sanctimonious
More like Juror 10's contradiction
I respect Juror #5 for saying “I could be wrong”. That’s a good thing to say, it shows you have the humility to know that you can make mistakes.
Humility and mistakes- two things which Donald Trump would never admit to...
It was actually #6, 5 asked to skip his turn :)
The one juror who says respect your elders to juror 3 has a really consistent character damn, the dude really has the utmost respect for elders
I'm not a big fan of old black and white movies, but I really enjoyed this one.
I always use this movie as an introducer for those who are put off by old movies.
Either this one or Psycho
@Vick JR Hitchcock oldies also serve the purpose well. And the Billy Wilder oldies!
It's Cobb's film from start to finish.
LazlosPlane he owns every single scene he’s in
And Jack Ward
@Eric Kirk Interesting point. Jack Warden’s character (I think) is even less sympathetic than Cobb’s and seems to be evaded because he is so detached but you’re right, his acting is great.
@@EmilyHartley25989No. He comes at it honestly, having heard the evidence and arrived at a guilty verdict. The Lee J Cobb character allowed personal feelings into the jury room
Based on the evidence I think the defendant was guilty but I also think they were right to vote not guilty. When they realized the witnesses eye sight was in question, it was a reasonable enough doubt.
The knife was still left on the body but the fingerprints cleaned off the handle. Incompatible with both a hot blood murder and a cold blood murder (why leave the knife if you think about fingerprints ?).
The most likely case would be : one of the defendant's friends (possibly around 1 foot taller than he is, due to the knife's angle through the body), who saw the knife and for some reason wanted to murder the defendant's father, bought the same knife to frame him for the murder.
@@Duke_of_Lorraine Your theory may be correct. However, the defendant saying he was at the movies during the killing was a questionable excuse. He couldn't remember the names of the movies and no one at the theatre remembered seeing him.
@@canadianfortrump4057 had he planned the murder, it's not a hard information to get. He could even have bought the tickets without actually going to see the movie, if he wanted an alibi.
@@Duke_of_Lorraine Well put. In the play, there is some evidence to suggest that the father had made enemies who might want him dead.
I actually thought Fonda’s argument at 9:40 was pretty weak. You can’t sweep aside physical abuse like that, and it would provide a reasonable motive. We see it all the time with domestic violence cases. Juror #4 makes a good counter when he says it may have been one time too many.
I've only seen bits and pieces of this film. It looks to be an excellent psychodrama.
Real law and practical law are not the same. This is the movies.
You should watch it. It's not as much about law as about different characters in society
Superb acting by all of them
What makes a great movie great? Story? Performers? Director? This one has all of that.
6:19 I have no personal feelings about this...
Oh yeah right!!
He presented facts. You can't refute facts. I'm as sentimental as the next guy, I know he's only 18, but he's still gotta pay for what he done.
This film is worth every rewatch
“Everyone has a breaking point” is an amazing line to ready the viewer to what’s about to happen.
I wonder if the performers in this movie looked back on it and realized what a great thing it was to be in this movie, for many probably the best thing in his career.
Fonda said in the 1970's, that of all the movies he made, he was proud of maybe 7 or 8, this being one of them. The Ox-Bow Incident was another.
No frills just great talent a great story realism at it's best. 👍
(3:11) ..'we're talking about somebody's life here - we can't decide in five minutes, supposing we're wrong?'.BTW just as an aside, it is April 2019, and I am just at the moment..on jury duty.. This is hugely thought provoking for me, today....
Juror Hawkins, you should have worn 50's clothing and dark glasses through out your case, to give you that black and white view on the court room ( like the film) , then stand up against the majority when deliberating and said " We're talking about someones life here! ". Then someone reminds you " This case is just a parking fine" ..........lol.
@James Miller
Boy oh boy oh boy, there's always one...
I know it’s been 3 years but did you find the guy guilty or nah
Every dialogue the Foreman says starts with a Say ya
After watching the movie I still don't know which way I'd vote as a juror. While I (mostly) disregard the eyewitness accounts - especially the old man's - the knife is damning piece of evidence. While it is not one of a kind - juror #8 demonstrated that - is still pretty rare and the kid had it that same evening and a few hours later his knife (or a very similar one) is sticking in his father's chest. No explanation on the whereabouts of his knife, no alibi.... The only thing speaking for him is 'no fingerprints on the knife' but he certainly could have wiped it. He certainly could have wiped it even in a panic (BTW, that way the old guy's testimony makes sense again. The boy took some time to wipe the knife, so the old guy had more than just the 15s to get to the door ....) and later on with a calmer mind decided that the least suspicious thing to do was to come home (I mean, how suspicious would it be not to come home the night your dad was murdered. He was a bit unlucky that the knife was identified as his...)
I believe he did it, I am not certain he did it but have no idea whether I am convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Then you'd have to vote not guilty, since you clearly have a reasonable doubt. It's not about perfect certainty, and the defense is not required to say a single word on its client's behalf- it's ENTIRELY the responsibility of the prosecution to prove guilt BEYOND a reasonable doubt- which this trial clearly did not. Many people argue that it's more important to keep a killer off the street than to uphold the letter of the law in a case like this. Dead wrong: even the worst of murderers is less dangerous than the loss to society of the inalienable right to a fair trial by jury.- one of the things we stand to lose when fascism finally consumes this country. Try convincing a typical reactionary Trumpite of that. Good luck...
@@user-sx7wo1yl7y "...since you clearly have a reasonable doubt." Just stating this as if it were fact does not make it true! What makes you think that my doubt is reasonable since I am clearly not so confident on which side of the edge I come down?
@@tom-qj6uw Never forget; it is infinitely worse to send an innocent man to his death (or to extended imprisonment) than it is to let a guilty man free. If you disagree with that statement, that is your right: but: would you disagree with it if you wee the innocent man wrongly imprisoned or on death row???
Henry Fonda and Al Pacino two of the finest Italian American actors in history
I have to remind myself this was around for 40 years before the remake which I saw first; essentially the same script, I love the character actors and their timing better. I find the differences odd and yet this is the big classic of the two.
Haven’t seen the remake, does it stand up to the original?
@@joshp6061No. Better actors in original, and Jack Lemmon was old and tired.
They're all superb. For script and acting the movie is easily in my Top 10. The one actor who has his character nuance down perfect is Jack Warden, Klugman is next.
Even though juror 5 grew up in a slum like the accused they honestly should’ve suspected that it was juror 9 that changed his vote because of how he said he didn’t mind discussing the case more and how he stood up to juror 10 when he was talking badly about kids/people from slums.
Henry Fonda was directed by John Ford and Sidney Lumet, both great directors, but with dissimilar approaches when it came to actors.
I think it’s illegal for a juror to bring his or her own evidence into the jury room so Juror number eight Henry Fonda when he brings a exact replica knife into the jury room that’s illegal and probably would have resulted in a mistrial.
Good point. To my understanding, he would not have been allowed to make the demonstration with the steps.
00:24 Best line.
Baltimore.. 🤪
What's the meaning?
@@anasmansouri5659The Yankees were a dynasty - a powerhouse. Baltimore was at or near the bottom of the standings
It's interesting how 7 is generally considered the worst of the characters, even worse than 3 and 10. And the film seems to agree with this opinion when 11 and 3 are equally disgusted with his indifference. It seems people agree that men with evil convictions are still men, while a man-child is no man at all. Every actor is perfect, but I think Warden's role was the toughest to pull off--the clown everyone despises. He doesn't sit in the middle by accident because he doesn't stand for anything.
This movie probably saved the life of so many innocent people.
Underrated comment
Probably also let a lot of guilty people go free.
@@georgeofhamilton so much better than an innocent person go to jail to die or for the rest of their life.
@@m3mario That’s debatable because a greater likelihood of punishment would deter potential criminals, including potential murders, from committing crimes in the first place.
That's not the point and movie does not take stance if accused/suspect is guilty or not. It is about importance of due process, presumption of innocence and system working as it should. Thorough examination, being judged by jury of his peers.
Thank God there were no Cell Phones back then!
Persoonlijke gevoelens komen er altijd aan te pas, hoe rationeel men ook is.
There is a 1997 remake also really good movie
The great thing is that the buy in question is probably guilty, but it doesn't matter. The point is that one cannot be certain based on the evidence, thus a guilty conviction cannot be given. This is a pillar of the Western legal system. It doesn't matter what we think personally; all that matters is the hard evidence.
In my opinion, this film should be something that everyone watches at least once.
I love how Juror #8 looks #10 directly in the eye sitting down while #10 fidgets and walks around
#10 also uses phrases like "you know", "aren't they?" and "didn't we" as if what he's saying is a fact everyone can agree on, despite it being quite unreliable due to it being biased
Did anybody see the sequel 12 Hungry Men?
11 guilty 1 not guily
.
.
.
What we do now?
.
.
.
.
I guess we talk
Baltimore [Orioles] fan "like being hit in the head with a crowbar once a day"...some things haven't changed since 1957 lmao
The Birds is coming.
Add value by disagreeing so both sides are discussed.
I like the allusions to American race-relations without actually specifying what ethnicity the defendant, victim, & witness were. All while the jury is entirely made up of middle-aged white men, one of them holds explicit prejudice while another is vehemently opposed to such convictions but out of the entire jury only one man is willing to spend his time of day to give the discarding of that young man's life any second thought, which says something about group think & how a legal system can fail us despite checks & balances in place.
Kudos to all the actors who carried this simple drama picture by their sheer acting skills!
8:18 damn
How this movie lost out to bridge on the river Kwai is insane,I've seen it, just another war movie, good-yeah,but come on,the intensity here is powerful, one of my top 10 ever!!!!
the one thing that seems unrealistic is the case preparation.it looks like a pretty flimsy case was made by the prosecution.in the real world i would guess the D.A. would need much more solid evidence (inc. DNA now) to even charge someone with murder.
You can throw out all the other evidence, the woman saw him do it!
The boy was guilty and everybody knew it inclusive the one who voted not guilty. The reason why he defended the boy was cuz he didn’t wanted him be sentenced to death. He knew that the boys crime didn’t deserve death sentence cuz it was many circumstances that led to that crime.
Could be a theory it's possible
✋Guilty🤚
Great actors
Baltimore...I love it, lol
I wouldn't sent someone to the chair on a whim and on a 10 seconds decision vote either. I mean, heck, even if he did it, he wouldn't deserve it, the kid just got brutalised his whole life, shesh were these guys immoral.
I wouldn’t say immoral it’s just that the evidence seemed at the time to stack against the kid
⚡⚡⚡😮😮😲⚡⚡⚡
Zap him. ZAP HIM!
Just the beginning‼️🤣. Love this movie. Narsestic in action. Is he guilty, leave it to a jury beyond reasonable doubt. This is why I don't trust a Jury!
So was the kid guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, possibly not. But did the kid actually kill his father, most probably. As juror #6 says “supposin’ you talk us all out of this, and, uh, the kid really did knife his father?” I guess this is why the movie is so great, because they made it such a razor thin call.
A really amazing ending would have been if the last holdout was logical E G Marshall instead of angry Lee J Cobb and he slowly turns the juror back to voting guilty. Then Hank finally realizing the bleeding heart error of his ways breaks down and moans “Guilty, guilty!” And they send the kid off to the chair.
12 Confused Men
KG Smith interesting- it is the reasonable doubt the movie is discussing. This movie is still important- considering the numbers of convicted people are being released because they were actually innocent
I believe a better ending would be to declare it a mistrial since no one can prove whether the boy is guilty or not guilty of killing his father
Samira the kid knew how to use a knife. I'll never believe he raised it above his head. That's the reasonable doubt for me.
Yifan Wang why would it be a mistrial? If you can't prove he's guilty then he's not guilty. Nobody has to prove not guilty
This movie wouldn’t exist if Jurry Nullification was known across the country.
✋ Guilty.
6:18 SPOILERS SO NO SCROLLING DOWN IF YOU DON'T WANT GET SPOILED.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Biggest lie Jury 3 has ever told.
4:22 - President Trump in a jury.
What has Trump delivered for the common man? The tariffs are hurting America's manufacturing sector, coal mines are being shut down at a faster rate than ever before, his tax plan gives all the benefits to the super-rich and leaves the common man footing the bill, affordable health care is being torpedoed so fewer people over time will have access to it, and all he seems to give a crap about is a stupid wall that he promised during the campaign, even though it's just about the most cost-ineffective solution for dealing with illegal immigration that exists.
Trump hasn't the slightest regard for the common man. He's never been one, he's never associated with one, and by what we've seen of his presidency so far, he never had any intention of working for them. He works for himself, in those brief moments when he works at all.
Trump is the most honest and straightforward leader who can challenge everything. He doesn't try to be nice or judgemental. He's once in a billion.
EnlargedPenis your name shows what your mother watches. CNN/MSNCB like the FAKE NEWS.
+steve b Trump is the biggest liar that ever took office. The number of lies he tells on average each week is higher than any US elected official in history. Fact-checking Trump and the excrement that flows from his lips has become a full-time job for those who've undertaken that task.
His inflammatory speeches like the one he just gave at CPAC work like Hitler's speeches at the Nuremberg rallies, designed to separate people's brains from reality and shape them into useful tools of his will. "The Left" are merely a nebulous target of mindless hate now, much like "The Jews" are and were.
Trump is doing _active harm_ to our country's reputation and values, using emergency powers to bypass the system of checks and balances, cozying up to murderous dictators while pushing away democratic allies,
and actively INSTIGATING a level of political polarization not seen since the Civil War, making a repeat of that bloodbath seem closer than ever before. The PRESIDENT OF OUR COUNTRY should not be doing ANY of these things.
@@slashingraven Ocasio-Cortez 2020
Wokeism in 1957. He was guilty.