First Time Watching 12 ANGRY MEN | Movie Reaction | SalvoG
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 кві 2024
- Full unedited reaction on Patreon: / salvog
Subscribe: tiny.cc/k04zwz
Main Channel: / @salvog
SalvoG2: / @salvog2
Soundscape channel: / @calmlycozy
Instagram: / salvogofficial
Facebook: / salvog
Twitter: / salvog_
Discord: / discord
Support me here:
/ salvog
throne.com/salvog
www.buymeacoffee.com/salvog
#12angrymen #moviereaction #reaction
Silence of the Lambs next, don't forget to subscribe!
Red Dragon (Anthony Hopkins, Edward Norton) is actually the prequel to "Silence". Then "Silence of the Lambs (Hopkins, Jodie Foster), then the BEST of the three... (Hopkins, Julianne Moore, Gary Oldman). It would be fantastic to see your reaction to the entire trilogy! ✌️🎬
The guy with the prejudices cracked because the others, even the ones who still thought the boy was guilty, shamed him for his racism, and told him to sit down and shut up. That’s what you HAVE to do to racism when you see it, and what we don’t do enough any more. Trump said, “There are good people on both sides.” No, there aren’t. If you are racist enough to send someone to the electric chair just because he’s “one of those”, you are not a good person, even if you think you are, even if you surround yourself with others like you, and you NEED to be called out on it. Perhaps he left that jury room a changed person. It seems like he might of. The hardest thing in the world is to realize you aren’t a hero in your own story, and make changes to yourself.
One of the greatest films of all time.
I really loved it
Yet to see anyone not love this movie. One of the best in cinematic history.
Been waiting on this reaction. One of the best movies ever with such a star studded cast.
The final "not guilty" wasnt just pardoning the defendant, but also his son. Touching moment.
You go from being annoyed at the guy for the whole film to feeling pity and also hope for him.
Such a masterclass in writing and acting
That was an amazing edit! You managed to get almost all of the impactful moments, and the general rhythm of the movie, into a very tight watch. I do prefer to watch your full reaction on Patreon, but for those who don't have the time... this was excellently done!
this is one of my favourite movies and what a amazing cast.
Is there anything that isn't amazing about this film? The script, the film style, and the acting (by the best in the business at the time). Telling a good story well - that's all an audience wants.
If you're looking for more options that are similar in feel - Inherit the Wind and To Kill a Mockingbird are every bit as good as this one.
A film that is older but just as good is Grapes of Wrath also with a younger Henry Fonda
The camera work.... the best thing in the movie. Notice in the end when juror 3 was struggling to admit that kid is not gulty he was smaller in frame than each of the other jurors faces, and then when he broke down he moved to the camera and became as big as others filling the whole frame laying there on the table. That's little details but so genius
My all time favorite movie so simple and top notch acting and no special effects needed.
How did I miss this reaction? I'm so glad you watched this movie. This is one of 5 black and white movies that a Hollywood producer wrote down on a piece of paper for me to watch when I worked at a video store in the 80s and he found out that I didn't watch old time movies. I'm glad he did because I loved this movie. You should watch Sunset Blvd next.
Ed Beagley #10's Earliest diatribe begins," I've lived among them all my life!" Meaning he's lived in the neighborhoods as the people he's been vilifying. I don't know who, but he's been getting positive feedback from someone for it. This must be the first time he's been in the company of men with broader experiences in a long time. He's genuinely shocked by them turning away from him. Even Juror #4, EG Marshall, who agreed with the idea that kids from slums were potentially dangerous, refuses to follow him down that rabbit hole. That makes him hear himself. No one in Western Civilization wishes to be seen as that unfair. Doubly so for Americans, triple for the three major monotheistic religions. #10 has looked behind himself and realized he's very far out on a limb. I wish there had been a way to tell if he was really going to back up. In the end, behavior is very difficult to change.
Excellent reaction to one of the greatest films ever made. I've seen this movie so many times I've almost got it memorized - - and it still feels fresh.
One of the compelling thing about this movie is the personalities of the jurors. I think most audience members would recognize each of these people, broadly speaking. They are real personalities, people we have all met through our lives at one time or another.
Lol, I just realized that Juror #7, the working man brought #9 a chair when he came to the table. Something new Everytime I've seen this since I was a teenager in the late 1970s! Well, Juror #3 didn't either!
This film can change your outlook on life, race and justice
I agree. Very compelling movie.
Something not brought up in the movie. When Juror 11 is arguing that the boy probably would not come home, Juror 12 tried to argue that the boy thought nobody saw him leave. But the old man downstairs said he saw the killer run down the stairs after the killing. Those are contradictory: at least one of them must not be true.
1) If the old man did not see the killer run down the stairs, then the killer might believe that nobody saw him leave, as Juror 12 argued. But then that is another piece of testimony from the old man that is wrong. That would make both of the important claims made by the old man (he identified the boy's voice as the screaming voice, and he saw the killer run down the stairs) wrong or unbelievable.
2) If the old man did see the killer run down the stairs, then the killer did know that somebody saw him leave and would surely conclude that the police would be called. Juror 12's argument as to why the boy would come home is then busted. And that would reinstate Juror 11's argument: if the boy was the killer, then why would the boy come home?
To your second point, why would the killer have to know somebody saw him leave? The way the diagram showed the apartments, it looks to be a stairwell. If someone was running down the stairs they wouldn't necessarily see the old man standing at his door. The killer could have already been past the door onto the stairs below so the old man only saw his back and the killer wouldn't have known anything.
@@TypicalJoker94 The old man lived one floor below where the killing took place, and the old man said he saw the killer running down the stairs. That suggests that the old man saw the killer running down the stairs towards him, not just away from him. If the killer was running down the stairs towards the old man who had his door open and saw the killer, then the killer probably should have seen the old man too.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger But when he said he saw the killer running down the stairs he could have meant the stairs below. So the killer could have already ran past the old mans door, the old man then opens his door to see the back of the killer running down the next flight of stairs
@@TypicalJoker94 1) We don't know that there was another floor below the one that the old man lived on, so we don't know that the killer could have run down any more stairs. But we do know that there are stairs above the apartment where the old man lived, and someone could have run down those stairs .... down towards the old man at his door.
2) Why do the jurors say the old man claims to have seen the *boy* running down the stairs, not the *killer* running running down the stairs?
-----
JUROR 3: "[The old man who lived downstairs said he] Ran to the door, opened it up, saw the kid run down the stairs and out of the house."
-----
-----
JUROR 10: Did or didn't the old man see the kid running out of the house at 12.10? Well, did or didn't he?
JUROR 11: He says he did.
-----
-----
JUROR 7: Look. Now what about the old man? Are we supposed to believe that he didn't get up and run to his door and see the kid tearin' down the steps 15 seconds after the killing.
-----
It is is not explicitly said, but the old seems to have claimed to identify the person running down the stairs as being the boy. That would suggest he saw the front of the boy, not just his back.
@@TypicalJoker94 Ah, found the quote from the movie that makes it more certain that old man claims he saw the boy's face.
JUROR 9: "No. He wouldn't really lie. But perhaps he made himself believe he heard those words and recognized the boy's face."
That pretty clearly indicates the old man downstairs claimed to see the boy's face, which makes far more sense if the person was running down the stairs towards the old man. And if the old man could see the killer's face (whoever it was), then the killer should have been able to see the old man, and would have know that someone saw him leave.
I was a juror on a murder trial for 3 weeks. It’s a very emotional process. Some people start off allowing their feelings to dictate the vote. It’s not as simple as thinking the person is guilty or innocent. The judge gives what the charges are, as a group you have to apply the law to the facts and evidence that’s given to you. Which in this case was a lot, hundreds of pages of evidence, and crime scene photos.
Fun fact…the last scene with Fonda and the old man (mcardle) is filmed outside the courthouse in manhattan also where the scene in the Godfather when Micheal’s henchman killed the mobster outside the courthouse steps. Also I believe it is the same courthouse where the Trump trial is currently going on.
Juror #7 and. #12 are both completely at sea in this situation. #7 knows sports, #12 knows executive Ad agencies. Their minds and speech don't really ever leave their comfort zones. #7 is just more defensive about it. For fun, watch the movie focusing on #7, Jack Warden's little physical tricks and jokes. They're easy to miss, but it's obvious that's how he breaks the ice with potential customers, he's gotta have something to make more than $125,000 in adjusted dollars in marmalade a year. What a cast of character actors.
You do good work ❤❤❤
Watched with you on Patreon. I really enjoyed it. Thanks for sharing!
One of many things I’ve got out of this movie is if I’m ever in trouble to hire a lawyer that really cares.
Hi from the UK. I highly recommend “Snatch”, “Billy Elliot” and “Full Monty”.
Glad you enjoyed the film and understood the majority of underlying, sometimes hard-to-grasp, human frailties. Your reaction is one to be recommended to others who pass by this way.
Good ancient reaction
Just think!
If You, do not show up for jury duty, an innocent person may be put to death.
If you put an innocent person in jail, not only would you punish someone who didn't commit a crime, you'd also let a guilty person go free. In that sense, it's better to find a guilty person "not guilty." Then only one "wrong" would be committed. (Of course, it goes without saying that a guilty person should be punished, and an innocent person should be found not guilty).
Please react to the Saban’s Power Rangers 2017 Movie!!! It is a very goooood movie. You may look at the name and think it is childish and cheesy. But it is hilarious and shows the growth of friendship and trustworthy. I swear it is a must watch.🔥🔥
There are some interesting plays which are trial dramas, and they use 12 members from the audience to be the jury.
I’m sure the guy outside the door could inform them to turn on the lights and therefore get the fan working.
Fantastic classic! Near perfect story/film.
CERTAINLY deserves more than a 26 minute reaction!! I believe your low #'s on this channel are a result of your editing to such short presentations.
You are one of, if not my favorite reactor, to music. However, I can't, for the life of me, figure out why you continue to release such ridiculously short movie reactions. ✌️🎬
@lori how’s it going? I can address a few things here: the views on this channel have nothing to do with the length of the videos - the only thing that matters when it comes to views: average watch time, thumbnail click through rate, and keywords/how popular your subject is among search terms. Not only that, but UA-cam doesn’t just reward new channels with thousands of views. You have to prove your channel by uploading frequently and keeping viewers watching. Then you slowly work your way into the algorithm as it learns who to suggest your content to and you show reliability and consistency.
Besides that, this channel makes $0 dollars. It’s a work in progress aside from my main channel and Patreon. I have $700 dollars invested into this channel with $0 dollars coming back. But I believe in and I enjoy it. I will make these longer when the time is right and everything else falls into place.
I hope this answers some of your questions. But also thanks for watching and enjoying my content. Have a great day/week! 🤝🙌
@SalvoGMovieReactions I enjoy you and your obviously sincere and authentic music reactions. I do understand, for the most part, how views/likes/time viewed etc.. work. I guess I am simply a bit perplexed WHY you edit to such short clips. I know why movies are edited, and there are many factions of a film that are considered when conforming to all the copyright stipulations and limitations. Still, there are numerous "reactors" who've used this film and have been able to present upwards of 45, 48, 55 minutes. I just makes the experience more complete and enjoyable.
But..keep doing you! You seem to be a great guy with a sincere interest in the new material you screen (and listen to). What I enjoy most about your reactions is your interest in the artists, their history, the impact of the material on society and/at the times of popularity, and the quality of the writing/production/arrangement of the material. Thank you for all that! ✌️🎬
Nice reaction!
I bet Fonda's character is against the death penalty. How would anyone know?
I saw 12 Angry Men on the theatre. I left so drained of energy. So much hatred and bullying. Defendant implied to be of a minority and no minority in the jury. So many prejudicial statements. By the end, I did not care that it ended in not guilty. I just hated the statements. I was the 13th angry man leaving the theatre.
Get over it.
@@evanhughes1510 wow. I will come to you in the future to tell me how I should feel. You are a laptop bully.
In the Movie they said how improbable it is that someone else stabed the dad with the same or a similar knife. It is strange how this movie makes us believe that a million to one chance against the boy is enough for reasonable doubt. Even Juror No8 doesnt doubt the odds, he just says what he often says:
#3 You found a knife like it. What's that? The discovery of the age?
#12 You mean you are asking us to believe, that someone else did the stabbing with exactly the same kind of knife?
#7 The odds are a million to one.
#8 Fonda: It's possible! (Everything is possible yes, but that is of course NOT the definition of reasonable doubt)
The other counterpoints though did create reasonable doubt.
@@raybernal6829 The other counterpoints are not important if you already have a one million to 1 chance against the boy in a very important matter like the murder weapon.
Yes maybe the 2 eyewitnesses are not reliable. However if there is no reasonable other way to explain, how the boy's knife ended up in the fathers chest, eyewitnesses dont really matter anymore, dont you think?
@@Paul_Winkle no because based on what we were told in the movie that alone creates reasonable doubt in my eye. A lot hinges on what the prosecution was able to prove. I've been on two jury trials. I based my verdict on what the prosecution was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
@@Paul_Winkle that do called "million to one" is not a fact. It's someone's WAG..
@@raybernal6829 Million to one is a solid claim, let's say thousand to one, still it is not in the real of reasonable doubt. Even No8 doesnt oppose this number, not even how unlikely it is, he just distracts away from this topic, why?
I’m not gonna spoil anything, but I have to say one thing, these men are smart, but they’re dumb enough not to ask why the fan is not working
The thing is, you are only supposed to consider evidence presented at trial. The jury is not supposed to create evidence. Great film BUT unrealistic
The boy ist guilty. The amount of evidence against him is still astronomically high at the end of the movie, but They made us forget about it.
It was even said in the movie, that the chances that someone else bought a knife that looks like the one the boy lost allegedly, even only hours before the murder happened, are a million to one. They also said that the woman has very good eyes. "She saw the killing through the last two cars, SHE REMEMBERED THE MOST INSIGNIFICANT DETAILS". This statement was so strong, even juror No8 wasnt able to oppose, he's just once again diverted from the subject or he said "but it is possible". Yeah ok, one in a million. Possible maybe like everything else that might happen, but for sure not enough for reasonable doubt.
There is no need for the million-to-one scenario. The knife could have fallen out of the boy's pocket, as he said.
You just lied, again, by quoting the movie incorrectly, on purpose. The actual quote is
TIME: 00:40:09
JUROR 4: She said she saw it through the windows of a moving elevated train. There were six cars on the train. She saw the killing through the last two cars. She remembered the most insignificant details. I don't see how you can argue with that.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger She saw the killing through the last two cars. She remembered the most insignificant details.
This is the order of the sentence. He talks about the killing, then followed by the details she remembered. Details are about the killing! Very crisp and clear! YOU ARE LYING if you say it is the other way, but it is not like that:
There were six cars on the train. She remembered the most insignificant details.
@@PaulWinkle Nope, stop lying. I gave the actual quote, which you keep trying to distort.
@@PaulWinkle The insignificant details she remembered are those just mentioned in the preceding sentences: how many cars were in the elevated train and how many of those see saw the killing through. Those are insignificant details when it comes to a murder. And they were insignificant for this particular case too, until Juror 8 later used them to show that the old man downstairs could not have heard what he claims he did. On the other hand, details about a killer are not insignificant in a murder case, so the quote cannot be taken to be referring to the killer.
At no point in the movie does anyone list any details she could have given about the killer, such as the size and shape of his nose, the color of his eyes, what kind (if any) facial hair he had, if his lips were thick or thin, if he had any tattoos, if he had any scars, if he had a weak chin or a strong chin, etc.
All we are told is that she knew the boy all his life and she knew he lived in the apartment where the stabbing took place (both of which increase the probability of her misidentifying a stranger as the boy), and she identified the killer as being the boy: but we all know that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable and has led to many people being wrongly convicted.
Logic tells us that the insignificant details she remembered were the number of cars in the el train and how many of those cars she saw the killing through. El train cars in NYC are some 50 to 75 feet long. A person doesn't need to have perfect vision to be able to see or count 50-ft-long elevated train cars.
Good ancient reaction
Good ancient reaction