Watched this again tonight, on TCM. What a gorgeous piece of theatre! Man! The interaction of the 12 jurors in that. And to think that was originally done on tv. 50 years ago now. Playhouse 90 I believe it was. Before my time. Man, I wish tv was as good as that now.
I haven’t seen it since 6th grade debate class (about 9 years ago), but I recall it being a great movie. I should watch it again.
I swore to myself that I would not watch that film again, because I’ve seen it so many times. But every time I’m flicking through the channels and I come across it, BAM!, I’m hooked. It’s just so gripping.
I think they did do a reasonably well-received TV remake in the 90s.
I concur, it’s so brilliantly done and such an excellent example of what movies can be. It’s such a simple premise and setup. No big explosions. No huge cost in making. No special effects. And yet, still brilliant.
– IG
I have met people who do not consider this to be one of the best movies ever made. They are, of course, wrong, and may deity-of-your-choice have mercy on their souls.
No, you’ve got this wrong. It’s “may the deity-of-your-choice feast upon their souls.” Mercy is for the faithful.
sinjin
Heh. My husband came upon this one Sunday afternoon, and watched it, and then the next time it was on, I sat down for a few minutes with him as he watched it again.
I couldn’t get up until it was over.
I saw it and liked it but I don’t think its as great as some people make it out to be.
There’s a line, something like “no one wears eye glasses to bed,” which exemplifies the movie’s faults. This line is spoken so dramatically and with so much emphasis that it made me laugh. I felt similarly about the estranged father’s climactic breakdown. And many of the jurors are one-dimensional caricatures - half-baked foils for our Great American Hero to conquer and educate. The guy with ball tickets, for example - are we supposed to take him seriously? Who would have such a cavalier attitude while deliberating a verdict in a murder trial?
It just feels a little dated, melodramatic and obvious.
Someone who doesn’t care one way or the other if some little spic kid goes to prison or not.
By way of comparison, look at the jury who acquitted the alleged murderers of Emmett Till. Deliberations lasted barely an hour and one juror reported that they took a break so as to stretch it to over an hour for appearances sake. Clearly no one on that jury cared about whether they were setting murderers free or not, just like ball game guy didn’t initially care whether he was convicting someone who might be innocent.
No, not true.
12 Angry Men was a screenplay written for television, and was intially broadcast on Studio One in 1954 (CBS). That version was not the filmed version you see with Henry Fonda et al. The film version was done by Sidney Lumet, and came out in 1957. The only reason it didn’t win a number of Academy Awards for that year is because that’s the same year that Bridge on the River Kwai came out.
Saw the touring play version with Richard Thomas and George Wendt back in January. Wasn’t bad. Thomas wasn’t totally right for (was it?) #8, but he was okay.
Agree with those who have pointed out some of the really out there legal blunders (going and buying a knife and putting on a little melodramatic show with it?), but when I watch the Fonda version, I invariably forget all that and get caught up in the actors’ performances.
Sir Rhosis
It is a bit dated, I agree. The fact that the jury is composed of 12 men harkens back to the “olden” days, when women were rarely called for jury duty. Even in the 1997 remake set in contemporary times, the juror was composed of 12 men (although the judge was a woman), while the racial diversity of the cast was enhanced to match modern norms.
It’s a distraction, yeah, but a minor one.
The screenwriter was Reginald Rose, who I have never heard of before. And members of the IMDB rank it #14 in their top 250.
I take your point. I was going to say that his character seems so outlandish that it’s hard to believe someone like him would actually be selected to serve in a murder trial but I guess these things do happen.
It is dated: it’s exactly like most of the halfway decent movies made that year. So that’s the least of its faults. holy.roller, the more movies you see, the better context you’ll have for that “dated” style of moviemaking, and such “flaws” will cease to be noticeable to you.
Nonetheless, I find it unsubtle and preachy, and the characters hacked out of granite rather than created from flesh and blood. It’s not nearly as good as Anatomy of a Murder, just to name one example, but it communicates what it sets out to communicate very clearly. It’s a good classroom tool, I suspect.
Saw this in the one law class my community college had. The teacher* raved about it.
It was okay. Interesting mainly to see all those personalities in one room clash with each other. How it played out was intriguing. Yes, you have 11 voices in agreement on “guilty”, but some of them aren’t completely sure, and by the end it’s clear that none of them really thought it through properly. The baseball fan was a great character. C’mon, every group has someone who doesn’t give a rip and just wants to get it over with one way or another.
Other than that…yes, it is dated, and there really isn’t anything to discuss at the end. Not to mention a movie that takes place almost entirely in a single room isn’t going to be an easy sell to modern audiences. Agree that it’s far more likely to be a school assignment (like it was for me) than something you’d think to rent on your own.
Like the Japanese say about climbing Mount Fuji. Everyone should do it, but once is plenty enough.
- Incidentally, he also said that he knew O.J. Simpson was going to be acquitted simply because the critical evidence (mainly the knife and bloody clothes) just wasn’t there. Granted that he’s an expert and should be making observations like this, but I thought that was pretty ballsy of him nonetheless.
I loved this film at first viewing, and often find myself musing over or quoting memorable lines:
“that was a damn stupid thing to do” (after someone throws a piece of paper at the fan and it hits the old man)
“(what are you so polite about?) for the same reason you are not, its the way I was brought up”
Does anyone else get the impression from the movie that the kid actually WAS guilty, but that the one juror was able to convince everyone else of reasonable doubt?
Doesn’t #5 himself say something to that effect? After the verdict is returned, someone asks him who he thinks did it, and he says “I think it was the suspect. But I have a reasonable doubt.”. At least, if I remember correctly.
Anyone actually prefer the remake? I do. That’s some marvelous casting.