Having seen the movie at least as many times as the number in it's title (or more), I will be giving an honest assessment and opinion.
First , these 12 actors performances are alive, vital and powerful, it's amazing how much tension and turmoil these actors made, in a movie set in one place. (Just like the stage play ). We briefly see the courtroom and later outside the building.
Made in the 1950s, we get the true tone and feeling of that time, because , for the most part, these attitudes were very real and dominant in that era.
If anyone expects a jury room to be exciting, normally it's not. If the actors played it like a normal jury, well, the film would only be a 30 minute TV special.
With Henry Fonda, first off, he gives a simplistic yet very deep performance in the way his character says "not guilty" but wisely does not say, "I know he's not". That would've undermined the whole of his performance.
Lee J. Cobb is fantastic. Not as prejudiced like the other older male juror but just angry inside at everything. Especially after Fonda calls him a "sadist" , when heaing how Cobb's character would like to dish out the boy's punishment himself.
John Fielder always great as the meek yet, somehow outspoken kind. That after he's finally pushed to say something and take a stand.
Jack Warden as a guy who'd rather be at the ballgame than having his life interrupted for something he could care less about. Which yes, is not a great mindset to have when asked to serve on a jury.
E. G. Marshall gives a quiet yet strong performance as well. A man who is so "sure and certain" about everything. Only to be proved wrong later. The rest are fantastic in their own ways as well.
I really love how Henry Fonda's character works with everything to show valid reasons for his vote. He has paid very close attention during the trial and has remembered many things that were said and noticed many things as well.
He bullies no one, into sharing his view ... but does state in demonstrating logic and reasoning (not in making anything up that is false or imagined). Everything he talks about, was presented, said or seen in the courtroom.
All the players here get a chance to speak their piece and I especially point to Jack Klugman, who coming from a similar neighborhood as the boy in question, does vote guilty at first, as like others, just wants to go home. He doesn't vote not guilty because of the boy's similar background.
In hearing slanders about 'those kind' from his kind of neighborhood, he let's his feelings be known and doesn't sugar coat it. Leading to a near confrontation.
Ed Bagley's very prejudiced juror, is finally confronted by the others, who are tired of hearing him yell his bigoted statements. He's basically and deservedly told to sit and say nothing more, giving him time to think and eventually, on his own, decide on not guilty.
Lee J. Cobb's character, his problem wasn't necessarily racial, as it was anger at his own son, who basically hates his father and wants no part of him.
Which is why he rips up the picture. (Which is to say to h*** with it) and is why he finally votes not guilty. He essentially is not going to send the young man to his death, based on his problems with his son.
I reviewed this movie for the strong dramatic acting, the simple but effective setting and it's overall production value and just the cleverness in how it all plays out. I know a well crafted movie when I see one and I base any review only on what is in the film and what it's about.
It was a play and has been done several movie versions and that's all 12 Angry Men is. A completely fictional story, not based on any real case. A movie that takes place in it's time and is of it's time. It's only a movie and I don't take it as anything other than this
Our court system and legal system of course, has changed greatly since the late 1950s, I couldn't say for sure if "12 Angry Men" may have had a small part in it....but I wouldn't be surprised.
10 stars from me.
It doesn't matter if I know whether the young man was actually guilty or not, or what in the 21st century would or would not be allowed.
What matters in any review, only, is the overall movie itself. Acting, setting , production value and nothing more. It is just n emotionally hard hitting drama. (END)
First , these 12 actors performances are alive, vital and powerful, it's amazing how much tension and turmoil these actors made, in a movie set in one place. (Just like the stage play ). We briefly see the courtroom and later outside the building.
Made in the 1950s, we get the true tone and feeling of that time, because , for the most part, these attitudes were very real and dominant in that era.
If anyone expects a jury room to be exciting, normally it's not. If the actors played it like a normal jury, well, the film would only be a 30 minute TV special.
With Henry Fonda, first off, he gives a simplistic yet very deep performance in the way his character says "not guilty" but wisely does not say, "I know he's not". That would've undermined the whole of his performance.
Lee J. Cobb is fantastic. Not as prejudiced like the other older male juror but just angry inside at everything. Especially after Fonda calls him a "sadist" , when heaing how Cobb's character would like to dish out the boy's punishment himself.
John Fielder always great as the meek yet, somehow outspoken kind. That after he's finally pushed to say something and take a stand.
Jack Warden as a guy who'd rather be at the ballgame than having his life interrupted for something he could care less about. Which yes, is not a great mindset to have when asked to serve on a jury.
E. G. Marshall gives a quiet yet strong performance as well. A man who is so "sure and certain" about everything. Only to be proved wrong later. The rest are fantastic in their own ways as well.
I really love how Henry Fonda's character works with everything to show valid reasons for his vote. He has paid very close attention during the trial and has remembered many things that were said and noticed many things as well.
He bullies no one, into sharing his view ... but does state in demonstrating logic and reasoning (not in making anything up that is false or imagined). Everything he talks about, was presented, said or seen in the courtroom.
All the players here get a chance to speak their piece and I especially point to Jack Klugman, who coming from a similar neighborhood as the boy in question, does vote guilty at first, as like others, just wants to go home. He doesn't vote not guilty because of the boy's similar background.
In hearing slanders about 'those kind' from his kind of neighborhood, he let's his feelings be known and doesn't sugar coat it. Leading to a near confrontation.
Ed Bagley's very prejudiced juror, is finally confronted by the others, who are tired of hearing him yell his bigoted statements. He's basically and deservedly told to sit and say nothing more, giving him time to think and eventually, on his own, decide on not guilty.
Lee J. Cobb's character, his problem wasn't necessarily racial, as it was anger at his own son, who basically hates his father and wants no part of him.
Which is why he rips up the picture. (Which is to say to h*** with it) and is why he finally votes not guilty. He essentially is not going to send the young man to his death, based on his problems with his son.
I reviewed this movie for the strong dramatic acting, the simple but effective setting and it's overall production value and just the cleverness in how it all plays out. I know a well crafted movie when I see one and I base any review only on what is in the film and what it's about.
It was a play and has been done several movie versions and that's all 12 Angry Men is. A completely fictional story, not based on any real case. A movie that takes place in it's time and is of it's time. It's only a movie and I don't take it as anything other than this
Our court system and legal system of course, has changed greatly since the late 1950s, I couldn't say for sure if "12 Angry Men" may have had a small part in it....but I wouldn't be surprised.
10 stars from me.
It doesn't matter if I know whether the young man was actually guilty or not, or what in the 21st century would or would not be allowed.
What matters in any review, only, is the overall movie itself. Acting, setting , production value and nothing more. It is just n emotionally hard hitting drama. (END)