Twelve Angry Men [1957] | ![Twelve Angry Men [1957]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51EJ0B84MSL._SL160_.jpg)
 enlarge | Director: Sidney Lumet
Actors: Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.g. Marshall, Jack Klugman
Studio: MGM Entertainment
Category: DVD
List Price: £12.99
Buy New: £4.97
You Save: £8.02 (62%)
New (6) Used (2) from £4.45
Rating:  37 reviews
Sales Rank: 802
Format: Black & White, Dubbed, Pal, Widescreen
Languages: English (Original Language), French (Dubbed), German (Dubbed), Italian (Dubbed), Spanish (Dubbed)
Rating: Universal, suitable for all
Region: 2
Discs: 1
Aspect Ratio: 1.66:1
Number Of Discs: 1
Running Time: 112 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.1 x 5.4 x 0.6
EAN: 5050070005172
ASIN: B000059L83
Theatrical Release Date: August 14, 1957
Release Date: March 19, 2001
Availability: Usually dispatched within 8 to 10 days
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.co.uk Review
Sidney Lumet's directorial debut Twelve Angry Men remains a tense, atmospheric (though slightly manipulative and stagey) courtroom thriller, in which the viewer never sees a trial and the only action is verbal. As he does in his later corruption commentaries such as Serpico or Q & A, Lumet focuses on the lonely one-man battles of a protagonist whose ethics alienate him from the rest of jaded society. As the film opens, the seemingly open-and-shut trial of a young Puerto Rican accused of murdering his father with a knife has just concluded and the 12-man jury retires to their microscopic, sweltering quarters to decide the verdict. When the votes are counted, 11 men rule guilty, while one--played by Henry Fonda, again typecast as another liberal, truth-seeking hero--doubts the obvious. Stressing the idea of "reasonable doubt", Fonda slowly chips away at the jury, who represent a microcosm of white, male society--exposing the prejudices and preconceptions that directly influence the other jurors' snap judgments. The tight script by Reginald Rose (based on his own teleplay) presents each juror vividly using detailed soliloquies, all which are expertly performed by the film's flawless cast. Still, it's Lumet's claustrophobic direction--all sweaty close-ups and cramped compositions within a one-room setting--that really transforms this contrived story into an explosive and compelling nail-biter. --Dave McCoy, Amazon.com
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 32 more reviews...
The greatest film ever made? July 2, 2008
An Avid Rock Fan (South Wales. U.K.)
It sounds so boring and dull that we should spend 90 mins or so watching a black and white film where 12 men are sitting around a table discussing a court case and not only that but give or take a few seconds the whole film is set in just that one room.
The fact that such a 'boring' film can put you on the edge of your seat EVERY time you watch it is pure testament to the art and skills of debutant director Sidney Lumet, writer Reginald Rose and the cast of twelve talented actors.
To prove the point, the remake from 1997 which also features sterling actors of great calibre such as Jack Lemmon and George C.Scott with an almost identical script could not pull it off as well as the 1957 version. In fact it was nowhere near.
At this price you'd be a fool to miss out on this invaluable addition to your collection.
Just to give you an idea of the tastes of this particular reviewer, they vary from Harold Lloyd to Pulp Fiction and beyond. So get it now.
So is it the greatest movie ever made? Perhaps it is. Enjoy.
A Very Powerful Message April 12, 2008
J. Roberts (Maryland)
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
This thought-provoking film is set almost entirely in one room, a room in which a jury have retired, to discuss their verdict on someone who has been accused of murder.
To begin with Henry Fonda's character is the only one who is prepared to argue a verdict of not guilty. The others laugh at him and do not understand how he can have reasonable doubt. Slowly, however, more and more of the men who make up the jury begin to agree that all is not as it originally seemed, and that there is indeed a very real chance that the accused ISN'T a murderer.
One by one, the men slowly change their minds, and several members of the jury are revealed to be severely predjudiced, nursing the usual misconceptions about the American underclass.
This thoughtful and thought-provoking film has a very great deal to say about human nature, and how nothing can be taken at face value. It also encourages the viewer to realise that sometimes people deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt. The acting is excellent, the dialogue is realistic and the overall plot development is enjoyable to watch. This is an all-time classic.
Powerful March 9, 2008
Geoffrey McCarthy (Plympton, Devon)
This is one great film. It must have been quite cheap to make as it's set almost entirely in one room. Very powerful stuff, great acting and a simple but compelling story. This film deserves all it's praise. I was mesmerised from start to finish.
one of the greatest films ever made January 15, 2008
P. Ponias (london)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
i love some of the hollywood blockbusters of our time but having said that i recognize that its impossible for todays hollywood to bring out such a magnificent yet simple film. 12 actors as jurors, 1 room/setting and one long conversation about one question "is the accused guilty or not?" is the idea and basis behind the film.. a timeless classic, a piece of masterful moviemaking by sidney lumet. a must in every movie collection -truly one of the greatest films i ve ever seen..
EXCELLENT December 9, 2007
stuart (MIDDLESBROUGH, ENGLAND)
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
An excellent courtroom drama with a unique twist. Instead of following the trial itself, the viewer has a unique chance to observe the events behind the closed doors of a jury room. The film begins with the end of the trial. The jurors retire to deliberate the case. A preliminary vote is taken and the result is 11:1 in favour of the guilty verdict. Eleven jurors have raised their hands to convict a young man of killing his father. Only Juror #8 has doubts. At first even he does not truly believe the young man to be innocent but notes (rightfully) that the case for the defence might have been presented in a more convincing manner and that the boy might be given the benefit of a doubt. Since the boy is to be executed if found guilty his life is now in the hands of the jury and juror #8 reasons that the least they could do is talk about the case a bit. As time goes on some of the jurors change their minds and find that there is perhaps enough reasonable doubt not to convict the young man after all. But not everyone is easy to convince.
Although the plot of the film is excellent and it is fascinating to see what little things can influence which way a verdict goes, where this film really succeeds is in presenting the characters of the 12 jurors. The character of each of the jurors emerges through a wonderful mix of perfect casting, excellent dialogue and near-flawless acting.
Juror #1 - a simple man who clearly does not understand the full complexity of the task that lies before him but is trying to do everything not to let anyone else find this out. He appears at ease only once during the film - when he talks about football. He has the misfortune to be selected foreman of the jury - a task he clearly does not relish.
Juror #2 - a small, quite man, clearly unaccustomed to giving his own opinion much less to expecting his views to be of any importance. Apparently he finds solace in his job - he is an accountant.
Juror #3 - probably the most complex personality in the film. Starts off like a pleasant self-made successful businessman, he analyses the case impartially, explains his arguments well and is reasonably self assured. As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate and seems to be somehow personally involved with the case. He also starts to show some signs of slight mental instability. Wonderfully played by Lee J. Cobb - this is the character you remember after the film is over.
Juror #4 - self assured, slightly arrogant stockbroker. Obviously considers himself more intelligent than anyone else in the room, he approaches the case with cool heartless logic but (as one of the jurors says - "this is not an exact science") he does not take into account the feelings, the passions, the characters of the people involved in the case. He is conspicuous by the fact that he is the only juror that does not take his jacket off (it is a very hot day).
Juror #5 - here is a man under great emotional stress. He comes from the same social background as the accused boy - with who he almost unwillingly seems to identify with. Paradoxically this appears one of the main reasons for him voting guilty - he does not want compassion to influence him - so ironically it does.
Juror #6 - a simple man, quite readily admitting that everyone in the room is better qualified than he is to make decisions and offer explanations. But he really wants to see justice done and it worries him that he might make a mistake.
Juror #7 - the only one that really has no opinion on this case. Literally throughout the film his thoughts are never on the case - he talks of baseball, of the heat, of fixing the fan but the only reason he has for voting this way or that is to speed things up a bit so he might be out of the jury room as soon as possible. Not an evil man he just has no sense of morality whatsoever - he can tell right from wrong but does not seem to think it's worth the bother.
Juror #8- a caring man, has put more thought into the case than any of the other jurors. He tries to do his best even in the face of seemingly impossible odds.
Juror #9 - a wise old man with his great life experience has quite a unique way of looking at the case.
Juror #10 - the most horrifying character in the film. Votes guilty and does not even try to hide the fact that he does so only because of the boy's social background. The tragedy comes from the fact that his own social position is only a cut above the boy's - which makes him all the more eager to accentuate the difference.
Juror #11 - an immigrant watchmaker, careful methodical man, well mannered and soft spoken. respects the right of people to have different opinion to his - and is willing to look at both sides of the problem. Loses his temper only once - horrified by the complete indifference of juror #7.
Juror #12 - a young business type - perhaps he has his own opinions - but is careful to hide them. What he has learnt out of life seems to be that intelligence is equal with agreeing with what the majority of people think.
The film succeeds in doing something very rare today - developing an intelligent plot while also developing 12 believable, memorable and distinct characters.
|
|
|
|
