🎦 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
Simple but great.
'12 Angry Men' is an outstanding film. It is proof that, for a film to be great, it does not need extensive scenery, elaborate costumes or expensive special effects - just superlative acting.

The twelve angry men are the twelve jurors of a murder case. An eighteen-year-old boy from a slum background is accused of stabbing his father to death and faces the electric chair if convicted. Eleven of the men believe the boy to be guilty; only one (Henry Fonda) has doubts. Can he manage to convince the others?

The court case provides only a framework, however. The film's greatness lies in its bringing-together of twelve different men who have never met each other before and the interaction of their characters as each man brings his own background and life experiences into the case. Thus, we have the hesitant football coach (Martin Balsam), the shy, uncertain bank clerk (John Fiedler), the aggressive call company director (Lee J. Cobb), the authoritative broker (E.G. Marshall), the self-conscious slum dweller (Jack Klugman), the solid, dependable painter (Edward Binns), the selfish salesman (Jack Warden), the calm, collected architect (Fonda), the thoughtful, observant older man (Joseph Sweeney), the racially bigoted garage owner (Ed Begley), the East European watchmaker (George Voskovec) and the beefcake advertising agent (Robert Webber) who has plenty of chat and little else.

Almost the entire film takes place in just one room, the jury room, where the men have retired to consider their verdict. The viewer finds him or herself sweating it out with the jury as the heat rises, literally and metaphorically, among the men as they make their way towards their final verdict. Interestingly, the jurors (apart from two at the end) are never named. They do not need to be. Their characters speak for them.

Henry Fonda is eminently suitable and excellently believable as the dissenter who brings home the importance of a jury's duty to examine evidence thoroughly and without prejudice. Joseph Sweeney is delightful as Juror No. 9, the quiet but shrewd old man who misses nothing, whilst E.G. Marshall brings his usual firmness and authority to the role of Juror No. 4. All the actors shine but perhaps the best performance is that of Lee J. Cobb as Juror No. 3, the hard, stubborn, aggressive, vindictive avenger who is reduced to breaking down when forced to confront the failure of his relationship with his own son.

Several of the stars of '12 Angry Men' became household names. Henry Fonda continued his distinguished career until his death in 1982, as well as fathering Jane and Peter. Lee J. Cobb landed the major role of Judge Henry Garth in 'The Virginian'. E.G. Marshall enjoyed a long, reputable career on film and t.v., including playing Joseph P. Kennedy in the 'Kennedy' mini-series. Jack Klugman was 'Quincy' whilst John Fiedler voiced Piglet in the 'Winnie The Pooh' films and cartoons.

Of the twelve, only John Fiedler, Jack Klugman and Jack Warden* are still alive. Although around the eighty mark, they are all still acting. The film was still available on video last year and it is shown on t.v. fairly frequently. I cannot recommend it too highly!

(*John Fiedler died June 2005. Jack Warden died July 2006.)
Riveting but problematic
I am writing this review before reading any of the others, so as not to be influenced by them.

When I saw this film almost two decades ago I was absolutely riveted by the powerful, intense, unrelenting drama and suspense and the profound ethical content, not to mention the artistically uncompromising, sparse esthetics. The last scene, when Fonda walks out into the fresh air and gives a fond glance to the immense pillars of justice caused me to shed some tears, because I wasn't sure if I shared his abiding faith in the ultimate triumph of JUSTICE. In memory, the power of this film has faded, because it seems too comically optimistic. Justice ALWAYS triumphs in the end. It's a well-meaning, compassionate message, but it is also irresponsible. (Or is the message perhaps, that compassionate people should participate in juries more often?) True ethics and jurisprudence cannot afford such facile confidence. There is an insidious equation of law with justice. Every true legal mind, knows that the letter of the law can overwhelm the spirit of the law. Justice is just too big a topic for a movie! I fear it takes on more than it can handle. But what a worthy effort!
Wonderful character portrayals, but too preachy
Henry Fonda is the star here, but the other roles are filled by legendary character actors. To see Lee Cobb, Jack Klugman, Jack Warden, and Ed Begley all doing there thing at the same time is a joy. My main problem with the movie is that it is soooo preachy. The scene is painted in black and white, there are few shades of gray. Most of the character are stereotypes-- ie, the bigot, the bully, the nerd, the immigrant, the glad-handing but uncaring salesman, etc. It is a tribute to the fine actors that they bring such one-dimensional characters to life. And shining through it all is the oh so good man who has right, justice, and the American way on his side. The self-righteousness is a bit cloying, and I almost expect Fonda to have a halo over his head. That being said, it is enjoyable for the acting and a must see for those who have missed it so far.
The best film of it's type
There's some interesting alchemy going on in this film. While it's extremely realistic in it's look and attention to detail, it's a highly stylized and somewhat mechanical film. All the characters are clearly defined by the single aspect they bring to the scenario and they interact more like types than real people. The story doesn't show you what's on it's mind, it flat out tells you by putting the parts of it's thesis into the mouths of the characters. None of this really matters though because between it's exceptional cast and Lumet's masterful direction. what you get is a finely tuned machine of a film that's the best film ever made of it's kind. Fonda specialized in playing the voice of middle-class intellectual liberalism in the early 60's and it's largely because of his performance here.
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.
The material is slightly forced for dramatic purposes but the delivery is perfect across the board
A young ethnic kid from a rough area is up on a murder charge and to the jury of twelve men, it all seems a fairly open and shut case. So all are surprised when the votes come back with one "not guilty" in the pack. Juror #8 maintains he holds a reasonable doubt, much to the frustration of the rest of the group. The stalemate forces a debate over the details of the case which sees each man questioning others and themselves for their motivations and decisions. The heat in the room and the passage of time sees tensions rising by the minute.

I'm not a massive fan of the "Movie You Must See" podcast crew because they mostly tend to discuss the events in a film rather than really critiquing or reviewing it (although at times this "mates in a pub" approach is OK). Anyway, one of the advantages of having anyone pointing out "films you should see" is that it reminds you that you should these films. So it was for me as I listened to 12 Angry Men and realised that not only had I never reviewed it but that I had not actually watched it for many years. Of course mentally I knew it was a "classic" but did I really understand why it was? So when it came on television recently I watched it again with new eyes.

The films moves right into the jury room and pretty much this room is all we have for the duration. Initially the script does really well to have the viewer side with the majority because in the discussions the evidence does seem very clear cut and #8's doubts seem so general and non-specific. This is a good way to start because it means the viewer also has to question and we are taken along the journey just like the men in the jury. Gradually we get into the detail and doubts are tweaked out – not to the point of solving the crime because that is not what it is about but it is done in a way that is interesting and engaging. It is not perfect in this regards though because some of the jumps are big, some of the assumptions are stretching and some of the knowledge in the room is a little too convenient. However what weaknesses there are in the material are covered by the fact that the delivery is roundly quite brilliant.

Lumet directions from within the room and makes great use of such a small space. It feels like it could be a play (not sure if it was or not) but Lumet prevents this just feeling like filmed theatre. The camera captures the room, sticks close to characters, moves around, in and out accordingly and it never feels stiff. This aids the sense of tension from the audience point of view as we are not just left watching the room so much as being in it. The ensemble cast are another big factor in this delivery as they all deliver. On the surface of it the characters could easily be labelled "racist", "old", "naïve", "angry" and so on but the actors don't let themselves be that basic and they also do a good job of pacing the building resentment and tension in the room to be convincing. Fonda maybe has "top-billing" but he does have the least showy role, leading those into his corner. Cobb and Begley have good turns as the anger of the room but everyone plays their parts very well. OK Balsam, Webber and Voskovec come out the least memorable of the lot but this is understandable when viewed beside such sterling turns from Fielder, Klugman, Warden, Sweeney and Marshall. There really isn't a weak link in the room.

With modern cynical eyes it is perhaps totally hard to accept the film for its praise of the jury system and I do agree with the "MYMS" group when they made reference to the moment in H:LOTS which is essentially the bitter reverse of this film. However this slightly flag-waving stuff is covered by the delivery being as strong and as well paced as it is. Overall then this is an eminently watchable film and I can understand why it is so well regarded. The material and message may not be note-perfect but the delivery is brilliant across the board and it is one that I could easily return to again and again and still get pleasure out of how well it is all done.
Great movie
The other reviews pretty much sums it up. It's a great movie, that really proves that 12 good actors is all you need to make a top notch movie. It might be old, slow and sometimes really predictable; but for a movie from 1957 it might be the first movie to ever do anything like this. If not the first; it's the first one to nail it.

If you are going to sit down and watch this movie, do not expect a movie with a lot of cool movie effects, because it doesn't have any. People nowadays seem to think that a movie is slow and not good if it goes more than 2 minutes without any action. In this movie they, as mentioned earlier, proves that if the movie has a good lineup of actors, and a good manuscript/director; and set your mind to it, you start putting yourself into the mind of the actors as real people and not actors.

That alone makes this better than most movies I've ever watched.

We Die, But Hey, They Feel Better About Being Rich
Spoilers Ahead:

First, like you, I adored this movie as a young man. What a deification of the jury system and how inside of every man is a hidden genius of reasoning. Well, after 40 years of philosophy, though this be voted to the back, I follow our credo: Speak the Truth even though it lead to your death. The scene that tells you all you need to know is the revelation that Cobb, Fonda's nemesis, is voting guilty because he wishes to revenge himself upon his estranged son. There is no reason within his arguments: he is just an executioner. Well, friends, in philosophy this is a logical fallacy called Ad Hominem: To The Person. If you cannot defeat someone's argument call them names or slander their character. See, inside of each one of us, including your author, are predilections to convict or acquit. Ergo, we can turn his argument right upon him with equal facility: Fonda's liberal guilt over his wealth causes him to release dangerous poor murderers, who kill people, so Henry can feel better about being wealthy in the midst of millions of poor and suffering people. This, by the way, is easier than doing the righteous thing and giving his wealth away to relieve the boundless suffering he beholds about him. This boy is his sacrificial lamb of atonement on the altar of his guilt.

The movie implies that those who wish to protect the innocent, not Fonda's words punish, no, we seek to save the blood of the innocent we stand in front of and answer to God for. The Ad Hominem logical fallacy, as we are trained to understand, is the last refuge of someone who cannot win an argument. The second premise of the movie is that no matter how overwhelming the mountain of evidence if we but took the requisite time, why it would fall apart like fall's leaves upon the ground. Trust me, if you are in a case like this and the evidence remotely approaches this level, you could ratiocinate over it until the end of our sun: he will still be guilty. You see the synthesis of the liberals Fonda and Lumet? All those who vote guilty are filled with personal demons, they are irrational: please, do not investigate our antithetical predilections to acquit! If the evidence be piled to Alpha Centauri, never mind, if we took the time we would find it is all erroneous. Look, I once thought as you do, it is only after decades of thought living as an ascetic philosopher ruminating over the movie, I see it, finally, as the liberal mind control it has always been.

Whatever you think of this review, when you are called for jury duty remember inclinations to acquit are just as strong as to convict. Think always of the helpless ones who stand behind you that count on you to be as dispassionate and objective as you can. If we eliminated everyone with bias, there would be no jury system. Those who believe in God, as I do, believe we answer to Him for our actions. When you hear the heartbreaking music that Lumet and Fonda play as the accused teenager sits there looking sad, remember the blood of the innocent victims that will be upon your hands. Look, I am sorry Fonda feels bad for being rich, there is such a simple solution; let go of your greed and give it to the poor. Do not put us in danger by brainwashing people into believing that those that wish to convict have private demons that bias us from being objective: how childish! As if we could not turn your argument, with equal adroitness, upon you.

Look, I know you will vote this to the back, who gives a crap? What I want you to do is think about what I have said to you when you are on a jury. That is why I wrote this, for the innocents who die so white, rich liberals do not have to give their money to the poor. He atones by releasing a token poor person, for his expiation, who cares how many of us die? Q.E.D.

And Jesus Said To Zacharias, "one thing more, give all that you have to the poor and follow me." Zacharius turned away and wept for he was a rich man.
A timeless film that shows the flaws in the jury system
... the main flaw being that everybody brings their own life experiences and history into the jury room with them, no matter how hard they try to be impartial.

Here you have a trial of a young boy who supposedly stabbed his father to death. When the jurors go back to deliberate on the case, ALL but one lone man played with a quiet courage by Henry Fonda states not guilty and the rest of the film is about trying to get them to his side. Quite amazing movie if you ask me. Fonda's case is not that the boy is innocent, but that the threshold of reasonable doubt has not been reached. The trick in this film is that it never leaves the jury room. You have no idea of what the defendant, the prosecuting attorney, or the defense attorney were like other than retroactively through the words of the jurors.

Writing this good just can't be ignored. Reginald Rose's screenplay is absolutely brilliant. Not only are the characters of twelve individuals indelibly implanted in your brain within the limited time span of about 100 minutes, but Rose accomplishes this feat without undue speechifying or pontificating about injustice or the failures of the jury system or expositional dialogue. The characters personalities come out in the course of the film and are not "set up" in the first half hour, (as in having the jurors explain to each other what their occupations and backgrounds are) as is the case with mediocre screenplays. As for the acting it is true ensemble greatness. All twelve cast members are excellent, although if you put a gun to my head and forced me to say who was best I'd express a partiality for Lee J Cobb as the toughest nut to crack for acquittal and E.G. Marshall as a juror who is all logic and no emotion other than arrogance. And Sidney Lumet's first film just may be his most fast paced. The hundred minutes whiz by! Not a dull stretch to be seen anywhere.

And yes, these are twelve white men judging a Puerto Rican boy, and yes Henry Fonda violated many classic rules of jury behavior when he introduced items into the discussion that were not official evidence, but this was 60 years ago and it IS a movie. So just suspend your beliefs and try to enjoy the art of the thing -the riveting dialogue, the character studies that don't choke each other out, and the brilliant camera-work that manages to make the room seem increasingly smaller so that you can appreciate the claustrophobia that must be setting in with the jurors as deliberations wear on and get more heated.
Character study in a small jury room.
This movie, currently ranked as #21 all time on the IMDb list, is a simple story of the deliberations of 12 men on a jury of a murder trial. We see nothing of the actual trial or the closing arguments. The story begins as the judge instructs the jury, in weighing the evidence presented, they must return a verdict of 'guilty' unless there is reasonable doubt. Although not made clear in the movie, a verdict of "not guilty" is not the same as 'innocent.' Not guilty simply means that the prosecution did not present a case strong enough to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The case that we do not see or hear of first hand involves a son accused of murdering his father. One witness was an elderly man who claimed to have seen the boy running down the stairs from the apartment a few seconds after hearing voices and a body hitting the floor. Was this old man who shuffled along really able to get there in time? Could he really hear clearly over the noise of the passing train? Another was a woman who identified the boy as the one plunging the knife into the victim. But did she wear glasses, and did she have them on when she claimed she saw the murder 60 feet away through the windows of a passing train on elevated tracks (the 'el')?

First seated the jurors take a vote, and it is 11 to one in favor of conviction. There is a ball game that evening and many of the men are anxious to delivered a verdict and get home. One man (Henry Fonda) says he is not sure, the boy may in fact be guilty, but suppose he isn't. He just wants to talk about it. A boy's life is at stake. Don't they owe it to him to examine all possibilities? But the other 11 at first look upon their task as one to convince the lone juror that he is wrong.

As the 90 minutes move along, various jurors bring up points that they noticed, possibilities that neither the prosecution nor the defense attorneys had brought up. Others gradually join the 'not guilty' side, until it is only one for 'guilty.' Then there were none. Much of the dialog brought out prejudices certain men held, that were clouding their reasoning, and preventing them from seeing both sides of the argument. This is a story less about jury verdicts, and more about human nature.

The movie sets out to show that with reasonable doubt at hand, a verdict of 'not guilty' must be returned. Thus it is mostly an examination of how our personal prejudice can cloud our judgment. I suspect that this story was much more significant 50 years ago than it is today. There have been a number of very public trials (e.g. OJ Simpson) where most of the evidence appeared to point to guilt, but a jury returned a 'not guilty' verdict because of reasonable doubt. However it remains part of the foundation of our legal system, that a person is innocent until proved guilty, even if it means some guilty persons will go free.

Although only Lee J. Cobb stands out, as the angry juror who was the last hold out, this contained a fine ensemble cast. Martin Balsam, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Jack Warden, Henry Fonda, Ed Begley are others who are prominent in my mind.
📹 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. 📀