12 Angry Men (1957)

User Rating:

8.9/10   

Director:

Sidney Lumet

Writers:

Reginald Rose (story)
Reginald Rose (screenplay)

Release Date:

29 July 1957 (Sweden)

Genre:

Crime | Drama | Mystery

Tagline:

Life Is In Their Hands -- Death Is On Their Minds!

Plot:

A dissenting juror in a murder trial slowly manages to convince the others that the case is not as obviously clear as it seemed in court.

Plot Keywords:

Murder | Jury | Trial | Jury Room | Restroom

Awards:

Nominated for 3 Oscars. Another 13 wins & 6 nominations

Cast

Martin Balsam	...	Juror #1
John Fiedler	...	Juror #2
Lee J. Cobb	...	Juror #3
E.G. Marshall	...	Juror #4
Jack Klugman	...	Juror #5
Edward Binns	...	Juror #6
Jack Warden	...	Juror #7
Henry Fonda	...	Juror #8
Joseph Sweeney	...	Juror #9
Ed Begley	...	Juror #10
George Voskovec	...	Juror #11
Robert Webber	...	Juror #12

Also Known As:

Twelve Angry Men (USA) (alternative spelling)

Runtime:

96 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Black and White

Aspect Ratio:

1.66 : 1

Sound Mix:

Mono

Certification:

South Korea:12 | Brazil:Livre | Argentina:Atp | Australia:G | Finland:K-8 | Sweden:15 | UK:U | USA:Approved (certificate #18206) | West Germany:12

Filming Locations:

New York, USA

Company:

Orion-Nova Productions

Trivia:

When first broadcast as a teleplay on TV's "Studio One" on 20 September 1954, the jurors were Norman Fell, John Beal, Franchot Tone, Walter Abel, Lee Philips, Bart Burns, Paul Hartman, Robert Cummings, Joseph Sweeney, Edward Arnold, George Voskovec, Will West. Joseph Sweeney and George Voskovec were the only two actors to reprise their roles for the film.

Goofs:

Continuity: When juror #12 is sitting on the back of the chair smoking a cigarette, in the long shot the cuffs of his shirt are rolled back, but in the closeup the cuffs are fastened with cuff links, and then in the next long shot the cuffs are rolled back again.

Quotes:

[first lines]
[In a tedious manner, sounding bored and tired]
Judge: To continue, you've listened to a long and complex case: murder in the first degree. Premeditated murder is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts . You've listened to the testimony, you've had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies in this case...

Movie Connections:

Referenced in "Peep Show: Jurying (#3.5)" (2005)

The over-used term "classic movie" really comes into its own here!

This once-in-a-generation masterpiece simply has no equal. The late 90's TV remake was quite adequate though totally unnecessary and in the upshot proved simply that updating a film for updating's sake is really an exercise in futility. Even had it BEEN as good - so what?

There could be few, if ANY film-goers reading this who are unaware of the plotline and in any event many others have re-hashed this for you. The brilliance of the film is evident in so many aspects. To begin with, the ability to not only sustain interest but to command the viewer's attention for basically its entire running time within a setting of principally just one room, borders on the inspired. Whether or not that would actually work with TODAY'S audiences is another discussion! What we have here are twelve everyday Mr Joe Blows, summoned together on a jury panel to decide a defendant's guilt or innocence with regards to a murder charge. If you were to gather unto yourselves ANY twelve jurors at random, you would most likely be able to pinpoint the Henry Fonda, Lee Cobb, E. G. Marshall, Jack Warden etc etc amongst them! Their very "ordinariness" is where the film succeeded. Everyone can identify with at least ONE of those characters. Whether or not he may WANT to is a different matter. The thinker, the sensitive man, the arrogant bully, the opportunist, the mentally challenged loudmouth, the slimeball, the emotionally withdrawn, the sheep etc - they're all here! Welcome to society folks! I dislike society in the main - doubtless a reason I found this film to be such a revelation..even when I was barely into my teens!

12 ANGRY MEN also pinpoints the shortcomings of the law, how "truth" can be so intrinsically left-field and unintentionally flawed. Lumet, working within a minimal budget here, delivers unstinting brilliance in both direction, character portrayal and script interpretation. He had of course superb acting talent at his disposal although some of the most memorable performances are from the lesser players. Some have denounced Fonda's role as being acceptable rather than awesome. I think however he was to a great degree playing himself here, not to an audience. His, is a study in deliberation and logic not show-pony stuff, but hell that never WAS Fonda was it?

This is a great great movie, as is evidenced by the extremely high user-vote worldwide. IF you haven't seen it - you really should do something about that!