Twelve Angry Men [1957]

The acting is superb. The slightly built eighteen-year-old immigrant on trial for his father's murder could not look more like a victim of the system, and these jurors, on the hottest day of the year, are frustrated and anxious to get on with their lives. When Fonda, calm and self-deprecating, wants to investigate the evidence further, the annoyance of the rest of the jury becomes palpable, and their prejudices are revealed.

"Slums are breeding grounds for criminals," "These people are dangerous, wild," "They don't know what the truth is," and "They are violent by nature," are all statements which reveal the "us vs. them" fear of immigrants. The jury's preconceived viewpoints, the failure of the boy's lawyer to represent him adequately, and other possible interpretations of the "evidence" are so obvious to the modern viewer that the pleasure of this film rests in the excellence of the acting.

Black and white film is appropriate to issues of right and wrong, a murder trial, and the death penalty. The camera work, focusing on the jurors' faces and the attitudes they reveal, and small clues about the backgrounds of individual jurors create a large canvas of twelve individualized (angry) men who will decide whether the accused will live or die. Small "sub-scenes" within the jury room and washroom give particular actors an opportunity to interact privately, and Joseph Sweeney (Juror #9), the elderly juror first convinced by Fonda's arguments, is particularly memorable for his warmth and his ability to engage the viewer's empathy. A classic, brilliantly acted film written by Reginald Rose, this film preserves attitudes of half a century ago and may be one of the few films in which no woman makes an appearance. Mary Whipple


The Greatest Film Ever Made   August 17, 2006
Reg Superman
14 out of 15 found this review helpful

Produced by Henry Fonda and Reginald Rose (screenwriter and the author of the original play) and directed by the great Sidney Lumet (in this his cinematic debut) this mainly jury room centred film, is quite simply the greatest film ever made. Lumet, who cut his teeth in television, brought a lot of unknown television acting talent with him to this unique piece of work. Seasoned film actors, Fonda, Lee J Cobb, Ed Begley, Robert Preston and E G Marshall dovetail seamlessly with the other players, among them Martin Balsam, Jack Warden, Jack Klugman and Edward Binns.
The plot is ridiculously simple. A young Hispanic man is on trial for murdering his father, and in what appears to the majority of the jury, an open and shut case of guilty.
One man, Henry Fonda, as juror number 8, stands alone as the dissenting voice against the prejudice and preconceived ideas of the other 11. Though bit by bit, the evidence is broken down and what initially appeared so certain becomes a reasonable doubt in enough of the jurors minds as to expose the bigoted notions of a couple of them.
The essence of this film is in it's refreshing simplicity in terms of staging, dialogue and delivery. The actors are all on top of their game, working with first class material. Other films rely on epic sets and or clever camera techniques to hold the audiences attention. (I discount Citizen Kane from that as it was a true landmark achievement) This film, above all others, proves that that is not necessary. Twelve Angry Men rewards the viewer even after the 30th watch (certainly in my case! I could play the parts myself, although not quite as good!). Simply the best!



A Courtroom Classic   March 1, 2006
Greg Farefield-Rose (Hertfordshire United Kingdom)
13 out of 13 found this review helpful

Classic film set entirely in a jury room apart from the first and last couple of minutes. A Puerto Rican young man is tried for murder and the jury retire to reach their verdict. The capital case seems to be clear-cut but one juror bravely registers a not-guilty verdict and gradually convinces the others of the flaws in the prosecution, exposing their prejudices and differences in the process.

Twelve Angry Men is a brilliantly made film with some clever directional touches used to highlight the tension and claustrophobia of the jury room. Its central story is as relevant now as when it was made almost 50 years ago. Simple but effective. An absolute classic.


A mind blowing production   May 16, 2006
Mr. P. J. R. LEWIS (Llandudno N Wales)
11 out of 12 found this review helpful

I cannot tell you how many times i have watched this film,I know most of the dialogue and still i return for more and to think this was Sidney Lumets directing debut,quite an achievement since the film is regarded by many film historians as one of the greatest character analysis films ever made.

As with many of Lumets atmospheric films(The Hill included) he uses the weather to increase the tension throughout his film.

Here in this incredible jury room drama the temperature of the warmest day of the year increases as the tension of conflict between jury members increases.
The thunderstorm breaks as Ed Begleys character shows his true colours and racism considering all slum dwellers as criminals bringing severe criticism from everyone,so much so that all but one remain seated with their backs to him.

The intensity of the rain mirrors the intensity of the drama until the final jury member Lee J Cobb breaks under the strain of the loss of his son and wanting the accused punished for the grief he is suffering.

As he breaks down in tears with his reluctant not guilty verdict the intensity of the storm relents and the unanumous verdict of not guilty is given when the calm and tension of the jury room comes to an end as does the rain.
You have to have seen the film a fair number of times to realise this is all happening.Quite magnificent!!.

Most of the cast were seasoned actors and it shows as they play their characters to perfection with all bringing something different and important to a simply spellbinding script.Just watch the expressions and body language of each person in that room as the case is discussed,the camera angles looking from above,below and directly into their faces is sheer brilliance.

Ive seen many impressive films over the years but this film is as good as it gets with acting of a magical quality by most of the actors especially Lee J Cobb,Ed Begley and Henry Fonda who allows the film to progress in a most compelling nature.
It is he as the only juror with some doubt over the court proceedings,and his arguments which eventually convince every jury member that the teenager maybe innocent, are testimony to Lumets direction.

The film moves at a carefully staged pace allowing each jury member to voice their opinions some which are clearly predudicial against the lad and the society he comes from.Lumets placing of a young Jack Clugman as the only member who can empathise with the lads plight,having been born and lived in a slum neighbourhood all his life is a stroke of genius.

Note how little Clugman says throughout the dialogue,he is instrumental in the final verdict,his knowledge of gang fights and correct use of a switch blade.His shout of "Did you say the old gentleman ran to the door" and all this near the end of the film to bring the major discrepancies of the defence lawyers defence of his client.

Even though Cluggman has little involvement with the rest of the jury members,he sits motionless giving little in responce,even rejecting the formans wishes of where he stood with a guilty or not guilty verdict.

He feels it is his duty to defend this lad because he belongs to the same community.He doesnot think he is innocent delivering a guilty verdict but says little else until the all important finally.The other jury members through their professions have little in common.When he does say something it drops like a bombshell on the rest of the room,nobody contradicts anything he says,all agree with his statments.Masterfull directing by Lumet.

If it was not for Cluggmans testimony and reluctance to say what he really means and feels for the proceedings the film would loose some of its credibility.

Ed Begley clearly can see his garage business going down the drain dislikes coloured people especially those from slum neighbourhoods who he tars them all with the same brush as criminals.

Lee J Cobb angry at the loss of a son he deeply loves is the last and most reluctant to change his verdict to not guilty.He feels this lad must pay for his crime of stabbing his father,he is blind to all the facts Fonda and the rest frow at him,ITs MY Right he says on more than one occasion.
There cannot be many films of any era where every actor featured is simply born to play the role in the film.The acting is approaching perfection
For those who are confused and want to know what the film is all about it is filmed in only four locations

1-The Court Room
2-The Jury Room
3-The Wash Room Adjoining the Jury Room
4-Outside the court at the very end.

An open and shut case a young teenager suposedly stabbed his father out of anger living in a slum neighbourhood.
Every jury member bar Henry Fonda want to send the lad to the chair,but Fonda wants them to look at the facts once again
COULD THEY BE WRONG with their verdict.

Sidney Lumet captures the suspense of the hottest day of the year in a stuffy upstairs room perfectly.Fondas quiet brilliance of winning even the most predujiced jury member over to a unanumous NOT GUILTY must rank as one of the greatest moments in film history.

By now you must have guessed this is in my top three favorite films of all time,once you have seen it you may come to the same opinion.

The only disappointment in this amazing film are the lack of extras on this disc,either there were none to be had or cast members were unwilling to spare their time,anyway this is one film everyone must see before they die.