12 ANGRY MEN Movie Reaction! | First Time Watching
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 июн 2024
- Join Josh and Casey as they delve into the iconic courtroom drama "12 Angry Men" for the very first time! This masterpiece of cinema is renowned for its engrossing narrative and compelling character dynamics. Watch as we dissect the plot, discuss each juror's motives, and share our immediate reactions to the critical moments that define this classic film.
Watch THIS specific full-length reaction exclusively on Patreon! ➡️ bit.ly/4cjvlXc
|| 🎞️ A B O U T
The jury in a New York City murder trial is frustrated by a single member whose skeptical caution forces them to more carefully consider the evidence before jumping to a hasty verdict.
|| 🎟️ P A T R E O N
- Full-Length Movie Reactions
- Early Access to Videos
- Movie Polls and Suggestions
- Behind-the-Scenes Peeks
👉 www.patreon.com/joshandcasey
|| 📲 F O L L O W
Josh's Instagram: joshsbkr
|| 📖 C H A P T E R S
0:00 - Intro
0:44 - Reaction
25:05 - Wrap Up
#12AngryMen #MovieReaction #FirstTimeWatching 
Развлечения
The house painter who defended the old man had been looking out for the old man from the beginning...helping him with his chair, checking on him in the restroom.
Henry Fonda is one of the major actors of the classic era playing both comedy and dramas; and was in many John Ford westerns. His daughter is Jane Fonda, his son was Peter Fonda (of Easy Rider fame.) Henry’s best friend was Jimmy Stewart, altho they did not always share political opinions. He served in the Navy in WW2, winning citations for his work in the Pacific War. Henry usually played heroes and good guys. However, he did an exceptional role playing against type in Sergio Leone’s western “Once Upon A Time In The West.” He and this film’s director Sidney Lumet teamed up again when he played the US President in “Fail-Safe”(1964.) He finally won an Oscar for his role in “On Golden Pond” (1981) with Katharine Hepburn; the film rights to this play were purchased specifically for him by Jane Fonda.
He was definitely one of the best of his era!
@@joshandcasey Henry Fonda was great in the movie Mr Roberts. Check it out.
One of the greatest movies with a star studded cast. Amazing acting.
You guys laughing through the whole movie. You’d think this was a comedy but it’s a serious movie. Your missing dialogue.
It would have been nice to see your reactions to the most impactful and significant scenes, instead of stopping just short of them.
Well if they didn't know where to stop, it's likely to be in a bad spot. I'm more confused how every line was laughed at?
Sorry everyone, we’re still a young channel and learning how to get all of the best scenes in as well as maintain our reactions. Some of it also has to do with how our editor condensed hour and a half to 25 Minutes. We’re also big comedy fans so maybe find a few too many things funny, thanks for watching and hope you’ll stick with us!
A judge won't accept a hung jury on first deliberation if it's too short, or they're not convinced it's deadlocked. Instead the judge will send the jury back to deliberate for more time. If there's no movement, eventually the judge will have to accept it but in the movie, less than a day for a murder trial, it's unlikely it would be accepted.
Interesting! Makes me wonder if there have been conflicts between jury’s and judge before
@@joshandcasey I was on a jury that was deadlocked on a murder trial (no death penalty) -- one person was convinced Not Guilty and couldn't be moved. We sent a note to the judge on our first day of deliberating, and he brought us back and told us he wouldn't accept it, and we should keep at it. We discussed it a lot more, and a day later I sent another note back, and this time he accepted it and declared a mistrial.
@@DelGuy03 wow! That’s crazy!
@@joshandcasey He was very nice about it. After declaring the mistrial, he "reassured" us all in the courtroom that we shouldn't feel bad, that this is one of the ways that justice works properly. And when we got back to the jury room, he joined us smiling and said he wanted to know, just for his own curiosity, who the holdout was (he'd guessed correctly that it was 11 to 1). And we all had a nice few minutes' conversation about it before we went our separate ways.
Also, though we had jury numbers, nobody cared if we knew each others' names. Over the many days of the trial, we did a fair amount of socializing in our jury room (though never talking about the case).
@@DelGuy03 I'm surprised that the judge asked who the holdout was. Jury deliberations are supposed to be secret, even in a mistrial. Of course, you could have declined to tell him, but still. . .
I am a retired attorney.
Air conditioning was expensive because of the higher relative cost of electricity at that time. As a kid, I remember riding my bicycle to the grocery store to cool off! Grocery stores almost always were air conditioned. Schools were not, and on hot days, papers would stick to sweaty arms! I had the same experience in the Army. We had no air conditioning in my office or the military courtroom.
Movie theaters were air conditioned, though, which is why people often went to theaters just to cool off (maybe take a nap) without regard to the movie.
It was originally a one-hour live TV play in 1954 (available on RUclips) and eventually adapted into a stage play.
Thanks for the background!
Always happy to see folks being exposed to this film for the first time.
Sidney Lumet is one of the great directors of all time, and this is one of his best. And it was a teleplay first, then a stage play, and then the script for this movie.
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 are not from 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 remember watching To Kill a Mockingbird for school and was as impressed as this one with its cinematography and acting. Didn’t know it was the same director, thanks for sharing!
@@joshandcasey Well...I was saying that To Kill a Mockingbird is another great old movie that was not made by Lumet...TKAM was directed by Robert Mulligan. 😉
Lumet also made 1982's "The Verdict," one of the very best by Paul Newman.
I was called for jury duty four times, served twice, one a civil trial (wrongful death vs oil and tanker company) and a criminal trial (state vs a drug dealer).
The first was a hung jury (over a month?), the second a conviction (a few days?).
There was a play and Fonda played the same character.
Wow over a month! Must have been some deliberation
A tiny moment of set design that helps establish the time period; when their deliberation room door is opened and we see the court representative, there is a sign on the wall which says “Shelter” - since it is not likely to have need of a tornado shelter in New York City, we can know in 1957 it was a shelter in case of nuclear bomb attack, - or possibly something remaining from the war years, in case of enemy attack at that time.
Good catch!
2:10 I was born in 1954. My dad was a restaurant executive. Every man in my parent’s circle wore a suit to work and visiting. Dark blue or grey or charcoal or brown. White shirt only. Skinny black tie only. Cufflinks. Wingtips or dress shoes. Frank Sinatra trilby hat dark color. Short haircut. Clean shaven. Aftershave (old spice). Everyone smoked.
Lived in rural Kansas in a house built 1956. No AC until a window unit in 1971 as the new baby was coming. Also, original AC was large and expensive during a 50 year span of two World Wars and an economic depression lasting over a decade. Ac as pointed out before was a luxury.
Wow how’d you guys handle the Kansas summers?? Thanks for the info!
@@joshandcasey Kids we didn't know much different. Open windows and fans at night, frozen fruit pops in the day. lol
@@user-cp3rq8bw1z Much of Europe still does it
Air conditioning was a rare luxury.
That must’ve been brutal!
@@joshandcasey There wasn't climate change.
Cooler cups are cones so that they can be efficiently stacked, one inside the other. Air conditioning was very rare, even in the early 1960s. My elementary school had no AC. Most stores had no AC; the ones that did usually had a sign, “Come on in, it’s cool inside.” They started putting central AC in new houses in the late 1960s. Typically, families in older houses had a window AC unit in the parents’ bedroom and nowhere else.
Most juries were all-male because almost everywhere, even today, jury pools come from tax rolls. Few women worked then, so men overwhelmingly predominated the tax rolls. It is essential for juries to be allowed to examine exhibits, as well demonstrated in the movie. It poses no problem because the forensics have already been done.
This was written as an original teleplay (1954), which can be seen on RUclips. The movie is a revised and much-improved version of the story. It was remade for TV again in 1997.
If anyone out there sits on a jury, I strongly recommend NOT taking a preliminary vote first. It causes people to stubbornly defend their vote before they have discussed the facts.
@@user-sy5vv4ze3h very interesting info! Thanks for informing us 🙏
The last hold out for not guilty was Lee J Cobb, not Bob
Some highly recommended masterpieces of black & white cinematography of about the same time: Notorious (1946), The Ghost and Mrs Muir (1947), The Third Man (1949), The Night of the Hunter (1955), Some Like It Hot (1959.) Creativity, professional expertise, dramatic ingenuity, perfectionism - are not limited to current projects or attached to recent technology, CGI or otherwise.
Thanks for the recommendations!
Wyoming first allowed women to fill jury positions in the 1870s. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 gave women the right to serve on federal juries, but it wasn't until 1973 that all 50 states passed similar legislation.
Thanks for the background! Crazy that it only happened about 50 years ago
I like this one allright BUT 1996 with Jack Lemon, James Gandolfini, Tony Danza, Edward James Olmos and Dir. by William Friedkin who by nthis time had directed already French Connection, The Exorcist, Cruisin, To Live and Die in LA and Jade. Seriously a MUST
In the middle of Sopranos right now and would love to look at some other of Gandolfini’s work, thanks!
He did it and they let him slip through their fingers !
Dont you guys make the same mistake by letting these movies slip through your fingers........
Blue Collar - Richard Pryor
The Brave - Johnny Depp
Nightcrawler - Jake Gyllenhaal
The Game - Michael Douglas
American Psycho - Christian Bale
Cult classics
Nightcrawler and American Psycho are fantastic movies, haven’t seen the rest. Thanks for the recommendations!
12 Angry Men was first written for a live broadcast television play in 1954 written by Reginald Rose. The following year it was adapted as a play for the stage. The play was adapted for a film of the same name, directed by Sidney Lumet, and released in 1957. Since then it has been given numerous remakes, adaptations, and tributes.
Makes sense. We talked about that in the post-analysis discussion. It felt very much like a play.
The triangle cups were easy to package and ship..they lay flat in the shipping boxes ..just open and stack inside a holding tube..flat goes to a round drinking cup..instantly..every office hallway had them..and since it was a paper cup..just use it and throw it away..there may be places around the world that still use the design..easy to make and store..but now..electric water fountains rule..
Ahh makes sense! Thanks for enlightening us
Excellent movie that shows reasonable doubt. I feel like you two guys didn't appreciate this movie as you were watching it. This is one of the best movies ever made.
Sorry we definitely appreciated it even though we had some laughs along the way! One of the most important stories about the justice system ever written
Other folks have chimed in regarding the history of women's legal rights to serve on juries. But as an extra tidbit of information, even in many states where the right was recognized, it was customary for decades for women to have to opt into being on the list that would allow them to be contacted for jury duty. The rationale was that since women were likely to be caring for dependants or were more limited in their freedom of movement, they would all be "pre-excused" from service unless they specifically asked to be on the list when they registered to vote. This required them to know they had to opt in and how to do it on top of actually taking the action, which still left women underrepresented on juries for a long time after the first legal hurdle was cleared.
Interesting! So partially exclusive but also partially customary for the time
The first time a woman served on a jury was in 1870. However, it did not become customary until the 1920’s, after women had the right to vote. But it could often still be a rarity until 1968, when the last state passed laws making women eligible for all state juries.
Ah, thank you for answering!
In a criminal case it has to be unanimous. In a civil case it does not.
Ah, got it!
A/C was available but so expensive it didn't really take hold until the 60s.
Thanks for the info!
17:22 That is the point.
This is a fun reaction, My sole complaint would be that you frequently connect two scenes with critical information to understand the second one cut out. I understand that you need to limit the amount of the movie included. An example would be when the foreign man corrects the bigot's grammar without including the moment where he made the mistake saying "He don't even speak good English."
Thanks for the feedback. We will try and correct that moving forward!
When this movie was made, all states accepted women on a jury except three.
Mississippi was the last state to allow women to serve jury duty and that was in 1969.
Thanks for answering!
Henry Fonda is Jane Fonda’s father. She has a brother named Peter, who is also an actor. Peter has a daughter named Bridget Fonda. She is also an actor.
All great actors!
What does "This guy" mean?
So many layers in here! You'll always have something to do for the rest of your lives. I've seen it innumerable times since I was a teenager in the 70s and I see or hear or re-contextualize something new every single time.
It’s definitely a very well crafted story!
Yes air conditioning was around back then
But you're letting him slip through our fingers!!
Slip through our fingers? Are you his executioner?
Such a telling line
I spent the whole video wishing that pen would slip through his fingers! Next video, please put the pen down. Otherwise, good to see this reaction video.
This was my first time encountering your channel, and I was excited to see another set of young people discovering this classic gem. I encourage you to seek out other reactor channels to see how THEY handled this content. My only intent is to give you honest feedback about my experience. I'm not attacking anyone in any way. I'm 63 and I've seen a lot of movies.
1. WAY TOO MUCH nervous chuckling (dude on the right- I'm looking at you). My guess is you're unaware of how much it's happening. It felt like your were unwilling to settle in and enjoy the story. You guys kept cracking A LOT of pointless jokes about aspects of the film and then stomped all over key dramatic points. This film shows us the melting pot of people who are forced to come together to decide a young boy's fate in a murder trial. IMO- your vibe was off.
2. This film was packed with legendary A-listers and classic character actors. Yes, they were all before your time... but looking up the cast and learning a little about them might have given you something to briefly note about various actors, rather than just being dismissive about their characters.
3. The HEAT could be considered another character in the story. It actually fuels most of the frustrations in the room, and agitates to the point that the ugly thinking of some is totally revealed.
4. There are quite a few immigrants in the room... something I think you missed. They have a different perspective about being on a jury and take it very seriously.
Remember, you have invited us to watch a film WITH YOU. I felt like you were barely listening to the story... and with all the interruptions, it made it difficult for me to enjoy also. So- I clicked away.
Your set is lovely. When you get into the film, stick with your circles in the corners. Your viewers can see the movie well, and YOUR FACIAL REACTIONS as you enjoy the movie along with us. Maybe you're just a few months in with your channel... and there are still "bugs" to work out. As far as my comments go, take what resonates and leave the rest. I wish you well... and Break a leg!
We appreciate your feedback 🙌. Will only add that while we will utilize your suggestions going forward, this is only a 25 minute reaction for a 1 hour and 30 minute movie. All that is included on RUclips is when we actually react. There are many moments where we take everything in that just weren't included.
Late movie? Movie theatres used to be open all night.
Didn’t know that! Can’t imagine going to see a movie at 3 am
@@joshandcasey times square definitely had all night movie theaters back in the day.
@@joshandcasey Your apartment was 90F degrees and the movie theater was 70F degrees.
Even at the time, almost every state allowed women on juries. Mississippi was the last state to allow it, in 1968.
When there's a hung jury, it's a mistrial. The case may be retried, though it doesn't have to be. The prosecutor's office makes the decision. It seems unlikely that a judge would declare a hung jury after only an hour of deliberation. Maybe after a few days, but not in a such a short time, especially for a serious case like this one. He'd just send them back into the jury room and tell them to keep deliberating.
The movie is set is New York, not Illinois. I can see how you would think it was in Chicago because of the references to the el train, but there are elevated trains in parts of New York. In any case, the death penalty was abolished in New York in 2004, and in Illinois in 2011.
I was on a jury once in a stabbing case. They allowed us to handle the knife.
The bit where juror #8 (Henry Fonda) brought an identical knife as evidence would have resulted in a mistrial if the judge had known about it. Jurors are supposed to base their decision on the evidence presented at trial, because every bit of evidence is supposed to be vetted by opposing counsels and the judge. Jury deliberations happen in secret, so there was no way for the judge to know (unless one of the jurors talked, or the bailiff found the second knife in the jury room). It would be hard to bring in a knife today, because everyone going into a courthouse goes through a metal detector (something they didn't do in the fifties).
This was director Sidney Lumet's first feature film. He had done work for television prior to this. Some of his other movies include The Pawnbroker, Fail Safe, Serpico, Murder on the Orient Express, Dog Day Afternoon, Network, The Verdict, and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. Dog Day Afternoon is a favorite of mine.
Lumet began the movie using camera angles above the jurors' heads, and slowly moved it downwards. He also used more close-ups as the movie went on. The result was an increasing feeling of being in a small space.
Did you notice that none of the characters' names were revealed until the very end, when the jurors 8 and 9 introduced themselves to each other on the courthouse steps?
One thing I like about this movie is how the different characters bring their own experience and perspectives into the jury room with them. The old man understood why another old man would testify the way he did. The guy who lived in a slum knew about how switchblades were used in actual fights. The smallest juror who brought up the question of the kid stabbing downward while being so much shorter than his father.
When the bigot finished ranting, the cool-headed juror told him not to open his mouth again. From that point forward, the bigot didn't utter another word. Even when he voted not guilty, he did it by shaking his head. And the look on his face suggested that he knew how wrong he had been, and that he'd been voting to send someone to die who might very well not have done it.
The movie was based on a teleplay of the same name. It was originally broadcast in 1954.
Henry Fonda is Jane Fonda's father. Peter Fonda, another actor, is his son, and Bridget Fonda his granddaughter.
Wow! Thank you for answering our questions in such detail!
Women were allowed on juries in a lot of areas, but it was also very easy for women to get out of jury duty because of household conflicts.
A/C was available then, but not in widespread use in public/municipal buildings.
Theaters and hotels and motels and restaurants and other entertainment venues used AC because it helped them make more money.
Municipal buildings don't have a way to make money, so most of the public areas were not air conditioned.
Excellent reaction guys, but one of you (I'm sorry, I don't know which one of you is Josh and which is Casey) might want to consider not flicking your pen all the way through; it detracts from anything you have to say.
We will keep that in mind going forward
@@joshandcasey :-)
Not Baby Boomers. These were the fathers of Baby Boomers, which makes them members of the greatest generation.
True. Boomers would've been 46' and onwards
The old man jury member would have been three generations behind baby boomers. He was born in the 1880s. Some of the others men on the jury would have been born in the 1900s or 1910s, making them two generations behind baby boomers.
@@evanhughes1510 Of course. We were just joking that the guy would be referred to as "just a boomer" by today's generation haha
@@joshandcasey the initial commentor above said they were the “fathers of the baby boomers”. I’m just pointing out that is incorrect. Most of them would be grandfathers of the baby boomer generation, not fathers.
@@evanhughes1510 gotcha 🙌
Thanks for watching one of my top 5 all-time movies. One of your early questions was whether women could server on juries then. Besides looking it up on google, if you look in the background there is a bathroom door labeled Women right next to the Men's.
You're welcome! And good catch,
Did you all put the facts into ChatGPT?
We did not
One of The Best!
Absolutely!
The edits left a very unsatisfactory RUclips reaction to this great movie. Most of the greatest dialogue parts were missing or giggled over. And while the prodigious pen twirling was quite impressive, it was highly annoying and distracting from a visual standpoint.
We appreciate the feedback! We are still relatively new and working out the kinks. We will definitely take these notes into consideration and hope you stick with us. Thanks!
@1:45, practice what you "hot take" preach. People used to dress up when they knew they were going to be filmed and shown to the public. You two could be a little better dressed. Start a trend.
50s men only no women or blacks
False
Try reacting to cartoons before you move to classics.
An eyewitness saw the killing, one juror said at the beginning "She saw the killing through the last two cars. She remembered the most insignificant details". Guessing about the indentations around her nose later, after such a statement is strange at least! Her testimony was made in court and it was good enough for No8 not to oppose her statement in detail, he just switched the topic when mentioned, started a journey along many other points, but in the end they never synchronized her statement with the indentations. Therefore the boy is guilty or at least this jury is very sloppy and not capable to make a substantial verdict. Even a real Supreme Court Justice (Sotomayor) once said pretty much the same about this movie, this jury is speculating far beyond reasonable doubt.
I think the movie has a lot of holes, but I'm not sure I understand this point. I mean, she doesn't need glasses to know that two cars went by.
@@Kunsoo1024 Do you consider counting train cars means "She saw the killing and she remembered the most insignificant details"? You mean she described only 2 cars in detail and No8 let it pass like that and switched the topic? They all had problems to disprove her. Only after the old man mentioned the indentations they regained "hope". Until then her testimony was considered as to hard to disprove? Imagine her testimony was so weak and pointless regarding the murderer, they had to remember the indentations first to realize it was worthless? It really doesnt make any sense.
Her eyesight is in question which causes reasonable doubt. Could it be reading glasses or sunglasses, we don't know but there's doubt now about her eyesight.
There's also the issue with the old man limping to the door at supposedly 15 seconds and hearing the body drop while a loud train roars by. Also, the awkward stabbing when the boy knows how to use switch knives. Then the supposed 1 of a kind knife that the prosecution took a whole day to make an argument about yet didn't even check to make sure there weren't other pawnshops in the area with similar knives. There's too many holes in the prosecution's case.
And if anything Sotomayor should have called out how bad the prosecution and defense attorneys were in this case. If the case was that close and shut then the supposed speculations wouldn't have mattered and the 11 still would have stuck with the guilt verdict.
@@lirpa2300 Juror 4: Dude one eyewitnes saw the murder, her testimony is extremly detailed.
Juror 8: Oh really? Well then let's never ever talk about it, no matter what happens!
Strange isnt it?
Introducing evidence after the trial is over is certainly questionable.