12 Angry Men (50th Anniversary Edition)
Starring: Martin Balsam, Ed Begley, Edward Binns, Rudy Bond, Lee J. CobbDirector: Sidney Lumet
Studio: MGM (Video & DVD)
MPAA Rating: NR (Not Rated)
Format: Black & White, Subtitled, Widescreen
Running Time: 96 minutes
DVD Release: March 4th 2008
Buy DVD:
DVD Review
Eleven jurors are convinced that the defendant is guilty of murder. The twelfth has no doubt of his innocence. How can this one man steer the others toward the same conclusion? It's a case of seemingly overwhelming evidence against a teenager accused of killing his father in "one of the best pictures ever made" (The Hollywood Reporter).
User Reviews
Great film but not a Region 1 release - Rating: 3/5
I received this DVD in good condition and even though it was a requirement for a class enjoyed watching it. However, when I attempted to play it on my regular Media Center it stated that it is not formatted for Region 1 (US and Canada). I was able to play it on another DVD player I have but this is the 2nd time I've received a DVD from amazon that was not intended for the United States. Susan
Mediocre - Rating: 3/5
This film gets three stars for great acting, a reasonably good script and great filming, thus making for pretty good entertainment. It loses two stars for substance. Wouldn't one expect that there would have been some discussion of who else might have done it? Did the old man have any enemies? Did he owe anybody money? Was there anything missing from the apartment indicating that robbery may have been the motive? Was there a sign of forced entry? Certainly, before voting not guilty there should have been some discussion of what else may have happened. In the face of strong direct and circumstantial evidence they produced a not guilty verdict because the male witness "might" have wanted to get his name in the paper and the female witness "might" have forgotten to put her glasses on. (Perhaps reading glasses caused the indentations on the bridge of the woman's nose.) Verdict: Good on entertainment, bad on substance.
A Classic Among Classics - Rating: 5/5
Ok, you have 12 guys that spend the entire movies huddled in a small jury discussion room and do nothing but talk for 90 min. How is that interesting? Let me tell you, the first time I watched this movie, I was riveted. The casting director should have won an Oscar for how well he crafted this ensemble. Every one of these 12 are wonderful actors and take their parts very seriously. Henry Fonda is obviously the star of the movie, but he by no means carries the movie - Martin Balsam, Jack Klugman, Ed Begley and the others are all co-equals and add the necessary spice that moves this movie one that could be watched over and over again. It was recently on TCM and although I've seen it probably half a dozen times, know most of the lines, and what's going to happen, I was glued to my seat for that whole 90 min. I just can't get enough of it!
Despite The Desire To Never See It Again, a Good Film - Rating: 3/5
12 Angry Men is perhaps the only courtroom drama (To Kill a Mockingbird transceds the genre itself, which is, by the way, a classic movie) that is worth watching. 12 Angry Men deals with a murder trial. The murder trial deals whether or not an 18 year old boy is guily or innocent, dealing with the case that the eighteen year old boy killed his father.
On the surface, the plot is not very interesting and rather pedestrian. But this movie turns that normal plot into a compelling jury session. The twelve jurors actually develop, and their biases, personalities (one of the jurors is arguably sadistic, and one only cares about missing a baseball game), weaknesses, strengths, and different motives. Indeed, you will not be getting any flat, boring characters. These characters get dramatic, they get angry, they get cool, they actually know how to breath. They are stiff as jello, and it makes the movie much better and basically compelling. The characters know how to make the debate come to life one way or the other.
The case itself also includes compelling evidence and suggestions; at one point, they even whip out a diagram and a demonstration of the killing to prove their points. The in depth knowledge and discussion of the case invites you to sit along with them and ponder among the jurors. The movie is heavy on the dialogue, but the dialogue is rich and, as I imagine, pretty realistic as well. Side conversations that Quentin Tarantino is so fond of using is also present. Not much, but it's effective and it's entertaining.
12 Angry men is also an exercise in film-making simpliticity, proving that film-making can be just as effective when you keep it simple. It's low-budget, but you wouldn't know it. Basically, 12 Angry Men succeds like no other because it just feels very realistic. The one set is very non-Hollywood as has it's quirks. The jury room is very tense, and the other shots of the movie are also beaitufil. The rest of the film-making is standard, which good acting, effective camera shots, and the like.
12 Angry Men, however, is still a courtroom drama, and, just like a real courtroom argument regarding the verdict, once you've heard everything, I felt no real desire to sit through it again. Now, if there was another (indeed, this could have been a TV show, though we have Judge Judy to keep us interested) movie made by the same people, it would definitely be worth watching. That's not to say that this movie loses luster after one viewing. It depends on how much you find the case itneresting. So if you like all the little evidence and find it interesting enough to view it again, you will easily want to do that with this movie. Of course, that's you, but me, nope, one time is enough.
Although only one view is enough, it's easy to see why someone would want to watch this one over again. The plot doesn't drag either, which makes the viewing painless. So really, no excuses, okay? See this one, and be sure to put in subtitles, because you do not want to miss the dialogue
C+
Not to be Repeated - Rating: 5/5
As I find myself now going for years without going to the movies, at times I have asked myself whether I've just lost enthusiasm for them, or perhaps it's just middle age.
No! We don't have this quality of film come to screen often anymore, being too worried about someone's virginity or frat-boy antics, or cheap horror.
As a prior reviewer so aptly stated, there isn't much required in the way of complication to make a great, classic movie. However, one must start with a great screenplay; this is sorely lacking now. Twelve Angry Men is a great example of how little is required when the right ingredients are there. I think there were maybe 4 sets, one of which was outside steps. The main set, the jury room, hosted almost all the movie, along with a small bathroom. The talents of the actors, and their mating with their parts, is in perfect balance. All are appropriate, all are superb.
Of course, time has marched on since this movie was released. The Rushes and Seans out there would condemn it with that hated word, 'liberal', but that's all right, too. Decency, which Fonda radiates in this part, always comes out on top. Yet another film shot in the twilight of black and white cinematography, and as master example at that.
