🎦 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
Great movie
I remember seeing 12 Angry Men about 10 years ago and really enjoyed it, but I watched it a bit closer last week, and realize what a great movie it really is. I love the movies of the 40's and 50's and I would have to say that 12 Angry Men is up there as one of the best 5 movies of that era for me. There are some many things happening in this movie, that it takes more than one viewing to pick it all up. The camera work is first class, starting off with full view of all 12 jurors, and as the movie progresses and the jurors re-asses their decisions, the camera show the jurors looking straight down the lens, giving the impression they are talking straight to the audience. No names are given till the very end of the movie and then it is only 2 jurors, apart from a quick scene in the courtroom and outside at the end, the rest of the movie is filmed in the jurors room on a hot stinky summers days.

Although not a long movie, the emotional turmoil felt by the jurors is explosive and the audience are drawn into the same gut wrenching feel. I highly recommend this movie.
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.

Benefit of Hindsight
(Spoilers) I really liked the message of the movie: A lot of times things that look crystal clear at first glance, upon deeper inspection, aren't so clear. The acting was top-notch all-around, especially with Juror #9. The product ends up being not very preachy, which is a considerable achievement given that it's built entirely around a simple parable.

With the benefit of hindsight, though, one can see a few things about this that I personally find really disturbing.

The question that drives the movie is whether the jurors have properly awarded the defendant the benefit of any reasonable doubt, and as the climax approaches, the attention given to this reaches a fevered pitch. Left behind in the dust, is the equally critical question of whether the defendant is really guilty. There's a scene early on when Jack Warden, the juror who just wants to get the voting over with so he can watch a ball game, meets Henry Fonda in the washroom. The last two lines in that scene discuss the possibility that the boy may be acquitted, even though he is guilty. Fonda says something to the effect of "that very well may be" or some such, and to my recollection this is the last time this possibility is even considered.

The jury may have released a murderer onto the streets. You can make the argument that with the presence of reasonable doubt, this was their job. I agree. But as Henry Fonda walks down the courthouse steps to resume his everyday life as an architect, would it really then be fitting to have the happy "a wrong has been righted" swelling-orchestra music, as our hero walks proudly among his fellow citizens with his head held high? Doubt or no, conviction or no, this kind of peace-of-mind is not lying in wait for you after your last day on a real jury. There are jurors who want it anyway, and because of that, will not convict anyone. They have seen this movie, and want to be Henry Fonda. I've served with them. It's a pretty serious problem.

There is a short speech given by Fonda shortly after he is revealed to be the one juror who wants to acquit. Several times in the speech he makes the point that the defendant is poor, has had a rough background, and has been beaten up a lot. It is not entirely clear where he is going with this, since the movie is supposed to be about what is reasonable doubt, and how the doubt applies regardless of economic class. There is at least one other juror who wants to convict because the defendant is poor; does Fonda mean to say with a defendant who was wealthier, he himself would have voted to convict? That doesn't seem likely at all. But then why bring it up? It means something to other jurors, but it isn't supposed to mean anything to Fonda. The only way it could support any of Fonda's arguments, is if he was making decisions based on the way those decisions made him feel about himself, rather than based on the evidence. This is something jurors aren't supposed to do.

Four years after this movie was made, the Supreme Court defined the Exclusionary Rule in Mapp v. Ohio. So by this time, you weren't supposed to convict anyone unless you knew they were guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, and in addition to that, if you knew too much, then you still couldn't convict. During the sixties, conviction became such an unlikely goal even when the evidence seemed compelling, that a lot of District Attorneys refused to make arrests even though they knew a suspect posed a significant danger to society.

By the seventies, Americans were so fed-up with the "justice system failing us" that they began turning politicians out of office in bulk, hoping against hope they could fix what was broken before their own children were murdered or their wives were raped. Between Vietnam and Watergate, this was a third salvo against our fragile faith in government, and it was an erosion of our trust that we don't talk about too much today.

What really concerns me is that a little while after this film was made, with the poorest Americans being forced to live among violent people and thus becoming increasingly interested in vigilantism, suddenly we had a huge surge in movies about "Taking the law into your own hands." Dirty Harry, Death Wish, and countless made-for-TV projects. In summary, the pendulum swung in one direction, then a few years later, the other. Hollywood got to make money both times.

I have trouble getting completely behind this film because it's a concentrated effort, ultimately a successful one, to get that pendulum swinging wildly. If we spent that relatively short amount of time, just fifteen years or so, leaving "revolution" out of it and reforming our justice system in baby steps, the mistakes of the past could have been avoided. I do not know if it was possible to fix what was broken back then, by doing this -- convictions weren't always carefully considered back in the 1950's & earlier. But a lot of innocent people would be alive today if all those violent felons, in subsequent years, were arrested like they should have been.

I would say, if you're going to serve on a jury, by all means rent this because it's a very meticulous and passionate reminder of your civil duty, it makes some great points, and everything in this movie is highest-quality. But also on your required-viewing list would be Primal Fear, the Richard Gere movie. Better yet, watch that one last, so the final scene really sticks in your mind.

Nobody should be serving on a jury, if they can't seriously consider the consequences of releasing people who are really guilty of violent crimes.
A Powerful Film
This is a powerful film that explores: Race, discrimination, prejudice, morals, personal issues and unresolved anger.

The film was released in 1957 and is one of the highest rated films on www.IMDb.com which is one reason I've always wanted to see it. However, the main reason is because it's a film that has always been mentioned throughout my Psychology lectures relating to the power of the minority vote and also the psychology behind the jury.

Quick summary: The film is based on a murder trial; the accused, if found guilty, will be sentenced to death. The verdict is to be decided by 12 men who are on the jury. 11 of the men believe the accused is guilty, one does not.

The film is over one hour and a half and is mainly filmed in the deciding room of the 12 jurors, yet I was transfixed throughout. The film may be in black and white, but do not let this put you off from watching it. It makes you question everything you believe in; what would you do in that situation? Would you have initially voted guilty? Would you have been prejudiced towards the accused? Would you have stood for what you believed in?

The ending was brilliant and a pinnacle moment in film history; I believe the entire film proves that one person can question what you believe in and make you reevaluate your life and your morals.

Please watch this, I think it's a film that explores so many issues; even if you are interested in subjects such as Psychology, Sociology or even Law itself I think you will find it interesting.

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.
Sixty years later and still better movie hasn't been made
I wanted to take a while before writing anything about 12 Angry Men. Before I saw this movie I had been thinking about how can a black & white movie, made in the 50's and shot almost entirely in one room, be fifth on IMDb? Now, after seeing it, I'm thinking about why is it not rated even higher. In this review I'm going to try to explain what makes this movie so brilliant.

First, have you noticed how this movie feels so natural? Not even once was I feeling bored or exhausted. Everything runs so smoothly, constantly making you more interested in what had really happened. One of the factors which makes this so is interrupting serious debate with brief and sometimes longer scenes which don't contribute to understanding the topic. Nothing is omitted. This dynamic (which Hollywood nowadays doesn't utilize) serves as a mean to present that humans don't operate as computers. We are intrinsically flawed and able to enjoy, be serious or disdain certain situation. Recall, for example, scene in the bathroom, talking about sports, playing with fan, etc. This gives viewer some space and time to think about what had been said. You can make your own judgment and defragment all information. Viewer thus becomes a sort of a "13-th juror" actively participating in a conversation.

Second, this movie raises serious questions about how can we know anything about historical events. How do you evaluate and interpret given evidence? There are two schools about the topic: first claims that one can never objectively construct sequence of events because of our subjective nature; second claims that we can objectively assert what really did happen. This two approaches make much sense in 12 Angry Men. Some jurors are unable to objectively asses the evidence because they are very restrained by their own feelings or prejudices. The way they interpret the material is thus very biased (Juror #8: "It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth.") The point is that every one of jurors (including the viewer) is biased but they take different approaches to the problem. This leads us to third point.

Everything said above lead us naturally to the problem of jurisdictional decision making. The most important thing here is the term of reasonable doubt. Some of the jurors don't actually understand what does that mean so they can't handle the problem well. It somewhat scary thinking about how can twelve men from different backgrounds, of which some don't event understand or care about the case, make a decision about someones' life. If the juror is not convinced beyond reasonable doubt (not any doubt!), than he's obliged not to accuse defendant guilty. Reasonable doubt is the highest burden of proof one has to surmount if he's to accuse someone guilty. That's an important difference between exact sciences and law approach as one of the jurors notices (Juror #12: "Oh, come on. Nobody can know a thing like that. This isn't an exact science.") So we see jurors one by one changing their belief when their certainty drops below reasonable doubt. This takes us to the next point.

Let's take a closer look on the particular order each of the jurors voted not guilty. First you have a guy who just wanted to take a closer look at the evidence. He lit a spark. Then you have an old man wanting to hear why others think the accused is guilty. One by one the change their minds. The last ones where a guy who had prejudices about "street children" and the juror who was shouting all the time. This was done intentionally. People who had personal problems with something or someone are always hardest to engage in objective discussion about the issue. Forgiveness is a cure, not turning back on it. Nobody convinced the last juror to change his mind; he convinced himself after seeing a picture of his son. It's like his heart (not mind as with others) couldn't take it anymore. Juror before him had general prejudices. Those people can have a hard heart but are more easy to engage than those with personal problems. He realized his mistake after everyone had started to ignore him. Those with personal problems must confront them by themselves; those with prejudices must confront with others. So the conclusion is that it's harder to confront with someone whose problems lie in their heart than with those whose problems lie in their mind.

Closing remarks: Table has always been an important component in our western culture. It's a place where all important decisions are made and where people get to eat and drink and know each other. That's why one the last shots is camera smoothly running over the table jurors where sitting at. Someone was there and something happened. It's a contrast to the last scene where we see Fonda leaving the building and disappearing into the crowd. Twelve men, who had never seen each other previously and don't even know each others names, with completely different backgrounds and profiles, accidentally sat together and did something important. Now they continue on, probably never seeing each other again. But table stands as a witness.

There are many other elements left to be analyzed. It's better to speak about them sitting at the table discussing with other people than reading a review. I hope this general description of the movie mechanic helps someone understand what lies underneath the hood or makes her or him approach this movie with more scrutiny.
Just watch the first 30 minutes of it and you'll put it far away on the very top of your list!!!
And that what I did, I friend of mine has been annoying me about seeing this film and since the film is not a long one (about 90 minutes) I said why not, and then after just 30 minutes I decided to put this film on the very top of my all time favorite film list.

The fact that the film has been shot in one room blew my mind away, seems very easy to direct huh? But with a superb script and acting Sidney Lumet created one of the greatest films ever made if not the greatest.

The dialogue is realistic and so sharp with a brilliant acting from Henry Fonda and Lee J.Cobb, I feel this film is still underrated even in IMDb rankings.

And that line "well, so long" stayed with me ever since I saw the film as on of the greatest lines ever.

This film is a symbol of simple but great film-making that suggests a man should always return to his senses every time and every where.

A good courtroom drama but not without problems
The interesting thing about 12 Angry Men is that you come away from it and can't honestly say if the jury were right to acquit the accused man. The film never really answers the question of whether he was guilty or not. It just simply says that it was impossible to be sure. The film is ultimately about the Not Proved verdict.

At least I certainly hope that we as an audience were not supposed to leave the film thinking that the accused man was definitely innocent. The counter-evidence brought to our attention by juror no. 8 (Henry Fonda) is often not especially convincing but seems to be taken very seriously by progressively more and more men in the room until inevitably we have a unanimous Not Guilty verdict. An example of this, is when Fonda successfully gets the others to acknowledge that the old man witness is unreliable, yet then goes on to base a major part of his own evidence on the old fellows testimony that he took fifteen seconds to get to the door to witness the murderer fleeing. Fonda clearly assumes that this man he has determined as unreliable would get his exact timings spot on in a moment of heightened emotion. It may seem like a minor point but there are just a little too many of these small inconsistent assumptions littering 12 Angry Men for me to feel it was an entirely successful exercise. I really couldn't help shake the notion that Fonda's character had his own agenda and was simply unwilling to back down. Perhaps he was the most persuasive man in the room and that was ultimately the reason that the decision was made. It's difficult to really say with any certainty that the accused was innocent at all. Did they really make the correct decision?

Setting this consideration aside, one thing the movie does have in abundance is stellar acting talent. The 12 members of the jury are well played by all. While the direction is simple but highly efficient; it is not an easy task to set a movie in one room with dialogue the only action on offer but Sidney Lumet does keep things moving along at a good pace and maintains the interest. This is certainly a good movie despite my misgivings. For me it does ultimately have a definite ambiguous quality and if that was the intention then I can hardly argue with that.
What a Character-Study Is Meant to Be.
Intense courtroom drama which has 12 very different people, all males, struggling with a murder case involving a young Puerto Rican boy that seems cut-and-dried. However, juror Henry Fonda does not believe it to be as sure-fire as it appears. He votes not guilty and what follows is a chain of events that will test the views, beliefs and thoughts of the other 11 members. Fonda is great, but Lee J. Cobb steals every scene (and that is not easy to do in a film like this). Ed Begley, Martin Balsam, Jack Warden, Jack Klugman, Joseph Sweeney, E.G. Marshall and John Fiedler are among the other individuals caught in a situation that is much more difficult than it appears on the surface. An excellent character-study that should be studied and embraced by all present and future film-makers. 5 stars out of 5.
Why I love old movies...
In the days before cgi, massive hype, star-appeal, pseudo-mythic trilogies and all the other bumpf that hollywood tacks on to its product in order to make it sell, all it took to make a decent movie was to have a good script and cast, good direction and of course great acting.

These were (and still are) the only real ingredients which I'd say are essential for making a truly worthwhile movie. Everything else is just a sideshow, and I think it is a shame that so many of today's mainstream films are so flimsy. And that's why I love the classics!
See Also
📹 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. 📀