Summary12 Angry Men, by Sidney Lumet, is a behind-closed-doors look at the American legal system. This iconic adaptation of Reginald Rose’s teleplay stars Henry Fonda as the dissenting member on a jury of white men ready to pass judgment on a Puerto Rican teenager charged with murdering his father. The result is a saga of epic proportions that ...
Summary12 Angry Men, by Sidney Lumet, is a behind-closed-doors look at the American legal system. This iconic adaptation of Reginald Rose’s teleplay stars Henry Fonda as the dissenting member on a jury of white men ready to pass judgment on a Puerto Rican teenager charged with murdering his father. The result is a saga of epic proportions that ...
Former TV director Sidney Lumet's solid success is achieved without even once resorting to flashbacks or other standard procedures of the film trade. The secret rests in spirited dialogue, realistic setting and, of course, the excellent cast of outstanding character actors that make up the jury. [21 Apr 1957, p.106]
12 Angry Men is one of the best 50s films I've ever seen. It is probably the best in its genre, the synopsis is admittedly basic: 12 angry men in a room debating about a murder.
Although the characters have no names, only numbers, they all have different personalities that are easy to identify with. The narrative thread is really great, full of suspense. It's really a must-see film.
This film is an absolute masterpiece! What makes it so special is probably its plot. It is as simple as it could be, but gosh this is so effective! 12 men have been notified to be part of a jury to judge an eighteen-year-old boy in a first degree murder case. Eleven of them think he is guilty, one thiks he is not, and tries to convince them. If I had to describe “12 angry men” in one word, this probably would be “doubt”. Doubt is probably the most important piece of the movie, because without doubt, there wouldn’t be any scenario. This is doubt that makes juror 8, played by the brilliant Henry Fonda, vote not guilty. He is not sure that the boy is innocent, but he is not sure, and does not want to send him to the chair for nothing.I really loved that movie, that raises important subjects as death sentence or intolerance, and I truly think that everybody should watch it at least once in a lifetime!
Too few films take on the art of arguing as a subject; we could certainly use more of them, but until then, Lumet’s window into strained civic duty will continue to serve mightily.
A penetrating, sensitive, and sometimes shocking dissection of the hearts and minds of men who obviously are something less than gods. It makes for taut, absorbing, and compelling drama that reaches far beyond the close confines of its jury room setting.
Though the jury in 12 Angry Men reaches a verdict, neither Rose nor Lumet definitively state whether they're "right." The point—as Lumet well knows—is that when it comes to making sense of a picture, a lot depends on the framing.
Perhaps the motivations of each juror are introduced too quickly and are repeated too often before each changes his vote. However, the film leaves a tremendous impact.
This is a cult American film, producted in New York, which deals with the evolution of the society, especially during the 50s and the after war. In order to describe this period, the only characters are 12 jurors. They all seem to be more ore less wealthy and powerful. We can find for example a salesman, a director, somebodywho works in a bank, an old man, and even a european who migrated to the USA. But they all have a common point: they are all white mens. In fact, this describes well this society, because they are neither black people nor women. This gives a sort of superiority to the white mens in the society, by also making it more general, because we don't know where the scene happens and when it happens. Moreover, it also describes the society, thanks to two other reasons. The first one is the consensus. In fact, when most of people vote to choose if the boy from the slum is guilty or not, some of them simply follow the vote.There is no really room for difference. What's more, some of them aren't even interestedby the vote or don't have any opinions. They just want the judgement to be as fast as possible, as they don't really care about it and only want to enjoy their own life. For example, one wanted to be at a sport game who began at 8.00pm. To conclude, this movie is a great movie, because it describes and make a review of the society after the WW2 in the USA by explaining that everything that was important is the social class. This film is a work of artmade in order to describe how people lived at that time. Nowadays, aretists like Banksy also make reviews from the society, by painting,or also making movies, by using art. So we can ask ourselves, if, art will allow humans to express their feelings and emotions forever.
I didn't like the film very much, the characters constantly change their decision because of the opinion of others, they don't find a common agreement, it's an endless debate, we don't know if the accused is guilty or not. On the other hand, the fact that the characters are on the limit of being static makes the film long, there is no real action, the scene takes place throughout a room. This certainly leads us to think about the ways of thinking and the impact it generates on someone else's opinion but it is not really fair in the end.
Pour un film de Sidney Lumet, c’est étonnamment regardable. Il faut dire que le réalisateur de somnifères s’est limité à une heure et demi, ce qui est déjà conséquent pour un tel huis-clos procédurier. Ici, on ne suit pas le procès mais on refait le procès en coulisses et on s’engueule… et surtout on assiste à un numéro de manipulation magistral !
Pensez donc, un homme seul retourne les 11 autres comme des crèpes ! au nom bien sûr de la lutte (finale) contre l’affreuse peine capitale et parce que cet homme seul est un bisounours à faire mourir de honte Jésus et potentiellement un communiste refoulé : on ne voit pas d’autre explication.
Car les faits sont tout de même patents et ressassés, puis balayés au fur et à mesure par des interprétations sujettes à caution et particulièrement discutables. Il aurait fallu une affaire bien plus ambigüe pour rétablir la balance et partant, le doute.
Ici, on a l’impression fort désagréable de s’être fait manipuler pendant une heure et demi : tout était écrit d’avance et les faits s’y sont pliés bien gentiment, ne nous laissant qu’une illusion de rebondissements qui n’en sont pas. Non, on avale pas de telles couleuvres : récusez ce film en définitive bien merdique qui se fout de notre gueule !
le film est long a la limite de l'ennuyant il reste statique dans une pièce ,il manque de rebondissement .Le seul point positif c'est l'enquête qui peut être intéressante a certains moments.