🎦 12 Angry Men full movie HD download (Sidney Lumet) - Crime, Drama, Mystery. 🎬
12 Angry Men
Crime, Drama, Mystery
IMDB rating:
Sidney Lumet
Martin Balsam as Juror #12
John Fiedler as Juror #12
Lee J. Cobb as Juror #12
E.G. Marshall as Juror #12
Jack Klugman as Juror #12
Edward Binns as Juror #12
Jack Warden as Juror #12
Henry Fonda as Juror #12
Joseph Sweeney as Juror #12
Ed Begley as Juror #12
George Voskovec as Juror #12
Robert Webber as Juror #12
Storyline: The defense and the prosecution have rested and the jury is filing into the jury room to decide if a young man is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. What begins as an open-and-shut case of murder soon becomes a detective story that presents a succession of clues creating doubt, and a mini-drama of each of the jurors' prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused, and each other. Based on the play, all of the action takes place on the stage of the jury room.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1808x1080 px 6713 Mb h264 640 Kbps mkv Download
720p 1200x720 px 4473 Mb h264 N/A mkv Download
DVD-rip 640x384 px 699 Mb mpeg4 1015 Kbps avi Download
Supposing we get it wrong ?
The plot of this film unfolds entirely in a claustrophobic and uncomfortably hot jury room. The twelve angry men of the title are jurors and must decide the fate of a young man accused of killing his father. It does not help his case that he is poor and Hispanic, and not even the tone of voice of the Judge in the case seems to hold out any hope when giving instructions to the jury about their forthcoming deliberations. The evidence to convict, and thus send the man to the electric chair is overwhelming, and the first vote taken by the jurors is 11:1 to convict. Then Juror No 8 (Fonda) starts dissecting the evidence piece by piece in an almost forensic analysis of the facts. Is everything as it seems ? Of course not. The whole film is built around the concept of reasonable doubt and whether our individual prejudices will allow us to see it. The film offers no safe answer, as even the juror who was completely dispassionate about the whole affair turns out to be mistaken. A tour de force performance by Fonda as the Liberal everyman we all wish we could be, but with excellent performances all round, particularly from E G Marshall as the composed and evidence-led Juror No 4, and a scene stealer from Lee J Cobb as Juror No 3. This film is an object lesson in film making. The tension, which ratchets up nicely throughout the film as each successive vote is taken, is created entirely by the friction between the twelve protagonists. We are presented with a cross section of American society in the sixties, and undoubtedly we will agree with some of their perspectives and disagree with others, although in fairness to Lumet the unsympathetic characters are not difficult to spot and there are some powerful moments as their true characters are revealed. There is a valid question raised in the middle of the movie by Fonda's character: there is a man's life at stake: shouldn't they take some time to talk about it ? After all, supposing they get it wrong ? I think that whether you come away from this movie as a champion of the jury system will depend on whether you believe that your peers are indeed "twelve good men and true" as the one point this movie does make is that while the jury system is all we have, it is far from foolproof, an can easily be derailed by ignorance and prejudice. In this case, however it doesn't and this leads me to suggest an interesting aside. I believe that if this film was made again for a modern audience, and here I am also discounting the 1997 remake, so let's say a 2012+ audience, the director might wish to provide an ending where the Fonda character does not win through in the end, and the petty arguments and prejudices of the majority of the jury are too powerful to be overturned. However, for it's time and place, this is an almost perfect film, filled with excellent performances, and a Hollywood morality tale ending where goodness and common sense win through in the end. No wonder Fonda allows himself a Mona Lisa smile as he walks away from the Court House at the end of the movie. Brilliant.
THE classic jury drama, compelling but not without flaws
This is surely the most famous film jury drama, quite riveting in its dialogue, its claustrophobic jury deliberation room setting, its brilliantly depicted characters, its atmosphere of oppressive heat and tension between these jurors. The twelve angry men are admittedly largely one dimensional stereotypes but they are brought vividly to life by a star studded cast including Henry Fonda, E.G. Marshall, Leo J. Cobb, and Jack Klugman.

The jurors include an arrogant stockbroker, a stressed out man from a poor social background, a wise and endearing old gentleman, a quiet and respectful immigrant, an extreme bigot, a loud and pushy businessman with son issues, an advertising executive who sees everything in terms of sales, and a sports fan interested only in getting out in time to see his ballgame. The jury foreman tries to keep the group organized but isn't a particularly bright or thoughtful man himself and seems in over his depth. The (supposed at least) hero of the piece is the intelligent juror number 8, an architect, who appears to take his responsibilities seriously. He encourages full discussion of the evidence when others seem happy to return an immediate Guilty verdict for a young Hispanic defendant accused of fatally stabbing his abusive father. As a result of this juror's persuasive powers, the vote changes from 11-1 for Guilty to a unanimous final Not Guilty verdict.

No one would be interested in watching a movie about twelve calm jurors politely and rationally debating the evidence. Thus we have this drama which makes for compelling viewing but isn't for those preferring some degree of subtlety. The case itself is ultra dramatic 'all or nothing', acquittal or the death penalty with no possibility of life imprisonment. Juror 8 has illegally purchased a duplicate knife to the murder weapon and slams it dramatically on the table. These jurors are constantly bickering. One juror threatens to kill another. Eventually the other jurors all turn their backs one by one on the bigot.

Surely this must be a textbook example of everything a jury should NOT be! While real life jurors do bring their prejudices and life experiences into the jury room, some of these jurors were simply too unbelievable. For example, 'the bigot' seemed to flaunt his bigotry at every turn rather than, as would be much more realistic, making some effort to conceal it. I believe one would need to look far and wide to find a juror with so little regard for human life that he would happily send a possibly innocent kid off to the electric chair rather than miss his ballgame.

As for juror number 8, at first I admired his sense of responsibility and calm, reasoned questioning. However, by the end of the movie, after he had raised doubts (whether reasonable or not is up to individual interpretation) about every single piece of evidence and testimony, I no longer saw him as the heroic champion of justice we're manipulated into believing, but almost felt as though he had some agenda of his own to acquit and would never convict anyone of any crime, whatever the evidence! This jury didn't rationally debate the case at all but as juror 8 would raise some 'doubt', one or other juror would suddenly change his vote, ignoring all the other evidence. A good case could be made that this jury let a murderer go free because they lost sight of the cumulative nature of the evidence as a whole.

While this movie is often classed as a character study, a psychological drama, or a study in small group dynamics, it's also considered a commentary on the American jury system. As such, I feel that the writers should have 'done their homework' and had these jurors follow standard jury instructions rather than the gross jury misconduct they displayed -- juror 8 doing his own independent research by purchasing that knife, their questionable little experiment with the old man's rate of walking, their improper acceptance of one of their number as a switchblade 'expert' and taking his opinion of stabbing techniques as gospel. If all this had become known to court officials in real life, this grievous misconduct would almost certainly have resulted in a mistrial.

I also felt the movie quite manipulative in casting a defendant who could hardly be more sympathetic, a young kid with poor social opportunities, the victim of bigotry and paternal abuse. What viewer would ever want this boy to receive the death penalty? This film would have packed a greater punch for me if the defendant had been a rather despicable character (or at least neutral in terms of sympathy factor), yet the jury been able to acquit him anyway due to finding reasonable doubt.

Therefore, while this film is a 'must see' classic, a thoroughly engaging way to spend an hour and a half, and a masterpiece by comparison with most modern movies, I don't consider it flawless. At least in my case, it hasn't held up well during subsequent viewings and further scrutiny. Entertaining, yes, but I have a big problem with its clearly intended message that this jury, which I see as a lynch mob-turned-group of pushovers, has ultimately served the cause of justice.
No Dissonance
This film deserves to be on anyone's list of top films. My problem is that it is so perfect, so seamlessly polished, it is hard to appreciate the individual excellences.

The acting is top notch. I believe that monologue acting is quite a bit simpler than real reactive ensemble acting. Most of what we see today is monologues pretending to be conversations. But in this film, we have utter mastery of throwing emotions. Once the air becomes filled with human essence, it is hard to not get soaked ourselves as the camera moves through the thick atmosphere. Yes, there are slight differences in how each actor projects (Fonda internally, Balsam completely on his skin...) but the ensemble presents one vision to the audience.

The writing is snappy too. You can tell it was worked and worked and worried, going through several generations. It is easy to be mesmerized by this writing and acting, and miss the rare accomplishment of the camera-work. This camera is so fluid, you forget you are in one room. It moves from being a human observer, to being omniscient, to being a target. It is smart enough to seldom center on the element of most importance, so expands the field to all men.

This is very hard. Very hard, to make the camera human. So much easier to do what we see today -- acknowledge the machinery and jigger with it. Do we have a filmmaker today who could do this?

Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this.
An Anti-Cinema Classic . Know What I Mean ?
What a bloody stupid idea for a cinema film ! Adapt a teleplay set entirely in one studio bound location , written in real time with absolutely no cinema appeal whatsoever ! Me ? I wouldn`t have touched this script with a barge pole if I was a producer which just goes to show why - Only very very occasionally - some people deserve to be film producers while - Only very very occasionally - people like myself don`t . 12 ANGRY MEN is a masterpiece , maybe not in the way APOCALYPSE NOW or FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING are cinematic masterpieces , but it`s still a masterpiece of high drama

Despite being based on a play Lumet does bring some outstanding directorial flourishes to the film . Look at he scene where the camera cuts from one raised hand to another to an empty space that has a raised hand gingerly creeping into the frame , or the scene where the characters become more and more disgusted with Ed " Know what I mean " Begley`s reactionary diatribe . Please forgive Reginald Rose`s ever so slightly bleeding heart liberal subtext or a couple of unlikely occurances like the scene with the knife , or the fact that jury discussions are nothing like this in real life because even more thought went into this script as went into MEMENTO . This is a classic film and one of the few ones I`ve awarded 10 points to

One last point: If you have never seen 12 ANGRY MEN how on earth can you describe yourself as a film fan ?
The Lonely Juror
One does not expect an ordinary black and white movie like "Twelve Angry Men" to set the foundation for great drama. Nevertheless, superior drama is what is delivered in this film. The setting is; a common courtroom in an eastern metropolitan city where twelve ordinary men have been selected to sit as a jury. The trial is over and the verbal testimony having been heard, the jury must now decide the fate of the young man on trial for his life. A common enough occurrence in America. But what is not common, is the mixed assortment of characters assembled for the jury. The real drama unfolds when a single juror (Henry Fonda) takes his task seriously and challenges each of his fellow members to think and then decide before they vote for the death penalty. When he does, the volatile reaction is nothing short of inspirational. One can only wish the same would happen to anyone facing a similar ordeal. The cast of characters is a vintage performance from all. Henry Fonda's performance is wonderful and courageous. He is joined by veterans actors, Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Ed Binns, Jack Warden, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec and Robert Webber. The honor of Classic fits this film like a velvet glove. *****
Just wondered...

Fonda's character was extremely well prepared for his jury meeting, he had obviously given the matter a lot of thought before the juror retired. Knowing all that he did he should be very sure that there's reasonable doubt that the boy is guilty. It's hard for me to understand how he is willing to plead guilty if all the others do so before the second vote. At this time he has very much more to say about the case, why take a gamble before he has presented all his doubts? It doesn't make sense.
Excellent performances that stand the test of time....
I have watched this movie many times. I finally bought the DVD the other day and watched it again! The level of acting and the intensity of all the performances have, without exception, always taken my breath away. It is a movie that I love and never tire of watching.

You forget, as you watch the movie, that pretty much the entire movie takes place in one room. Movies today, actors today, would not be able to maintain the level of suspense that this movie created and hold your attention for the entire hour and 36 minutes. It starts off slowly, and you become part of the jury stuck in that "jury room", frustrated as one man holds out because "he is not sure".

Henry Fonda gives an amazing performance as the one-man holdout but all the actors give tour de force performances, and you sit mesmerized as one by one they are all converted. But it is Fonda and Lee J Cobbs, as they fight for the hearts and minds of the other jurors that keeps the tension going. The movie was a good social commentary of the times, regarding the racial intolerance, prejudices and biases that governed people in that era. And watching it again today, I would say not much has really changed!
So Simple, So Brilliant
So simple yet so brilliant, 12 ANGRY MEN is not to be missed. It's the tale of the meticulous Mr. Davis, a juror not quite convinced of a murder suspect's guilt despite what appears to be overwhelming evidence. His questions gradually persuade his fellow jurors that things aren't always as open-and-shut as they might seem.

One of the great all-time ensemble casts highlights 12 ANGRY MEN. Henry Fonda is superb as the hardcore skeptic... but then again, everyone is superb, from Joseph Sweeney as the eldest juror to E.G. Marshall as the no-nonsense Juror #4. Anytime a film set almost exclusively at a single cramped table in a single cramped room can spellbound the viewer, you know you've got first-rate actors. The clever, colorful dialog is a treat as well.

Yet the strongest asset of 12 ANGRY MEN is the demands it makes of the viewer to think critically. Initially we are like most of the jurors, curious as to how Fonda can be so naive to think the young suspect may be innocent. But he gradually pulls us into his line of reasoning, challenging our assumptions and finding fault with the supposed facts. By the film's end, we're left wondering how we could have been so narrow-minded just 90 minutes earlier.

As sharp as what's on screen is, 12 ANGRY MEN is equally smart for what it does not show. Many of today's filmgoers would demand flashback sequences to depict what the characters describe. They would want to get to know the accused killer so they could judge him for themselves. They would want more action, more pizazz, and changes of scenery. Yet it's precisely the film's refusal to do any of this that makes it work so well. The viewer is effectively the 13th juror with nothing but recollections of testimony to go on. Our imaginations are free to create a picture of the alleged murder, just as we would have to as part of the jury.

12 ANGRY MEN is often cited as one of the greatest films ever. It's a verdict that is well deserved.
still works
even after so many years, this movie still works.the movie manages,with his 12 authentic jurors, to be in an insecure position the whole movie. so you are not sure on which side to stand. every person in the room was different and understandable. and you could understand every single motive why each person would find that the defendant to be "guilty" or "not guilty" especially in certain moment. I think it is a brave and correct decision not to show the court negotiation itself, and tell the facts only through character. the audience must pay close attention to figure out the facts themselves. However, the end was a bit loose, because ultimately nothing was proved.
📹 12 Angry Men full movie HD download 1957 - Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Jack Warden, Henry Fonda, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec, Robert Webber - USA. 📀