🎦 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
blown away...
I just watched this for the first time, ashamed to admit that the IMDb ranking was the first I'd heard of it. My excuse is that I am not American, and not a "die-hard" classic films fan. That being said, I really prefer movies with intelligence and a good realistic plot.

Now the movie itself... I was sitting 1,5 hours captivated by a black/white feature all taking place in one room with just talking...

The reason for this was the amazing acting by everyone involved. The characters really grab you, and you hang on every word. It is clear that these actors were "forced" to be more skillful, they had no special effects to cover their shortcomings.

It was like watching a room full of Daniel Day Lewis' going full blast for 90 min... anyway, that's what I thought of it :)

(and by the way, any remake of MUST cast DDL as that last, angry juror ;))
A perfect movie with interesting and mysterious story
First when I decided to see 12 Angry Men, I was kind of surprised how a movie could be so high rated, because i heard everything was happening in one room and it lasted only for 90 minutes. fortunately i was wrong about it.

When i first saw it i was shocked. the story is so interesting, that i couldn't miss even a second of the movie. The ending was very good also. this movie shows than majority isn't always right. very often people don't listen to the part of society, which is in minority and sometimes that leads to the disasters.

From the middle of the movie, i could already guess that The man, who thought the boy was innocent, would convince others in fact that he was right, but the way to his truth was very interesting and mysterious.

90 minutes is just the time movie of that kind needs. there are no extra scenes or something like that, everything is just perfect. Henry Fonda is acting quite well and others play well to so it's pleasant to watch a movie.

The movie shows that everyone should listen to others and foresee each other's opinions. i think no one will be unsatisfied of the movie.
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!
One of the Greatest of All Time - Beyond a Reasonable Doubt!
From a distance, 12 Angry Men might look like your customary courtroom drama that Hollywood churns out every couple of years. Look closer and you will find that Sidney Lumet's debut turn as a director is an exemplary study in characterization and a crash course in pure filmmaking.

Most of the action takes place within the confines of a single room on what is supposedly "the hottest day of the year". A jury made up of 12 men has to decide the fate of a teenage boy who is accused of a gruesome murder. The defendant has everything going against him - a couple of witnesses, a murder weapon, a sloppy public attorney and the fact that he is from a less privileged class of the society. Over the next 95 minutes, 12 Angry Man watches as 11 jurors, first convinced of the suspect's guilt overcome their less than democratic prejudices and are slowly won over to the side of reasonable doubt by one man's doubts about the accused's guilt.

Sidney Lumet creates energy and movement through quick editing and varying camera angles, which makes the film pulse with power and emotion despite its one set location. Operating within the constrictions of a limited budget, Lumet tightens the noose by accentuating the excruciating pulse of the ceiling fan and slowly narrowing his shots on his characters as the film approaches its climax. A special mention should be made here of ace cameraman Boris Kaufman, who ratchets up the claustrophobia with every close-up and ably heightens the drama, despite the confining setting. The actors – all 12 of them – are top notch as the '12 Angry Men' in what is to date one of the best ensemble casts to have graced the silver screen.

The drama plays out at an engaging pace making this brilliant war of words an entrancing cinematic experience. Lumet gives us an incisive and gripping film that is as relevant today as it was almost 60 years back. If you love movies, you owe it to yourself to see this one!
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.
The All-Time Great Liberal Agenda Movie
I defy anyone to watch this movie and not be completely absorbed in the group dynamics on display. I could take points off for the overly tidy and convenient script with its TV-movie ending or some of the less subtle methods through which director Sidney Lumet drives home his points. But with a cast as uniformly excellent as this, why quibble? Henry Fonda is just the person to play the liberal everyman, an extension of his Tom Joad character from "The Grapes of Wrath." E.G. Marshall is excellent as Fonda's most formidable opponent; cool-headed and logical, he's the only holdout who bases his verdict on facts instead of emotions. Lee J. Cobb's performance wears thin, and his character is the most poorly written. Ed Begley is almost too good in his role, so revolting is his character. Jack Klugman and Jack Warden register in smaller roles as well.

This movie conveys the sweaty, tension-filled atmosphere of a stifling jury room but never feels oppressive, thanks to Lumet's fluid direction. My favorite moment comes when Fonda begins counting off paces around the jury table (a key piece of evidence hinges on this), and the camera drops to floor level and follows his feet as he does so. Choices like this prevent Lumet's film from ever being static or stagy.

An important film and a great one. If you haven't already seen it, put it at the top of your list.

Grade: A+
It's Just Great
When I found this movie in the "Top 250" in such a high position, i was quite surprised, especially when I realized that 90% of the movie happens in a room, and that's a risk, Because you need the characters to be quite flashy and that the script that is delivered has to be very entertaining not to be bored, and it goes that this movie does not bore you, it keeps you intrigued by the case that is, the juries are very Outstanding, I will not do a long review, it is only a recommendation of a person who doubted much of a movie of this style and was fascinated.

(It is also an important fact to say that I am not a man very interested in crime issues, nor very knowledgeable about it.)

The film deals with the case of a young man who is being blamed for murder and the jury must decide whether to give the maximum penalty or not. It is a plot that looks pretty simple, noting that this movie is based on a play from what I understand. What I called a lot of the movie is the atmosphere that you are given in the room, a hot day, 12 tired men and some of them want to leave as quickly as caring the sentence really. This film I liked also because it deals with quite interesting subjects: doubt, as our experience affects us in our decisions, go, subjects that look in perspective rather boring (Thinking of someone who only wants to watch a movie and not a moral debate) but that Are developed so well and subtly that you do not feel that you are giving a speech, you feel that you are watching a movie with interesting themes.

I do not know what you could add in this review, is that it's so great, even if you do not like these spoken themes, I recommend it as a movie about thinking and entertainment at the same time.
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.
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.
📹 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. 📀