Directed by:
Sidney LumetScreenplay:
Reginald RoseCinematography:
Boris KaufmanComposer:
Kenyon HopkinsCast:
Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Jack Warden, Henry Fonda, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec (more)VOD (3)
Plots(1)
A Puerto Rican youth is on trial for murder, accused of knifing his father to death. The twelve jurors retire to the jury room, having been admonished that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Eleven of the jurors vote for conviction, each for reasons of his own. The sole holdout is Juror #8, played by Henry Fonda. (Park Circus)
(more)Videos (1)
Reviews (8)
One room and twelve white men from different walks of life, with different personalities and each with absolutely different origins. Their twelve different perspectives on one court case. Truth isn’t the issue here. It’s about whether the evidence is convincing enough to find somebody guilty on the basis of it, and send him to the gallows. Perfect dialogs, actors and rising tension in the atmosphere. But mainly the screenplay. Twelve Angry Men isn’t just one of many good court movies; it is one of the very best. A feature film debut not equaled by many.
()
It's fascinating to watch the dueling emotions, facts, life experiences, and analytical thinking. I can't remember a film that could portray the characters of all (twelve!!!) characters so bravely in 90 minutes. Or rather, I have no reason to think otherwise. 12 Angry Men is a real gem in the field of cinema; better yet, it bears a proud trace of Czech in the form of Jiří Voskovec.
()
For mysterious reasons, I've missed out on this generally well-known film for decades, even though it must have aired on TV a long time ago and probably repeatedly. I am therefore not influenced by nostalgia, and in fact, I saw a remake of it by Nikita Mikhalkov some time ago. If you don't have the opportunity to see the compared films at the same time, it is better to avoid comparison, as relying on memories can be deceitful. However, it is true that Mikhalkov's version seemed disproportionately more impressive and fresh to me. In the 1950s, Lumet's film undoubtedly represented a fundamental element of the courtroom drama genre. It was a film that rightfully stood out among the productions of that time. However, from my point of view, it has lost its impact. I also find the selection of actors and their portrayal inappropriate. The drama flows without any surprises, and the actors diligently fulfill the predictable roles assigned to them by the director, I guessed the order in which the opinions of 10 out of the 12 jurors would change, and that is definitely not a good credential. Usually, I don't have a problem with the theatrical appearance of a film, or with "talkative" movies. But this is an exception. Overall impression: 55%.
()
I didn’t expect it, but the result was superb. It was incredibly interesting to look into the minds of twelve absolutely ordinary people, to see how they gradually change their opinions and how they hold the fate of the accused boy in their hands. I have the feeling that even if the film had lasted an hour longer, it wouldn't have lost any of its quality and the actors would still have kept the viewer engaged with more great dialogue. If anyone has any prejudice about this film, perhaps because of its age, don't let it fool you and give 12 Angry Men a watch. It’s a brilliant piece of work, and not only in terms of filmmaking.
()
It doesn't take much to make a top drama: one room, twelve great actors and brilliantly written dialogue. And I guarantee you that this film will grab your attention very quickly and you won't take your eyes off it. There was a color remake in the 1980s, I haven't seen it, but I doubt it would top this old masterpiece.
()
Ads