12 Angry Men
Tags: thought-provoking, dramatic, murder, claustrophobic, realism

Plot synopsis:
In a New York City courthouse, an eighteen-year-old boy from a slum is on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death. Final closing arguments having been presented, a visibly bored judge instructs the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty of murder. If there is any reasonable doubt of his guilt they are to return a verdict of not guilty. The judge further informs them that a guilty verdict will be accompanied by a mandatory death sentence.The jury retires to a private room, where the jurors spend a short while getting acquainted before they begin deliberating. It is immediately apparent that the jurors have already decided that the boy is guilty, and that they plan to return their verdict without taking time for discussion with the sole exception of Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), who is the only "not guilty" vote in a preliminary tally. He explains that there is too much at stake for him to go along with the verdict without at least talking about it first. His vote annoys the other jurors, especially Juror 7 (Jack Warden), who has tickets to a baseball game that evening; and Juror 10 (Ed Begley Sr.), who believes that people from slum backgrounds are liars, wild, and dangerous.The rest of the film's focus is the jury's difficulty in reaching a unanimous verdict. While several of the jurors harbor personal prejudices, Juror 8 maintains that the evidence presented in the case is circumstantial, and that the boy deserves a fair deliberation. He calls into question the accuracy and reliability of the only two witnesses to the murder, the "rarity" of the murder weapon (a common switchblade, of which he has an identical copy), and the overall questionable circumstances. He further argues that he cannot in good conscience vote "guilty" when he feels there is reasonable doubt of the boy's guilt.Having argued several points and gotten no favorable response from the others, Juror 8 reluctantly agrees that he has only succeeded in hanging the jury. Instead, he requests another vote, this time by secret ballot. He proposes that he will abstain from voting, and if the other 11 jurors are still unanimous in a guilty vote, then he will acquiesce to their decision. The secret ballot is held, and a new "not guilty" vote appears. This earns intense criticism from Juror 3 (Lee J. Cobb), who blatantly accuses Juror 5 (Jack Klugman) who had grown up in a slum of switching out of sympathy toward slum children. However, Juror 9 (Joseph Sweeney) reveals that he himself changed his vote, feeling that Juror 8's points deserve further discussion.Juror 8 presents a convincing argument that one of the witnesses, an elderly man who claimed to have heard the boy yell "I'm going to kill you" shortly before the murder took place, could not have heard the voices as clearly as he had testified due to an elevated train passing by at the time; as well as stating that "I'm going to kill you," is often said by people who do not literally mean it. Juror 5 changes his vote to "not guilty". Soon afterward, Juror 11 (George Voskovec) questions whether it is reasonable to suppose the defendant would have fled the scene, having cleaned the knife of fingerprints but leaving it behind, and then come back three hours later to retrieve it (having been left in his father's chest). Juror 11 then changes his vote.Juror 8 then mentions the man's second claim: upon hearing the father's body hit the floor, he had run to the door of his apartment and seen the defendant running out of the building from his front door in 15 seconds. Jurors 5, 6 and 8 question whether this is true, as the witness in question had had a stroke, limiting his ability to walk. Upon the end of an experiment, the jury finds that the witness would not have made it to the door in enough time to actually see the killer running out. Juror 8 concludes that, judging from what he claims to have heard earlier, the witness must have merely assumed it was the defendant running. Juror 3, growing more irritated throughout the process, explodes in a rant: "He's got to burn! He's slipping through our fingers!" Juror 8 takes him to task, calling him a "self-appointed public avenger" and a sadist, saying he wants the defendant to die because of personal desire rather than the facts. Juror 3 shouts "I'll kill him!" and starts lunging at Juror 8, but is restrained by Jurors 5 and 7. Juror 8 calmly retorts, "You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you?", proving his previous point.Jurors 2 (John Fiedler) and 6 (Edward Binns) also decide to vote "not guilty", tying the vote at 66. Soon after, a rainstorm hits the city, threatening to cancel the baseball game for which Juror 7 has tickets.Juror 4 (E.G. Marshall) continues to state that he does not believe the boy's alibi, which was being at the movies with a few friends at the time of the murder, because the boy could not remember what movie he had seen when questioned by police shortly after the murder. Juror 8 explains that being under emotional stress can make you forget certain things, and tests how well Juror 4 can remember the events of previous days. Juror 4 remembers, with some difficulty, the events of the previous five days, and Juror 8 points out that he had not been under emotional stress at that time, thus there was no reason to think the boy should be able to remember the particulars of the movie that he claimed to have seen.Juror 2 calls into question the prosecution's claim that the accused, who was 5'7" tall, was able to inflict the downward stab wound found on his father, who was 6'2". Jurors 3 and 8 conduct an experiment to see if it's possible for a shorter person to stab downward into a taller person. The experiment proves the possibility, but Juror 5 then explains that he had grown up amidst knife fights in his neighborhood, and shows, through demonstrating the correct use of a switchblade, that no one so much shorter than his opponent would have held a switchblade in such a way as to stab downward, as the grip would have been too awkward and the act of changing hands too time-consuming. Rather, someone that much shorter than his opponent would stab underhanded at an upwards angle. This revelation augments the certainty of several of the jurors in their belief that the defendant is not guilty.Increasingly impatient, Juror 7 changes his vote just so that the deliberation may end, which earns him the ire of Jurors 3 and 11, both on opposite sides of the discussion. Juror 11, an immigrant who has repeatedly displayed strong patriotic pride, presses Juror 7 hard about using his vote frivolously, and eventually Juror 7 admits that he now truly believes the defendant is not guilty.The next jurors to change their votes are Jurors 12 (Robert Webber) and the Jury Foreman (Martin Balsam), making the vote 93 and leaving only three dissenters: Jurors 3, 4 and 10. Outraged at how the proceedings have gone, Juror 10 goes into a rage on why people from the slums cannot be trusted, of how they are little better than animals who gleefully kill each other off for fun. His speech offends Juror 5, who turns his back to him, and one by one the rest of the jurors start turning away from him. Confused and disturbed by this reaction to his diatribe, Juror 10 continues in a steadily fading voice and manner, slowing to a stop with "Listen to me. Listen..." Juror 4, the only man still facing him, tersely responds, "I have. Now sit down and don't open your mouth again." As Juror 10 moves to sit in a corner by himself, Juror 8 speaks quietly about the evils of prejudice, and the other jurors slowly resume their seats.When those remaining in favor of a guilty vote are pressed as to why they still maintain that there is no reasonable doubt, Juror 4 states his belief that despite all the other evidence that has been called into question, the fact remains that the woman who saw the murder from her bedroom window across the street (through the passing train) still stands as solid evidence. After he points this out, Juror 12 changes his vote back to "guilty", making the vote 84.Then Juror 9, after seeing Juror 4 rub his nose (which is being irritated by his eye glasses), realizes that, like Juror 4, the woman who allegedly saw the murder had impressions in the sides of her nose which she rubbed, indicating that she wore glasses, but did not wear them to court out of vanity. Juror 8 cannily asks Juror 4 if he wears his eyeglasses to sleep, and Juror 4 admits that he does not wear them nobody does. Juror 8 explains that there was thus no logical reason to expect that the witness happened to be wearing her glasses while trying to sleep, and he points out that on her own evidence the attack happened so swiftly that she would not have had time to put them on. After he points this out, Jurors 12, 10 and 4 all change their vote to "not guilty".At this point, the only remaining juror with a guilty vote is Juror 3. Juror 3 gives a long and increasingly tortured string of arguments, ending with, "Rotten kids, you work your life out!" This builds on a more emotionally ambivalent earlier revelation that his relationship with his own son is deeply strained, and his anger over this fact is the main reason that he wants the defendant to be guilty. Juror 3 finally loses his temper and tears up a photo of himself and his son, then suddenly breaks down crying and changes his vote to "not guilty", making the vote unanimous.As the jurors leave the room, Juror 8 helps the distraught Juror 3 with his coat in a show of compassion. The film ends when the friendly Jurors 8 (Davis) and 9 (McCardle) exchange names, and all of the jurors descend the courthouse steps to return to their individual lives... never to see each other again.(Note: there is no indication nor is the question ever answered if the teenage boy really is guilty or not; instead the film makes it clear that this is outside of the question if the jurors cannot be certain that he is guilty, if there is any reasonable doubt, they must acquit him.)

Review: This is brought to life even more by the amazing performances, Fonda, Lee J Cobb and Joseph Sweeney are of particular note.I started watching this film on a bored relaxed laying about day but by the end i was on the edge of the seat with my hands on my knees feeling more tense than a politician on results day.How a film should be made.
It is proof that, for a film to be great, it does not need extensive scenery, elaborate costumes or expensive special effects - just superlative acting.The twelve angry men are the twelve jurors of a murder case.
Cobb), the authoritative broker (E.G. Marshall), the self-conscious slum dweller (Jack Klugman), the solid, dependable painter (Edward Binns), the selfish salesman (Jack Warden), the calm, collected architect (Fonda), the thoughtful, observant older man (Joseph Sweeney), the racially bigoted garage owner (Ed Begley), the East European watchmaker (George Voskovec) and the beefcake advertising agent (Robert Webber) who has plenty of chat and little else.Almost the entire film takes place in just one room, the jury room, where the men have retired to consider their verdict.
What follows is a brilliant piece of film making, slowly revealing many of the juror's complex characters to the audience as they react to Fonda's concerns with their own mix of metal scars, prejudices and insecurities.
I cannot think of the last time I was so intrigued by the flawless plot, dialogue and acting since 12 Angry Men. For such a simplistic story set in one jury room, it is surprising that Sidney Lumet can drain you of all your emotions and leave you on the edge of your seat with suspense, mystery, and some of the best acting your bound to ever see grace the silver screen!When a boy is on last day of trial for killing his father in the heat of domestic arguments, 12 jury men are forced to present a verdict in which if guilty, is the one way ticket to the electric chair for the boy.
And the music was minimal, which gave the film a more atmospheric experience, like you were their in the jury room with them - and you just feel that tension really built up as the movie proceeds.This inexpensive film, with such a simple setting had the world talking, the academy awards nominations rolling and Henry Fonda at his complete best form.
Gosh, I don't know how many times I studied this play and performed it in high school, not to mention how many television shows had an episode that was inspired by 12 Angry Men. It was always a great drama because of the raw human emotions that were so true and remain timeless, this play will never be dated.
I've done this a million times, but here is another summary of what 12 Angry Men is all about.12 jurors are about to make a decision about a murder case, over all it seems like an open and shut case with tons of evidence that would make any good man look guilty, an 18 year old boy is about to be put to death if convicted.
Jurour #8 refuses to just jump to conclusions and brings up incredible possibilities that can always make a man think of "reasonable doubts", one by one the jurors begin to see the points he is making, except for one stubborn #3 who would rather just pull the switch to the chair himself.12 Angry Men is a timeless tale that could either be told very badly, i.e. 7th Heaven, or incredibly well and bring out terrific performances like Henry and Lee did.
The story is as simple as it can be: 12 men are jurors on a open and shut murder trial, but one man thinks that another persons life deserves at least some thought on the matter and votes not guilty.
When the jurors go back to deliberate on the case, ALL but one lone man played with a quiet courage by Henry Fonda states not guilty and the rest of the film is about trying to get them to his side.
Not a dull stretch to be seen anywhere.And yes, these are twelve white men judging a Puerto Rican boy, and yes Henry Fonda violated many classic rules of jury behavior when he introduced items into the discussion that were not official evidence, but this was 60 years ago and it IS a movie.
So just suspend your beliefs and try to enjoy the art of the thing -the riveting dialogue, the character studies that don't choke each other out, and the brilliant camera-work that manages to make the room seem increasingly smaller so that you can appreciate the claustrophobia that must be setting in with the jurors as deliberations wear on and get more heated..
"Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Musical." Mmm-hmm...I'm sure.I recommend this to anyone who thinks classic cinema is boring.Here's a classic, and here's one of many films that is put to disgrace by these newer-age lists of "best movies." I believe many of the people voting otherwise should take into account the fact that they might enjoy "X2" very much (as I did!) but that doesn't necessarily mean it is the 120th best film of all time!.
The deliberation room becomes a kind of boiler room where Henry Fonda's juror #11, the only un-sure one, sets the stage for a something more to be revealed- human nature when on a judgment day, with all its intelligence, ignorance, hate, and seeking objectivism.Sidney Lumet, on his very first feature-film, does a really professional (in a good way) job of directing the picture, by which a) letting the actors, who among the great lot include Lee J Cobb, John Fiedler, E.G. Marhall, Martin Balsam, Jack Klugman, Ed Begley, and in maybe the most under-rated role of the 'old man', Joseph Sweeney, just do their work and try to just make sure no one over-steps their ability in their strengths; b) using the atmosphere to high effect.
But, at the same time, Lumet's making a studio picture, with the all-around good-guy Henry Fonda (in one of his best roles), and dealing with a story that's, when it comes down to it, just the details of a crime examined over.
Sidney Lumet's directing is top-notch, and Henry Fonda is the still turning point of this small, microcosmic little world - his role has to be one of the most finely acted ever committed to film.Set in an actual New York jury room, it's a claustrophobic, tightly confined set, where 12 very different men deliberate over the guilt of a young boy.
But with a superb script and acting Sidney Lumet created one of the greatest films ever made if not the greatest.The dialogue is realistic and so sharp with a brilliant acting from Henry Fonda and Lee J.Cobb, I feel this film is still underrated even in IMDb rankings.And that line "well, so long" stayed with me ever since I saw the film as on of the greatest lines ever.This film is a symbol of simple but great film-making that suggests a man should always return to his senses every time and every where.10/10.
Juror #1, the foreman (Martin Balsam, football coach): "Well, I won't be too technical, or make a long speech  it's just that it's a one-set film, so it's new and risky, because you know, dialogs are not enough, we need uh  the thrills  and it goes slowly in the beginning but progressively, it's like the jury room becomes smaller, and the faces bigger.
Cobb, businessman): "I told you why this movie is great, it's just  thought provoking, everything and I mean everything looked like it would have been this kind of preachy film with a good-hearted hero and simple-minded antagonists who just want to be vindictive.
Hey admit it, the dialogs, the way opposite characters interact, create a lot of anxiety but is also very fun to watch, sometimes, well  I think you can say anything, but without entertainment, a film is worthless, and the movie could've been a bore, just all talk and no walk, but it wasn't, it worked for me ...
And one truth for sure, this is a GREAT MOVIE"Juror #10 (Ed Begley, garage owner): "I hate the patronizing way some left-wing good-hearted people adore this film, this has nothing to do with politics, truth or justice, it's about manipulation of your thoughts by pushing the right emotional button  you missed the point, and that's the beauty of the film, you're all easily fooled.
With brilliant acting from the jurors, an engaging script and fntastic direction from Sidney Lumet, 12 Angry Men knows what it is doing and succeeds masterfully at it..
With the exception of its bookends, and a brief scene in an adjacent washroom, the entire film unfolds exclusively within the one stifling, increasingly-claustrophobic jury room, as a group of twelve jurors {all male, mostly middle-aged and middle-class}, with vastly differing attitudes and prejudices, debate the innocence or guilt of a young Hispanic man charged with the premeditated stabbing murder of his father.Prior to 1957, director Sidney Lumet had already acquired some experience in television, though it wasn't until he released his first feature film, a low-budget offering shot in only 17 days, that he began to attract the attention of critics.
Though the film opens at the conclusion of the hearing, as the apparently-bored judge (Rudy Bond) offers his final instructions to the jury members, the events of the trial are later recreated through dialogue, without ever resorting to cumbersome flashbacks or heavy-handed narration.What ultimately makes '12 Angry Men' such an electrifying viewing experience are the incredible performances of the twelve main actors, each player delivering a distinct, perfectly-pitched characterisation that contributes richly towards their jury's deliberations on the court-case.
Central to the story, of course, is Juror #8 (Henry Fonda), the lone dissenting member, whose unwillingness to send a conceivably-innocent man to the electric chair forces the other jurors to reconsider their stance on what had initially seemed an "open-and-shut case." Fonda, who also co-produced the film, gives a sincere and righteous performance, his actions assuredly heroic, despite the very real possibility that he has helped a guilty criminal escape from justice.
Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Ed Binns, Jack Warden, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec and Robert Webber) each contribute with faultless performances, though some play a more significant role in the proceedings than do others.It would be plain naïve to label any one of the twelve jurors a "villain," but the man who clashes most frequently with the Fonda's well-meaning dissenter is Juror #3 (Lee J.
Though some of events of the jury room would technically not be allowed {Juror #8's extra investigations  purchasing the knife, pacing the old witness' journey to the door  would undoubtedly have resulted in a mistrial}, the discussions in the film work merely to prove a single, all-too-significant moral: according to the Constitution, the Accused can only be convicted if there exists no reasonable doubt of his guilt.
One does not expect an ordinary black and white movie like "Twelve Angry Men" to set the foundation for great drama.
Deceptively complex courtroom drama enthrals for the duration as one man opposes eleven others in a battle of argument, reason, and logic.Starring Henry Fonda as Juror #8, 12 Angry Men is a very claustrophobic drama which conveys the deliberation room of a trial where the defendant is accused of first-degree murder.
The more you scrutinise so-called unshakable evidence, the more you find holes in it, and the more that logical analysis seems to provide the real answers.Obviously, Juror #8 has to persuade those others who seem to have their own agenda, and pre-conceived notions of what truth equals, but nevertheless it is absolutely fascinating seeing how simply he probes the case and reveals the flaws.The whole movie's pace is absolutely perfect, and given its almost exclusive setting of inside the deliberation room it is a testament to the genius of the script and the brilliance of the acting that the duration of the film seems so short.
Even being such an old movie..It never bores you...I loved the way the movie proceeds...It's got a good pace and actors played their roles effectively...This movie is one of those movies which proves that to make a good film you don't need to have large budgets or beautiful locations you just need a good script...This movie only had 12 characters and a courtroom to make to film it...and it s in itself a marvelous a achievement...The film grabs your attention from the start and makes you think how one person is gong to change the mind of 11 other people in such a short time and during this journey of manipulating minds there are sufficient amount of twists and clever inferences to find clues out of small details will just blow your mind...It is a must watch movie because of its intelligent script and great performance by all the cast....
While many change their minds with the influence of rational thought, some characters simply get angrier and more aggressive; two characters give away their racist views and the powerful scene that runs over the final ten minutes, works to reveal so much about the most moving and brilliant character portrayal in the film.The happenings described in court unfold for a second time over the duration of 12 Angry Men. By the end, it as though we possess the same knowledge of what happened in the courtroom over the days of the trial, as the twelve men in the film.
Except for two short scenes at the beginning and end of the film, it's filmed entirely on one set, that of the jury deliberation room.Sweaty, gritty, claustrophobic-all words that sit snugly in the context of Lumet's excellently crafted deconstruction of 12 men trying to arrive at one verdict in the case of a Puerto Rican youth on trial for the murder of his father.
This film is all about dialogues and acting and is set 95% in a small room yet its most entertaining and has a lot of tension.When I said it had a well selected cast I didn't mean an all star cast; Henry Fonda was the only major star; Lee Cobb, Ed Begley, Martin Balsam and E.G. Marshall where very talented supporting actors but not stars; Jack Warden and Jack Klugman weren't even known much in films yet.
But a simple direction by Sidney Lumet leaving the development to the script and actors performances worked well and the film is tense, intriguing and most entertaining from beginning to end."Twelve Angry Men" is a "trail film" but with a very original focusing since by following the jury's debate the whole case is clearly revealed up to the verdict.
This is a superb drama,and every actor in it gave a great performance.I can watch it over and over without being bored by it.As entertainment it is great,and that is the main purpose of a movie.I only have one slight reservation,and that has to do with the plot.Some reviewers have pointed out that Henry Fonda did things that should not be done by jurors.But the thing that I find strangest is the charge,First Degree Murder,with a mandatory death sentence.Jurors are usually able to find an accused guilty on a lesser charge.Even assuming that the kid was guilty,the circumstances do not look like premeditated murder.Taking place in the middle of a violent argument,after being struck by a much larger and more powerful man,it looks far like manslaughter than murder one.But that is a minor quibble.This is still a great movie..
The film makes it graphically clear that the people who enforce law are all too human and that there are calm, decent people like Juror #8 (Fonda) who are willing to weigh the evidence and look for innocence rather than rush toward the verdict of guilt..........This is undoubtedly one of the top 3 movies i have seen and i give it a Ten on Ten.........
Written and co-produced by Rose himself and directed by Sidney Lumet, this trial film tells the story of a jury made up of 12 men as they deliberate the guilt or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt.
Over the next 95 minutes, 12 Angry Man watches as 11 jurors, first convinced of the suspect's guilt overcome their less than democratic prejudices and are slowly won over to the side of reasonable doubt by one man's doubts about the accused's guilt.Sidney Lumet creates energy and movement through quick editing and varying camera angles, which makes the film pulse with power and emotion despite its one set location.
It's a quiet afternoon here in Nicosia so i decided to sip on my coffee and watch the old time classic 12 Angry Men, I won't go into deep details because i'm still amazed by the performances in the movie.
12 men unknown to each other come together for one day and leave at the end of the say, perhaps never to see each other again, but what they learn about the accused and themselves makes for one of the greatest films ever seen.The dialog, the facial expressions, the backgrounds of these people and how it affects their thinking is fantastic.If you've never seen it and you call yourself a movie buff, you don't know what you're missing.Most of these actors went on to great thing in their professions and it takes a very simple yet effective movie like this to showcase their acting talents..
and almost full movie takes place in a room only with 12 men.the plot revolves around 12 jurors deciding a fate of a young boy accused of murder and i don't want to spoil it for u.
Director Sidney Lumet really understood how to focus on the right discussions at the right time, he builds the characters with the camera, he did an excellent job."12 Angry Men" is an impressive movie.