It is performances like this and many more that made Henry Fonda's casting in Once Upon a Time in the West as a villain so impactful. Just the idea of him as someone villainous was shocking.
@@JamesVSCinema Lee J. Cobb was always great too. He was Johnny Friendly, the union boss in On the Waterfront. 12 Angry Men was Sidney Lumet's directorial debut. Amazing!
My dad made me watch this when I was young. I then had to do jury service at 19 and I'm not going to lie it stayed with me through out the whole process. The decision made in that room affects so many peoples lives and I was so shocked at how little some of the fully fledged adults in that room just did not care. One person was even reading their book almost through out the process. I was the only one who refused to rush it and go through every single incident and make a unanimous decision for each one. I made piles of notes and I think a lot of it was due to this movie. Glad you reacted to this, it's truly brilliant.
Same as me, It makes you realise how callous and selfish ordinary people around you are to treat somebody's future so lightly. I was also shocked how poor the defence lawyer was, he was like little Lord Fauntleroy doing a school presentation, I could have done better. The case had too little information to go on too. We would have liked answers to some questions but there was no-opportunity to ask anyone. Juries should not be allowed to go home early and disinterested people should be excused. I hear complaints that it is hard to get jurors' yet i never hear of people i know being chosen twice or even once. I would do it again.
HELL yeah, what an incredible film. No special effects, no brainless punch-fests, no forced romance. Just 12 people in a room arguing, and almost 70 years later it remains an almost flawless, engaging, relevant piece of cinema.
@@JamesVSCinema Hope you watch it again very soon without the distraction of having to comment. You will see, hear, and understand much more when you can just sit and be absorbed by this art work as a whole along with the differing elements that make it whole
The old man, to me is the most interesting character. You mentioned all the extreme close ups of him. Remember when he was explaining why the old man who was a prosecution witness might embellish his story to become a crucial witness? He said the man felt inconsequential, that nobody cared about him or what he thought. The attention his testimony received elevated his importance. When his co-jurors asked him how he could know this he just looked down with a sad look on his face, because he himself felt the same way. Notice in the beginning of the film most of the other jurors just dismissed whatever he had to say. So, the extreme closeups highlight the fact that he actually had a lot to contribute. That's my opinion, anyway
This movie has a compelling plot, terrific dialogue, perfect pacing, wonderful cinematography, and one of the very greatest casts ever assembled in Hollywood. Henry Fonda is a towering figure in film history, and Lee J Cobb (the guy who was shattered about his son) was one of the first great Method actors. But beyond those two, every actor playing a jury member was capable of stealing a scene from a superstar, and most of them did at one time or another. It's really an astonishing group of actors to put into the same room for the course of an entire film.
You can tell this started out as a play, before becoming a teleplay, which is where Henry Fonda saw it and became determined to make it into an actual film. So brilliant, and the cast is absolutely LOADED with incredible character actors.
Robert Cummings was in the teleplay. A third version starred Jack Lemmon and three of the juniors were black. The junior who was prejudiced against Puerto Ricans was played by a black actor.
This is one of my favorite movies for a few reasons. Cinematically, I love how the heat in that room is almost a character in its own right. You can almost feel the stickiness and humidity and how it wears people down. The rain sounds refreshing by contrast. These actors mastered even the little nuances of their roles to seem absolutely authentic. You don't even question their authenticity. The dialogue is masterful and keeps you riveted. People seem to avoid meaningful dialogue in today's film in preference for action scenes but this is a master class on the importance of good dialogue and how it can be its own form of action. You mentioned the music. The music here is used perfectly to underscore the essence of the scene and the silence is used for the same reason. I love how these 12 men seemed so ordinary. None of them were super attractive or overplayed their roles. They were so ordinary; people we have all seen or heard in real life. These men are people we see everyday. I also love how we saw examples of how adults should react. The childish men weren't normalized the way we normalize them today. The adults were exhibiting a higher standard for how we should behave, debate, and reason. How often do we see grown men acting the way a grown mature man should act? We can see how these adult mature men gain respect and how the childish men lose it. The childish reasoning made by the childish men could be heard today almost verbatim. Despite being made in 1957, it still has so much relevance today with one exception. In 1957, maturity was a standard to aspire to. That has disappeared today. This movie is about a jury deliberation but it's also a movie about life, about justice, about prejudices, about reason, about the ideals we are supposed to uphold, and about maturity and respect. This movie grabs you from the first minute and pulls you deeper into it with every passing minute.
and as they left the jury room, the two "adversaries" were left and the "good guy" (in white, no less) helped the "bad guy" put on his jacket (black, lol) as a motion of respect. *chef kiss*
Today's jury deliberation would spend the first half hour sorting out pronouns. Discussion of the case would take hours because they'd need a break every time someone was triggered. Debate would be attempted but someone would toss out their "Me Too" or "Racism" trump card which ends all discussion.
@@msdarby515 wow, you've managed to miss the point on a truly epic scale. Hell, you sound like J. Lee Cobb at the start of the film talking about the need to "slap down the troublemakers."
This is a masterwork in character portrayal. Each of these actors has a vivid personality that really shines through because of their acting. One of my personal all time favorites across all genres.
I love how you stated that this movie needs to be played today. That’s the beauty of what you and others do as reactors . You open these film up to new audiences who were unaware of their greatness.
This used to be shown to school kids (junior/high school) - a clinic in critical thinking. I remember the day we watched it and realizing I had some mad bigots in my family.
My middle school engineering teacher put this movie on for one of those days where they have nothing to teach. Kind of amazing that I was so young but have always remembered and loved this movie since.
One of my favorites is the "logic and evidence" guy who never sweats. Whenever the logic of something was pointed out, he always changed and went with whatever made sense, no matter what he had said before. But when it was pointed out, like the glasses, you could tell he was disappointed with himself. He thought he was so logical and rational, and he was about to send someone to their death without realizing all the facts. Really every single person in this jury exists within all of us - like all of the influences, prejudices, and emotions pushing at us, within every single person.
Yes, he comes across as Mr. Reasonable on steroids, but he really does come to the case with plenty of prejudices that he's unconscious of. At least as I see it, these are: a belief that the lower classes are just irrational and prone to violence by nature (a less virulent form than 10 for sure), the police and the judicial system are fair and aboveboard, people make sense and aren't driven by emotions. His basic personality problems are smugness and a lack of empathy. He's not a bad guy, per se, but he thinks too much of himself, too little of others, and when the old man--whom he thinks beneath him--nails him on the glasses, he's truly mortified because he realizes that he's far more limited than he believed. And I really agree with you that there's an element of all the characters, even the rotten ones, in all of us. Maybe that's what keeps it so compelling to watch again and again.
@@nicholasschroeder3678"a belief that the lower classes are just irrational and prone to violence by nature..." Is it when his statement that slum-dwellers are more prone to crime and violence that leaves that impression for you?
@@tapan97 Well, yes, sure. But it's not only that. It's his overall epistemology about the case. The things that initially troubled 8, don't trouble him; they don't even occur to him. Living in a slum, using weapons, abusive fathers, police interrogations, appointed public defenders, unreliable witnesses--all these things are alien to his experience. He believes that the system works fairly and objectively, so he accepts the evidence as presented as so many solid facts to be rationally analyzed. He gives no credence to the idea that a kid might run away from a violent dad to the movies just for a respite, that the police did intimate and rough him up, that he'd be too rattled in the middle of the night with his murdered father lying there to think straight, that public defenders can be indifferent and incompetent, that witnesses can extraneously motivated; no, for him the kid doing it fits into his worldview, as does the idea that all the authorities acted objectively. His problem is his insulation from the world's harsher realities, which have never intruded on his life. He follows all the laws and social rules of society--4 and 10 rankle him with their impolite behavior--and kids running around in the dead of night just have to be bad. He can't conceive of conditions where people by necessity operate differently. It's like the assumption people make that if the police stopped someone, then they must have been up to no good, and the deadly confrontation that followed must have somehow been their own fault. He's just fundamentally oriented against the boy from the outset because of his class privileges.
@@nicholasschroeder3678 no I get all of that (and in fact find it to be quite insightful and correct). I am only asking about what led you to believe the part I quoted, namely his prejudice toward lower class people.
As a scriptwriter, I think, this is one of my most favourite movies of all time. It touches my heartstrings in so many ways... I am happy you can enjoy and appreciate it as much as I do. Thank you for keeping this beaut alive.
It's interesting that you mention this not exactly being a "tale of heroism" because on some level I always felt like it is - just a different sort of heroism. It's the heroism of of fighting for decency, thoughtfulness, and rationality, even when the odds are stacked against you. Few things in the world more heroic than that.
@@JamesVSCinema honestly I think it works so well for both reasons, that it is a subtle tale of "heroism", the main juror isn't some brave, special man whos standing up to the evils of the world to overblown extents, he's just one man who thought of doing one very simple thing "he just wanted to talk about it more". he himself wasn't even sure if he was guilty or not he just didn't want to decide a verdict/on a man's life in a matter of seconds (it's nothing drastically bold, it's something any person would/could have felt) and that little act does show greater heroism/human condition and was the thing that stopped a innocent man from dying. one little act making a world of difference
I love how this movie was written, not just the characters but the dialogue too. We are just dropped in this situation without knowing anything, I was feeling very confused, how are we, the audience, supposed to know if the characters are right or wrong if we missed the trial? But because I didn't know anything I paid extreme attention to each word the characters said, and because we aren't shown the trial we are completely unbiased when the characters start discussing the evidence. The little I could grasp from each character just made me want to know each of them more which is funny cause they are all meant to be normal everyday people, but knowing so little, not even their names, made their characterization stand out that much more to me.
oh man James I'm absolutely stoked you're watching this! In my opinion, this is still an absolute gold standard for crafting compelling and dynamic conflict using dialogue and cinematography.
Reading so many comments that are so knowledgeable and almost poetic I do feel a bit shy to speak my piece but I will say I saw this film on a classic movie channel as a teenager. I was amazed because I didnt know such art existed. I am always so grateful for my old soul and the patience I've had for particular books, movies, etc. Great reaction James 😊 so happy you enjoyed and love that you also have patience for such films. 🙏🏽
Juror 4 (glasses), is my favorite, though I don't really identify with him completely. He's principled throughout the film, he clearly states what evidence he believes, and when that evidence is called in to question he changes his vote.
I couldn’t agree more. He even consistently talks down or even chastises the men who are “on his side” when they start getting nasty. He also has two of my favorite lines in the movie, that being “he did an excellent job” and finally telling juror 10 to sit down and keep his mouth shut.
Love him too, but he's also smug and lacks empathy, which is what blinds him to all the human motivations that enter into the evidence that he evaluates like stock quotes. When HIS lack of vision is exposed by the old man, he's absolutely mortified. He realizes he's not the avatar of objectivity he thought he was; his "inferior," the old man, is far more intelligent about people than he is.
Every actor was great outside of this movie..a lot of stage work or independent productions..some big movies like On the Waterfront..or their own show..like Jack Klugman with The Odd Couple and Quincy, M.E…the summer head cold guy..well respected actor..saw him last in a Clint Eastwood film..Hang ‘Em High..1968..juror number 12..played in a Pink Panther movie..the one with Dyan Cannon..Jack Warden..baseball tickets…last saw him with Sandra Bullock…While You Were Sleeping..I’m sure every actor was picked for what he brought to the part..the foreman..played with Paul Newman in Hombre and with Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany’s…as a movie producer..great cast..
See to me, he is the worst of all of them. The other bigots were obvious but juror 4 hides his bigotry behind a thin veil of rationality (which, if analyzed, is actually irrational). His prejudice is given away by comments like “it’s no secret that children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society”. He completely disregarded and discounted the mounting evidence against guilt and refused to change his opinion even when it became completely untenable. He was not rational, did not properly weigh the arguments against guilt but gave the impression that he was doing so. It was only when the evidence affected him personally (the glasses) that he changed his mind. I think he is the best (and worst) character because it’s that kind of bigotry which is most prevalent in America today. You see it everywhere - people claiming that their prejudice is rational (facts over feelings) and only changing their views when they are personally affected by things (eg, conservatives who think homosexuality is immoral until a family member they love comes out, etc). He’s a brilliant but terrible character, because he was not an obvious antagonist like the other two, but he was the most formidable antagonist and is the type of person who perpetuates the bigotry we see in society today, may not even realise it and thinks that he’s being entirely reasonable the whole time.
There is an interesting sequence regarding Jack Warden's character, Juror #7 (the sports fan with the baseball tickets). At first he's as certain as anyone that the kid is guilty. But if you watch him, as the arguments progress, he's seen listening to everyone. He starts asking questions and is *listening* to the answers, not just rejecting them out of hand like Lee J. Cobb (Juror #3, the "rotten kids" guy) or Ed Begley (Juror #10, the racist) is doing. And during the scene where Jack Klugman (Juror #5, the guy who grew up in the slum) is talking about how you properly handle a switchblade knife, he's got this look on his face like he just realized something. Like a lightbulb went off in his brain. A lot of people think his changing his vote came out of nowhere, but if you pay attention to his character, you realize that no... he's been convinced that the kid is not guilty over the entire length of the film up until that point.
I saw this film about 40 years ago and it’s still in my top 20 films and I’ve seen a lot of films. It really opened my eyes as a teenager and helped me to decide the kind of person I wanted to be and how to think for myself. It should be required viewing at school. A more perfect microcosm of society cannot be found, not in terms of race, age or gender but a great cross section of how people think and are, even today.
The last "angry, old man" standing, from whom all the others turn their backs (not the one who has issues with his son), is Ed Begley, Sr. - Ed Begley, Jr.'s father. What an incredible cast!
@@JamesVSCinema not so much the room shrinks, as it starts with wide angles, above eye level, and gradually goes down, and in (like the knife) until, at the end, you're looking at closeups, with the actor's face filling the entire screen, and looking up at the actor, which serves to increase the feeling of tension, and claustrophobia. Until the final shot, which is a wide angle again, letting the viewer breathe once again. On a slightly different note, the actors in this are real heavyweights. The racist juror #10 going on his tirade, with everyone (including #3) turning away from him, until he realises what he's done, and has to sit down, a broken man, at a separate table - brilliantly done. Lee J. Cobb as juror #3 is nothing short of genius, and juror #11, an immigrant, extolling the virtues of a jury trial system is a powerful message for 1957. The ethnicity of the defendant is also intentionally ambiguous - he could just as well be Jewish, Italian, Hispanic, etc. And to think this was a directorial debut for director Sydney Lumet...
"On the Waterfront" is another GREAT black and white film. Oscar winner for Best Picture, Director, Screenplay, Actor, and more. Marlon Brando is in peak form, but with other great performances, especially from Rod Stieger, Lee J Cobb (the last hold out juror in this movie), Karl Malden, and Eva Marie Saint. Really, one of the best movies to ever come out of Hollywood before 1960. A must see.
Agree. There are like 12 reactions to 12 angry men. Yes with "on the waterfront" but how about some of classic James cagney. He was one of the best. "The roaring 20's", "Angel's with dirty faces", "white heat" great stuff and no one reacts to those or any names cagney. Argument for greatest actor of the first 70 or 80 yrs of the 2pth century or ever
While it isn't a great movie from start to finish, it is necessary to watch this if you truly want to understand modern acting. In the backseat of that car, you can literally see the entire world of acting and film transition to a new era.
Agree. "On the Waterfront" is one of those movies that's so good, it's almost impossible to comprehend. (Not to mention that it's the movie that marks the dividing line between the old acting style and modern, natural acting as it flowed from Elia Kazan and Brando and the Actor's Studio.)
Did you notice that none of the characters' names were used until the very end, when one juror reveals his name to another? The names of the other jurors, the defendant, the judge, and all the bit characters are never given. There was a Russian remake in 2007 called "12". The plot is almost identical, with the exception that the accused is Chechen.
Loved your reaction to this one. If I'm asked, this film always makes my personal top ten list. An entire movie that takes place in a single set, containing only dialogue, but which is absolutely gripping throughout. It's a master class in filmmaking, with a compelling and important story and message. Not to mention the incredible acting from the entire cast. Lee J. Cobb's performance (not his character) is SO good, it's easy to forget that he's acting!
I DO think there's one "heroic moment" in the movie- it's where everyone stands up to distance themselves from the unhinged racist. Look at the camera's height there- it's raised up- as though it's waiting for these men to rise up as their better selves. It's subtle and masterful. It's like WE are there hoping they'll make the right decision!
And just when you think not all of them have risen to the challenge, that the racist will find agreement in juror 4.... that verbal backhand just to signal him he's gone way too far.
@@johannesvalterdivizzini1523 Yeah- the whole movie remains a masterpiece. So many subtle character moments in addition to the story, direction and cinematography.
I love how at the end the old man finally introduced himself. Because threw the whole film not one of them had said there name. They were all strangers with different believes and agendas.
Avengers : we need multiple universe and million of dollars to create a good movie 12 angry men : just give me a room and dozen of brilliant actors to create a masterpiece
Love that you enjoyed and appreciated this film! It's a classic. Movies like this are referred to as "bottle films" - they're set in a single location. There are some classic ones like Reservoir Dogs, Hateful 8, Rear Window, etc. What I love about them, as a former film student and short filmmaker, is that it shows all you need to make a great film is good writing, camera work, and a few good actors. It makes filmmaking seem more accessible than the over-the-top action, superhero movies we get inundated with.
Sidney Lumet is one of the best directors of all time. He has such a matter of fact style that it's really easy to miss him. No extravagant stylistic excesses. Just perfect execution in a way that perfectly serves the story. I can never decide if I like this or Network the most, but they're both among my absolute favourites.
I wish they'd play this movie for all juries, in a way. And when nothing else is on on Court TV and the like when there's a big court case going. A hell of a lot of people NEED to see it and actually pay attention. This movie changed how I viewed court cases. You can't just "want" someone to be guilty because you think they're guilty based on what the news has told you and you can't just "want" someone to be guilty because you don't like that person or what you think they did. And I see way, way too many people nowadays during big court cases who think EXACTLY like that, the majority of whom don't actually watch or keep up with the court case outside of clips on the news, who aren't going to give you all the details or have a biased slant, no matter what source you're watching or reading.
It doesn't even have to be a big case in the news. I was on a jury in a case of repeated child molestation. We deadlocked and I personally believe a man who molested his stepdaughter for years went free because people valued skin color and ethnicity over the involvement of police, and rather than weighing evidence including the accused mans own testimony decided that because the victim had expressed an interest in acting that NOTHING she said could be believed. It wasn't a case ANYBODY had read about or seen on TV - but it's those sorts of cases that are being tried every day, every week, year in year out. The big media show trials are poisonous to the proper working of the rest of our justice system that DOESN'T show up on TV.
@@mortimerbrewster3671 That's definitely the case I was hinting at there, but it's so controversial at the moment that I didn't really want to start an argument with people who haven't watched the whole court case, or even the video evidence, because WAAAAAYY too many people want him to be jailed for life based *purely* on what the news has told them. Or just because of his skin color. Which I've had multiple people tell me. And that's baffling to me because they don't see that as racism. They legitimately don't think they're being prejudiced by wanting someone jailed because of their skin color. It's like I slipped into an alternate dimension. Or becaue they just don't like what he did, regardless of if what he did was legal. They would rather a 17 year old died. That's just.. jesus. Anyway. Everytime I talk about the case I have to correct people's information so often that it's scary. So many people want an 18 year old to go to jail without even knowing any information at all and it's upsetting and weird. They all need to watch something like this. It's hard to remove your bias in things like this, but when it comes to our justice system, you HAVE TO, or we don't HAVE a justice system at all.
@@duanevp Yeah I think the big "media" ones are poisonous to the rest of our justice system and our society in general. The news won't tell you everything (as an example, recently most big news channels only showed the prosecutions closing statements for a big case, but not the defenses). They give out wrong information, biased information, half the information but not the other half, add their own opinions to it, and bam, if a trial doesn't go the way the media has been portraying it, we have riots and an entire town or city gets destroyed. Or on the other hand, the jury doesn't want their town destroyed knowing there will be a riot so they're intimidated into not following their mind and heart truthfully. The whole thing reeks and it's having a really bad effect on our society in general and our justice system.
@@LadyBeyondTheWall -The media is more than just poisonous, they can be lethal. MSNBC allegedly had someone following the Jury bus to find out where they were staying when sequestered. Based on every article they have published on the case, if true, I believe it was for jury intimidation.
Juror #7: "You a Yankee fan?" Juror #5: "No, Baltimore." Juror #7: "Baltimore? That's like being hit in the head with a crowbar once a day." (As an Orioles fan, I sadly have to agree with this exchange.)
I watched this for the first time about 2 years ago. I have to say it's in my all time top 10 films. Probably quite high up in it as well. Such a brilliant script and really well acted.
Clicked REALLY fast on this one. One of my favorite films ever. It's brilliant and very important, not just technically as film in terms of cinematography, acting, etc. but in what it has to say. It's been remade many times in different settings, but even the version with George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon in the lead roles doesn't quite have the impact that the original does here. I re-watch it every once in a while simply because it's so well-made it's an enjoyment to just watch it.
The old man who was so attached to the guilty verdict really demonstrates a failure to listen and a resistance to change merely on the basis of refusing to humble oneself by admitting “I was wrong”
The Sports guy has always stuck with me since seeing this film many years ago. I have encountered and I'm sure anyone reading this has too, the guy who doesn't care about politics or whats going on at the local school, but can tell you the top draft picks for the local team.
Like this one blew me away as a kid and it still does to this day. This is truly one of the best pieces of media I've ever seen. It's phenomenal on every level.
this is the first movie i saw as a kid that made me realize what good writing could do because they never leave that room but every second is so interesting and filled with tension and suspense.
Lee J Cobb was brilliant in his portrayal of number 3 juror, a bigoted, angry middle aged man, who seemed to be nursing a deep emotional wound because his teenage son had walked out on him. His character was diametrically opposed to juror number 4, the clear thinking and unemotional stockbroker, who remained composed throughout the entire time, but also who actually listened calmly to the evidence and assembled logical and rational reasons as to why he thought the defendant was guilty. When there was an overwhelming evidence of doubt, then he changed his verdict to not guilty. Juror number 4 was played by the unflappable and impeccably spoken E G Marshall.
Thank you for reacting to my favorite film. I’ve always tried to get other people to watch, it’s such a beautiful piece of art that shines a light on multiple layers of humanity. Far too often it get’s overlooked, but it always speaks to our biases and how are outlook is shaped by our background and experiences.
YES! My all-time favorite film! This may appear on the surface like a typical old talkie movie, but I would argue it is the greatest study on prejudice ever, while still being an extremely tense and entertaining film. I always love seeing people experience it for the first time.
One of my favorite films ever made. A great factor they used in this movie was the heat factor. When one of the characters say "Today is going to be the hottest day of the year." It may not seem important but the heat comes into play by elevating their anger which increases the tension. So well done!
This movie is timeless. It is a very important American film. It's about being a responsible citizen. How we as common men, can be part of our justice system.
My high school civics teacher made us watch this film. Many years later I was on a jury for a tax case where the gov't had acted really shady to prosecute this old couple. After first vote it was 10-2 in favor of guilt. Over 3 days of brutal deliberations me and the other not guilty voter shifted the other 10. I didn't make many friends on that jury but yeah...felt like I took the responsibility seriously. I thought of this film afterwards and was thankful the stakes were a lot less than someone's life. Still, everyone should see 12 Angry Men in case you ever end up on a jury....and it's just a perfect film
A great movie that you should watch is "Anatomy of a Murder." A story about a small town murder trial with a small town lawyer, played by Jimmy Stewart, trying to get his obviously guilty client off. Somewhat cynical masterpiece.
Still want to say to the angry Juror - 'here's 20 bucks, find a pay phone, make some calls, track down your son, say you want to meet for lunch, talk to him.'
I’ve only seen this movie once, maybe twice, but its explanation of “innocent until proven guilty” has always stayed vividly with me. I’ve especially remembered it when waiting to see if I’ll get picked for jury duty, but I also think of it when I see hot takes about the news or politics online.
I’ve seen this classic a number of times n the biggest thing that stands out now is the glaring difference of these people ‘s ability to express their thoughts and the ability of others to comprehend the thoughts and respond w words n not extreme emotions. Like an adult to a child “use your words”
If you are doing more older films, I highly recommend the 1961 film The Hustler staring Paul Newman, Jackie Gleason, George C. Scott, and Piper Laurie. It's in my top 5 all time and a great example of character development.
I suggest On the Waterfront...You don't understand! I could have been somebody, I could have had class! Instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it
It was a great Best Picture competition that year, between the "small film" 12 Angry Men and the "big spectacle" Bridge on the River Kwai. The other nominees for that year are good too, but these two are among my favorite films of all time. Kwai won, BTW.
In my personal opinion, 12 Angry Men literally the most perfect film ever made. Everything about it from the performances, direction, writing, cinematography, is absolutely pitch perfect.
It should come as no surprise that the film is actually this good. A fantastic cast and it was directed by Sidney Lumet the director of Serpico, Network, AND Dog Day Afternoon-- which was the GREATEST acting of Al Pacino's entire life by a mile.
This film is a masterpiece, and I am so glad my father introduced me to it years ago. It is the very definition of a classic, an example of good writing and a great exercise on critical thinking. I hope it stays with every one of you, and I hope you can all share it with friends and family.
I can’t lie, I really appreciate your assessment of the film much more than any other reactors. Most just ramble while a movie plays but you actually have something to say. Thank you, and keep it going brother.
I was 8 when this film was released. I probably first saw it on TV a few years later. I was so inspired by the veracity of the portrayals that I began acting in high school dramas. (Coincidentally, I played the foreman in a jury drama as a HS senior.) I can't remember seeing any film that has been better crafted logically, artistically, or cinematically.
This is one of those classic films that ages like fine wine. I like how different assuptions and prejudices are overcome throughout the runtime, until finally there's just this one guy with his very personal bias, based on pain in his life.
Thank you for tackling the classics. A good courtroom drama is "Inherit The Wind". It's based on a stage play about the early teaching of evolution in school. Or "To Kill A Mockingbird". Also "Witness For The Prosecution". Keep taking us on your journey.
I've been hoping you'd get to this one! I am here for any classic content, but the 30s-early 60s, especially. If you decide to continue visiting films from this era, I think you will find it greatly rewarding, and frankly, I would be thrilled. There are so few reactors diving into the movies that laid the framework and broke barriers for all that we love today. Thanks for all you do! 😊
I've been watching classic films because it feels raw. The classics couldn't rely on the digital techniques of today. They focused making the acting, dialog, and subject matter compelling to keep people's attention. Today it's action and filling in details with CGI.
This was originally a 1954 television drama, in the early days of television when there were a lot of anthology series. After this movie version, it was adapted for live theater with productions all over the world, some including women jurors and with different ethnic conflicts highlighted. There was a 1997 made-for-television version with some black jurors, though still all-male. And a Russian film called "12" where the defendant was Chechen. This story is interesting to me because I hung a jury once, 11 guilty, 1 not guilty and I think having seen this was one factor in my holding out.
It takes courage to stand alone, even in the face of popular opinion. There is heroism there in Juror No.8, taking the difficult path for the right reasons. This film is so layered it could be a loaf of bread. Great reaction James.
Your observational skills are incredible. I’ve seen this movie dozens of times and it was such a joy to watch you explore this film and discover all the nuance. Best wishes to you in your future.
I left my story comment on Brandon likes movies video about this one, but quickly that this was played in my classroom on a day we didn’t have a lot to do in my civil studies class. People were being loud and annoying but I tried my best to watch cause I was so invested in this film. Ended up asking to watch it when I got home and rewatched/finished it then, still love it to this day. Everyone should watch this.
THIS HAS TO BE one of the best "reaction videos" ever - because 1) it's an important issue 2) illustrated superbly by this movie 3) reacted to accordingly, with a great deal of appreciation and reflection that helps us appreciate the value of the story - and the artistry and skill involved in conveying that story, that message, so effectively. I FIRST LEARNED OF THIS MOVIE through the author of the Best seller, EASYWAY TO STOP SMOKING - Allen Carr - ... in his book he explained how easy it can be to stop smoking if we apply the 12 ANGRY MEN approach of taking a seemingly impossible situation to turn around, and observe how ONE man can SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROY ALL THE FLAWED ARGUMENTS - AND WITHIN HOURS, what seemed like "obvious fact" (say, that stopping smoking has to be hard and unpleasant) most people can see in an entirely different light - that it's actually an ENJOYABLE experience with no downsides whatsoever. I can;t explain as well as Allen Carr - Otherwise I'D have a best selling book - but it made me want to see the film / movie. I wasn;t disappointed. If you know any smokers who wish they could quit, I cannot recommend his book highly enough. He even turned a blind eye when i told him I'd made 100 or so photocopies of it to give to local people who wasted all their money on smoking - something which never gives them any return - unless you count a constant cough as one of the benefits. He didn't mind one bit. A REALLY good guy - I would LOVE to help carry on his good work, as i'm so grateful he helped me stop chain smoking - just by reading his little book. Amazing really.
This movie was academy award winning. As you probably realize. A good movie doesn’t have to have car chases, different locations or glitz to be a amazing movie. I watched you watch this movie knowing you were going to be blown away. Thanks for your reaction
Another great pick James. This is an amazing film. I love your observation regarding the use of music. Movies these days have a constant flow of music underneath nearly everything, and it all becomes a wash, losing its function to highlight mood. There are exceptions of course... Villeneuve for example.
I'm so glad you enjoyed this so much James! It's one of my top ten ever since I saw it as a teenager and gave me such a love of dialogue-heavy, one-location films such as this. I know that you had to give commentary throughout this but the film will hit you even more on repeated viewings when you'll be able to fully focus on the performances and screenplay - keep up the great work!
Great film, and the 1997 remake with Jack Lemmon, George C Scott, and a slew of ringers is worth a watch as well. Fun fact: so much of what happens in the jury room should’ve caused a mistrial, like the juror bringing in his own knife as evidence.
Yep. It should STILL be shown in every school but not without discussion of what they did wrong had they been on a real jury and EDUCATING kids on what kind of a responsibility it is to sit on a jury and decide the fate of and justice for other people while maintaining your own integrity.
George C. Scott was a great stand-in for Lee J. Cobb, in the cable version. Oddly enough, he also stepped into Cobb's shoes as Lt. Kinderman, in The Exorcist III.
I read an article by a University of Penn teacher named Zachary Hermann titled "Finding What’s True - A cross-disciplinary search for truth and the critical thinking skills students need in order to assess it.” He asked a mathematician, a lawyer, a scientist, and a historian about their methods for finding the truth in their respective fields. I thought the lawyer's answer was interesting. In summation, "the law, when ethically applied, looks for standards of proof." "A guilt that is beyond a reasonable doubt." Innocent until proven guilty can also be translated as false until proven true. I love how this movie does such a great job of upending that by bringing humanity, in all its closed-minded bias and selfish desire, into the mix. Then bringing it back around through the thoughtful application of that same humanity, in all its capacity for empathy and critical thinking. The writing, the direction, the cinematography, the set design, the score, the acting...phenomenal! This is movie-making at its best.
A similar bit different and more current film is “Conspiracy” .. Kenneth Branagh, Stanley tucci and more .. it’s based on actual notes of a secret meeting held by the Germans to decide the “Jewish problem” .. it’s so good because it shows how it really happens, without 100% agreement, from different points, but ruthlessly accurate .. taking place mainly in one room .. it’s a great and horrible film
Agreed. It's a chilling movie with great performances. Shows how people are convinced by appealing to their various interests and roped into accepting what they know is wrong. Definitely worth a watch.
![Ellie’s Choice - Voice Actor Reacts to The Last of Us Part 2 (Blind Playthrough) [2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JsDy8YZ8fyA/mqdefault.jpg)
It is performances like this and many more that made Henry Fonda's casting in Once Upon a Time in the West as a villain so impactful. Just the idea of him as someone villainous was shocking.
So damn cool seeing the history behind these actors!
@@JamesVSCinema Fonda always played the good guy - that Western was the lone exception. So yes it was very shocking to see him play evil.
Comparable to seeing Harrison Ford in "What lies beneath".
Such a great actor. He got an Oscar for the The Grapes of Wrath, which is another incredible film.
@@JamesVSCinema Lee J. Cobb was always great too. He was Johnny Friendly, the union boss in On the Waterfront. 12 Angry Men was Sidney Lumet's directorial debut. Amazing!
Fun Fact. The director moved the walls of the set closer together as the film goes on, to increase the tension in the room.
That’s so damn brilliant!
Also the shoots get closer and closer as the tension gets higher. At the beginning it is room shoots and as it goes on the shoots become close ups
He also slowly raised the camera as the film went on.
Wow never even noticed that but that is a brilliant move! That’s like Kubrick shit.
@@macmcleod1188 'lowered'? starts off fly on the wall type and ends up sitting at the table opposite or square in the face?
My dad made me watch this when I was young. I then had to do jury service at 19 and I'm not going to lie it stayed with me through out the whole process. The decision made in that room affects so many peoples lives and I was so shocked at how little some of the fully fledged adults in that room just did not care. One person was even reading their book almost through out the process. I was the only one who refused to rush it and go through every single incident and make a unanimous decision for each one. I made piles of notes and I think a lot of it was due to this movie. Glad you reacted to this, it's truly brilliant.
Everyone who works in the courts and on this movie wouldve respected you
Good on you.
Respect to the respect and thorough approach to jury duty.
Same as me, It makes you realise how callous and selfish ordinary people around you are to treat somebody's future so lightly. I was also shocked how poor the defence lawyer was, he was like little Lord Fauntleroy doing a school presentation, I could have done better. The case had too little information to go on too. We would have liked answers to some questions but there was no-opportunity to ask anyone. Juries should not be allowed to go home early and disinterested people should be excused. I hear complaints that it is hard to get jurors' yet i never hear of people i know being chosen twice or even once. I would do it again.
HELL yeah, what an incredible film.
No special effects, no brainless punch-fests, no forced romance. Just 12 people in a room arguing, and almost 70 years later it remains an almost flawless, engaging, relevant piece of cinema.
Can tell the passion behind the lens with this one!
@@JamesVSCinema Hope you watch it again very soon without the distraction of having to comment. You will see, hear, and understand much more when you can just sit and be absorbed by this art work as a whole along with the differing elements that make it whole
Not a single woman.
@@zammmerjammer Write to your MP
absolutely spot on, this film could not be made today for all of the reasons you list and we are so much the worse for it.
The old man, to me is the most interesting character. You mentioned all the extreme close ups of him. Remember when he was explaining why the old man who was a prosecution witness might embellish his story to become a crucial witness? He said the man felt inconsequential, that nobody cared about him or what he thought. The attention his testimony received elevated his importance. When his co-jurors asked him how he could know this he just looked down with a sad look on his face, because he himself felt the same way. Notice in the beginning of the film most of the other jurors just dismissed whatever he had to say. So, the extreme closeups highlight the fact that he actually had a lot to contribute. That's my opinion, anyway
Wow, i never knew why he was my fav character! Well-said. Watched this almost 20 years ago, and never could put my finger on it.
he's such an expressive man, with a lot to say. his mannerisms, speech, and facial expressions remind me of William Hartman in Doctor Who.
Spot on.
"Hartman"
fuck is wrong with me, how did i screw that one up
He's also the first one whose name we learn; at the very end; important to him that someone know who he was.
This movie has a compelling plot, terrific dialogue, perfect pacing, wonderful cinematography, and one of the very greatest casts ever assembled in Hollywood. Henry Fonda is a towering figure in film history, and Lee J Cobb (the guy who was shattered about his son) was one of the first great Method actors. But beyond those two, every actor playing a jury member was capable of stealing a scene from a superstar, and most of them did at one time or another. It's really an astonishing group of actors to put into the same room for the course of an entire film.
one of my favorite movies, if not the absolute favorite.
Huge salute to director Sidney Lumet. This was his first feature film.
You can tell this started out as a play, before becoming a teleplay, which is where Henry Fonda saw it and became determined to make it into an actual film. So brilliant, and the cast is absolutely LOADED with incredible character actors.
That's what I came to the comments to say. The things James really loved about it was due to it originally being a play.
It still very much feels like a play. I love that about it.
@@rickardroach9075 exactly, a 1954 CBS 'Studio One' teleplay. And like several others, I saw this in a high school assembly back in the early 70s
The teleplay was first.
Robert Cummings was in the teleplay. A third version starred Jack Lemmon and three of the juniors were black. The junior who was prejudiced against Puerto Ricans was played by a black actor.
This is one of my favorite movies for a few reasons. Cinematically, I love how the heat in that room is almost a character in its own right. You can almost feel the stickiness and humidity and how it wears people down. The rain sounds refreshing by contrast. These actors mastered even the little nuances of their roles to seem absolutely authentic. You don't even question their authenticity. The dialogue is masterful and keeps you riveted. People seem to avoid meaningful dialogue in today's film in preference for action scenes but this is a master class on the importance of good dialogue and how it can be its own form of action. You mentioned the music. The music here is used perfectly to underscore the essence of the scene and the silence is used for the same reason.
I love how these 12 men seemed so ordinary. None of them were super attractive or overplayed their roles. They were so ordinary; people we have all seen or heard in real life. These men are people we see everyday. I also love how we saw examples of how adults should react. The childish men weren't normalized the way we normalize them today. The adults were exhibiting a higher standard for how we should behave, debate, and reason. How often do we see grown men acting the way a grown mature man should act? We can see how these adult mature men gain respect and how the childish men lose it. The childish reasoning made by the childish men could be heard today almost verbatim. Despite being made in 1957, it still has so much relevance today with one exception. In 1957, maturity was a standard to aspire to. That has disappeared today. This movie is about a jury deliberation but it's also a movie about life, about justice, about prejudices, about reason, about the ideals we are supposed to uphold, and about maturity and respect. This movie grabs you from the first minute and pulls you deeper into it with every passing minute.
very well said.
I can feel you.
and as they left the jury room, the two "adversaries" were left and the "good guy" (in white, no less) helped the "bad guy" put on his jacket (black, lol) as a motion of respect. *chef kiss*
Today's jury deliberation would spend the first half hour sorting out pronouns. Discussion of the case would take hours because they'd need a break every time someone was triggered. Debate would be attempted but someone would toss out their "Me Too" or "Racism" trump card which ends all discussion.
@@msdarby515 wow, you've managed to miss the point on a truly epic scale. Hell, you sound like J. Lee Cobb at the start of the film talking about the need to "slap down the troublemakers."
This is a masterwork in character portrayal. Each of these actors has a vivid personality that really shines through because of their acting. One of my personal all time favorites across all genres.
Also great writing, giving each character at least one moment to shine. Not an easy thing, with twelve people on set.
I love how you stated that this movie needs to be played today. That’s the beauty of what you and others do as reactors . You open these film up to new audiences who were unaware of their greatness.
There is a remake from 1997 with Jack Lemmon, but it's not really on the same as this version.
This used to be shown to school kids (junior/high school) - a clinic in critical thinking. I remember the day we watched it and realizing I had some mad bigots in my family.
YES, I saw this in school as well. Must have been either freshman or sophmore year.
I forget what class but came to agree, I saw this in highschool. (Late 2010s)
My middle school engineering teacher put this movie on for one of those days where they have nothing to teach. Kind of amazing that I was so young but have always remembered and loved this movie since.
It made me realize how much people believe an eye witness- though witnesses have been shown to be terrible at recalling exact events.
Yup! I seen it in school. It intrigued me to practice critical thinking often, it’s needed more than ever.
One of my favorites is the "logic and evidence" guy who never sweats. Whenever the logic of something was pointed out, he always changed and went with whatever made sense, no matter what he had said before. But when it was pointed out, like the glasses, you could tell he was disappointed with himself. He thought he was so logical and rational, and he was about to send someone to their death without realizing all the facts. Really every single person in this jury exists within all of us - like all of the influences, prejudices, and emotions pushing at us, within every single person.
Yes, he comes across as Mr. Reasonable on steroids, but he really does come to the case with plenty of prejudices that he's unconscious of. At least as I see it, these are: a belief that the lower classes are just irrational and prone to violence by nature (a less virulent form than 10 for sure), the police and the judicial system are fair and aboveboard, people make sense and aren't driven by emotions. His basic personality problems are smugness and a lack of empathy. He's not a bad guy, per se, but he thinks too much of himself, too little of others, and when the old man--whom he thinks beneath him--nails him on the glasses, he's truly mortified because he realizes that he's far more limited than he believed. And I really agree with you that there's an element of all the characters, even the rotten ones, in all of us. Maybe that's what keeps it so compelling to watch again and again.
@@nicholasschroeder3678 Well said!
@@nicholasschroeder3678"a belief that the lower classes are just irrational and prone to violence by nature..."
Is it when his statement that slum-dwellers are more prone to crime and violence that leaves that impression for you?
@@tapan97 Well, yes, sure. But it's not only that. It's his overall epistemology about the case. The things that initially troubled 8, don't trouble him; they don't even occur to him. Living in a slum, using weapons, abusive fathers, police interrogations, appointed public defenders, unreliable witnesses--all these things are alien to his experience. He believes that the system works fairly and objectively, so he accepts the evidence as presented as so many solid facts to be rationally analyzed. He gives no credence to the idea that a kid might run away from a violent dad to the movies just for a respite, that the police did intimate and rough him up, that he'd be too rattled in the middle of the night with his murdered father lying there to think straight, that public defenders can be indifferent and incompetent, that witnesses can extraneously motivated; no, for him the kid doing it fits into his worldview, as does the idea that all the authorities acted objectively. His problem is his insulation from the world's harsher realities, which have never intruded on his life. He follows all the laws and social rules of society--4 and 10 rankle him with their impolite behavior--and kids running around in the dead of night just have to be bad. He can't conceive of conditions where people by necessity operate differently. It's like the assumption people make that if the police stopped someone, then they must have been up to no good, and the deadly confrontation that followed must have somehow been their own fault. He's just fundamentally oriented against the boy from the outset because of his class privileges.
@@nicholasschroeder3678 no I get all of that (and in fact find it to be quite insightful and correct). I am only asking about what led you to believe the part I quoted, namely his prejudice toward lower class people.
This is probably one of the best movies ever made.
For sure definitely up there
As a scriptwriter, I think, this is one of my most favourite movies of all time. It touches my heartstrings in so many ways... I am happy you can enjoy and appreciate it as much as I do. Thank you for keeping this beaut alive.
It's interesting that you mention this not exactly being a "tale of heroism" because on some level I always felt like it is - just a different sort of heroism. It's the heroism of of fighting for decency, thoughtfulness, and rationality, even when the odds are stacked against you. Few things in the world more heroic than that.
Solid note!!
@@JamesVSCinema honestly I think it works so well for both reasons, that it is a subtle tale of "heroism", the main juror isn't some brave, special man whos standing up to the evils of the world to overblown extents, he's just one man who thought of doing one very simple thing "he just wanted to talk about it more". he himself wasn't even sure if he was guilty or not he just didn't want to decide a verdict/on a man's life in a matter of seconds (it's nothing drastically bold, it's something any person would/could have felt) and that little act does show greater heroism/human condition and was the thing that stopped a innocent man from dying. one little act making a world of difference
Sometimes picking a hill and being willing to stand alone on it, makes you the hero :)
And to the young man who wasn’t executed, the act of one juror asking questions was heroic.
YES!!! It's about moral courage, which I think is rarer than physical courage.
I love how this movie was written, not just the characters but the dialogue too. We are just dropped in this situation without knowing anything, I was feeling very confused, how are we, the audience, supposed to know if the characters are right or wrong if we missed the trial? But because I didn't know anything I paid extreme attention to each word the characters said, and because we aren't shown the trial we are completely unbiased when the characters start discussing the evidence. The little I could grasp from each character just made me want to know each of them more which is funny cause they are all meant to be normal everyday people, but knowing so little, not even their names, made their characterization stand out that much more to me.
oh man James I'm absolutely stoked you're watching this! In my opinion, this is still an absolute gold standard for crafting compelling and dynamic conflict using dialogue and cinematography.
Brilliantly said David!
I agree, amazing movie.
Reading so many comments that are so knowledgeable and almost poetic I do feel a bit shy to speak my piece but I will say I saw this film on a classic movie channel as a teenager. I was amazed because I didnt know such art existed. I am always so grateful for my old soul and the patience I've had for particular books, movies, etc. Great reaction James 😊 so happy you enjoyed and love that you also have patience for such films. 🙏🏽
Juror 4 (glasses), is my favorite, though I don't really identify with him completely. He's principled throughout the film, he clearly states what evidence he believes, and when that evidence is called in to question he changes his vote.
I couldn’t agree more. He even consistently talks down or even chastises the men who are “on his side” when they start getting nasty. He also has two of my favorite lines in the movie, that being “he did an excellent job” and finally telling juror 10 to sit down and keep his mouth shut.
Love him too, but he's also smug and lacks empathy, which is what blinds him to all the human motivations that enter into the evidence that he evaluates like stock quotes. When HIS lack of vision is exposed by the old man, he's absolutely mortified. He realizes he's not the avatar of objectivity he thought he was; his "inferior," the old man, is far more intelligent about people than he is.
E.G.Marshal..played a defense lawyer with his son..in The Defenders..about 1961..or so.
Every actor was great outside of this movie..a lot of stage work or independent productions..some big movies like On the Waterfront..or their own show..like Jack Klugman with The Odd Couple and Quincy, M.E…the summer head cold guy..well respected actor..saw him last in a Clint Eastwood film..Hang ‘Em High..1968..juror number 12..played in a Pink Panther movie..the one with Dyan Cannon..Jack Warden..baseball tickets…last saw him with Sandra Bullock…While You Were Sleeping..I’m sure every actor was picked for what he brought to the part..the foreman..played with Paul Newman in Hombre and with Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany’s…as a movie producer..great cast..
See to me, he is the worst of all of them. The other bigots were obvious but juror 4 hides his bigotry behind a thin veil of rationality (which, if analyzed, is actually irrational). His prejudice is given away by comments like “it’s no secret that children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society”. He completely disregarded and discounted the mounting evidence against guilt and refused to change his opinion even when it became completely untenable. He was not rational, did not properly weigh the arguments against guilt but gave the impression that he was doing so. It was only when the evidence affected him personally (the glasses) that he changed his mind. I think he is the best (and worst) character because it’s that kind of bigotry which is most prevalent in America today. You see it everywhere - people claiming that their prejudice is rational (facts over feelings) and only changing their views when they are personally affected by things (eg, conservatives who think homosexuality is immoral until a family member they love comes out, etc). He’s a brilliant but terrible character, because he was not an obvious antagonist like the other two, but he was the most formidable antagonist and is the type of person who perpetuates the bigotry we see in society today, may not even realise it and thinks that he’s being entirely reasonable the whole time.
There is an interesting sequence regarding Jack Warden's character, Juror #7 (the sports fan with the baseball tickets). At first he's as certain as anyone that the kid is guilty. But if you watch him, as the arguments progress, he's seen listening to everyone. He starts asking questions and is *listening* to the answers, not just rejecting them out of hand like Lee J. Cobb (Juror #3, the "rotten kids" guy) or Ed Begley (Juror #10, the racist) is doing. And during the scene where Jack Klugman (Juror #5, the guy who grew up in the slum) is talking about how you properly handle a switchblade knife, he's got this look on his face like he just realized something. Like a lightbulb went off in his brain.
A lot of people think his changing his vote came out of nowhere, but if you pay attention to his character, you realize that no... he's been convinced that the kid is not guilty over the entire length of the film up until that point.
I saw this film about 40 years ago and it’s still in my top 20 films and I’ve seen a lot of films. It really opened my eyes as a teenager and helped me to decide the kind of person I wanted to be and how to think for myself. It should be required viewing at school. A more perfect microcosm of society cannot be found, not in terms of race, age or gender but a great cross section of how people think and are, even today.
It was a stage play first. Sitting in a live theatre and hearing people audibly gasp is amazing.
I can’t wait for M and Rear Window, two of my personal favorite “old” movies
I second your wish, especially for M which shows one of the best "court" scenes ever put on film (but sooo different to this film).
Personally my favorite old movie is Birdman of Alcatraz
The last "angry, old man" standing, from whom all the others turn their backs (not the one who has issues with his son), is Ed Begley, Sr. - Ed Begley, Jr.'s father.
What an incredible cast!
The room shrinks through the film as the tension builds.
I did not know this! Word!!
@@JamesVSCinema it’s such an awesome, clever, subtle brilliant film.
@@JamesVSCinema not so much the room shrinks, as it starts with wide angles, above eye level, and gradually goes down, and in (like the knife) until, at the end, you're looking at closeups, with the actor's face filling the entire screen, and looking up at the actor, which serves to increase the feeling of tension, and claustrophobia. Until the final shot, which is a wide angle again, letting the viewer breathe once again.
On a slightly different note, the actors in this are real heavyweights. The racist juror #10 going on his tirade, with everyone (including #3) turning away from him, until he realises what he's done, and has to sit down, a broken man, at a separate table - brilliantly done. Lee J. Cobb as juror #3 is nothing short of genius, and juror #11, an immigrant, extolling the virtues of a jury trial system is a powerful message for 1957.
The ethnicity of the defendant is also intentionally ambiguous - he could just as well be Jewish, Italian, Hispanic, etc.
And to think this was a directorial debut for director Sydney Lumet...
The writer wrote 12 different and distinct personalities with their own distinct backstories.
The performances are all top notch.
"On the Waterfront" is another GREAT black and white film. Oscar winner for Best Picture, Director, Screenplay, Actor, and more. Marlon Brando is in peak form, but with other great performances, especially from Rod Stieger, Lee J Cobb (the last hold out juror in this movie), Karl Malden, and Eva Marie Saint. Really, one of the best movies to ever come out of Hollywood before 1960. A must see.
Agree. There are like 12 reactions to 12 angry men. Yes with "on the waterfront" but how about some of classic James cagney. He was one of the best. "The roaring 20's", "Angel's with dirty faces", "white heat" great stuff and no one reacts to those or any names cagney. Argument for greatest actor of the first 70 or 80 yrs of the 2pth century or ever
While it isn't a great movie from start to finish, it is necessary to watch this if you truly want to understand modern acting. In the backseat of that car, you can literally see the entire world of acting and film transition to a new era.
Agree. "On the Waterfront" is one of those movies that's so good, it's almost impossible to comprehend. (Not to mention that it's the movie that marks the dividing line between the old acting style and modern, natural acting as it flowed from Elia Kazan and Brando and the Actor's Studio.)
Marlon Brando changed on screen Acting forever after that movie. Can’t keep your eyes off the screen. It’s great
Oh and the man who shot Liberty valance is a compelling look at relationships and truth/fiction
This is one of my favorite movies. Top tier! I saw it first as a kid .. 70's or 80's. It never gets old.
Dialogues, camera work, performances, it's one of the best movies ever made. Masterpiece.
When christmas comes you HAVE to watch "It's a wonderful life". That's one of the best movies ever.
I remember watching this in middle school and my entire class loved it!
That’s so damn awesome! Wow, middle school!
@@JamesVSCinema Oh yeah! We watched it then had a pretty long discussion about it. Had to take notes and everything
Same for my middle school class too
Same here.
sounds like you had some good teachers
Did you notice that none of the characters' names were used until the very end, when one juror reveals his name to another? The names of the other jurors, the defendant, the judge, and all the bit characters are never given.
There was a Russian remake in 2007 called "12". The plot is almost identical, with the exception that the accused is Chechen.
Loved your reaction to this one. If I'm asked, this film always makes my personal top ten list. An entire movie that takes place in a single set, containing only dialogue, but which is absolutely gripping throughout. It's a master class in filmmaking, with a compelling and important story and message. Not to mention the incredible acting from the entire cast. Lee J. Cobb's performance (not his character) is SO good, it's easy to forget that he's acting!
I DO think there's one "heroic moment" in the movie- it's where everyone stands up to distance themselves from the unhinged racist.
Look at the camera's height there- it's raised up- as though it's waiting for these men to rise up as their better selves.
It's subtle and masterful.
It's like WE are there hoping they'll make the right decision!
And just when you think not all of them have risen to the challenge, that the racist will find agreement in juror 4.... that verbal backhand just to signal him he's gone way too far.
Even the camera pulls back to a wide shot showing all 12 jurors.
Another moment was after restraining J#3 (Lee J. Cobb) they all line up looking at him.
@@johannesvalterdivizzini1523 Yeah- the whole movie remains a masterpiece. So many subtle character moments in addition to the story, direction and cinematography.
I love how at the end the old man finally introduced himself. Because threw the whole film not one of them had said there name. They were all strangers with different believes and agendas.
Avengers : we need multiple universe and million of dollars to create a good movie
12 angry men : just give me a room and dozen of brilliant actors to create a masterpiece
Love that you enjoyed and appreciated this film! It's a classic. Movies like this are referred to as "bottle films" - they're set in a single location. There are some classic ones like Reservoir Dogs, Hateful 8, Rear Window, etc. What I love about them, as a former film student and short filmmaker, is that it shows all you need to make a great film is good writing, camera work, and a few good actors. It makes filmmaking seem more accessible than the over-the-top action, superhero movies we get inundated with.
Exactly. Well said my friend!
I'd put Key Largo with Humphrey Bogart up there with the best bottle films too. Such a masterpiece in tension.
Man from Earth falls into that category as well, maybe not as polished a film as those but certainly similar energy.
@Darkstar That's a different kind of bottle film; it's where you all need a bottle of whisky to get through it.
Reservoir dogs doesn't really count it has flashback scenes that take place in different locations
Sidney Lumet is one of the best directors of all time. He has such a matter of fact style that it's really easy to miss him. No extravagant stylistic excesses. Just perfect execution in a way that perfectly serves the story. I can never decide if I like this or Network the most, but they're both among my absolute favourites.
Yes, bravo! Lumet was an amazing filmmaker.
I wish they'd play this movie for all juries, in a way. And when nothing else is on on Court TV and the like when there's a big court case going. A hell of a lot of people NEED to see it and actually pay attention. This movie changed how I viewed court cases.
You can't just "want" someone to be guilty because you think they're guilty based on what the news has told you and you can't just "want" someone to be guilty because you don't like that person or what you think they did. And I see way, way too many people nowadays during big court cases who think EXACTLY like that, the majority of whom don't actually watch or keep up with the court case outside of clips on the news, who aren't going to give you all the details or have a biased slant, no matter what source you're watching or reading.
It doesn't even have to be a big case in the news. I was on a jury in a case of repeated child molestation. We deadlocked and I personally believe a man who molested his stepdaughter for years went free because people valued skin color and ethnicity over the involvement of police, and rather than weighing evidence including the accused mans own testimony decided that because the victim had expressed an interest in acting that NOTHING she said could be believed. It wasn't a case ANYBODY had read about or seen on TV - but it's those sorts of cases that are being tried every day, every week, year in year out. The big media show trials are poisonous to the proper working of the rest of our justice system that DOESN'T show up on TV.
Considering what's happening with Kyle Rittenhouse, people really need to watch movies like this and be reminded of their civic responsibilities.
@@mortimerbrewster3671 That's definitely the case I was hinting at there, but it's so controversial at the moment that I didn't really want to start an argument with people who haven't watched the whole court case, or even the video evidence, because WAAAAAYY too many people want him to be jailed for life based *purely* on what the news has told them. Or just because of his skin color. Which I've had multiple people tell me. And that's baffling to me because they don't see that as racism. They legitimately don't think they're being prejudiced by wanting someone jailed because of their skin color. It's like I slipped into an alternate dimension. Or becaue they just don't like what he did, regardless of if what he did was legal. They would rather a 17 year old died. That's just.. jesus. Anyway.
Everytime I talk about the case I have to correct people's information so often that it's scary. So many people want an 18 year old to go to jail without even knowing any information at all and it's upsetting and weird. They all need to watch something like this. It's hard to remove your bias in things like this, but when it comes to our justice system, you HAVE TO, or we don't HAVE a justice system at all.
@@duanevp Yeah I think the big "media" ones are poisonous to the rest of our justice system and our society in general. The news won't tell you everything (as an example, recently most big news channels only showed the prosecutions closing statements for a big case, but not the defenses). They give out wrong information, biased information, half the information but not the other half, add their own opinions to it, and bam, if a trial doesn't go the way the media has been portraying it, we have riots and an entire town or city gets destroyed. Or on the other hand, the jury doesn't want their town destroyed knowing there will be a riot so they're intimidated into not following their mind and heart truthfully.
The whole thing reeks and it's having a really bad effect on our society in general and our justice system.
@@LadyBeyondTheWall -The media is more than just poisonous, they can be lethal. MSNBC allegedly had someone following the Jury bus to find out where they were staying when sequestered. Based on every article they have published on the case, if true, I believe it was for jury intimidation.
Juror #7: "You a Yankee fan?"
Juror #5: "No, Baltimore."
Juror #7: "Baltimore? That's like being hit in the head with a crowbar once a day."
(As an Orioles fan, I sadly have to agree with this exchange.)
12 Angry Men has some of the best dialogue ever put to celluloid.
"I was expecting a good film."
See that's the thing, this isn't a good film, it's a great film!
I watched this for the first time about 2 years ago. I have to say it's in my all time top 10 films. Probably quite high up in it as well. Such a brilliant script and really well acted.
High quality all around!
The outstanding acting and the insanely engaging camera work turned a already impeccably written script into an absolute masterpiece.
This has just popped up in my notifications and it's an immediate watch. One of the best goddamn films ever made.
Clicked REALLY fast on this one. One of my favorite films ever. It's brilliant and very important, not just technically as film in terms of cinematography, acting, etc. but in what it has to say. It's been remade many times in different settings, but even the version with George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon in the lead roles doesn't quite have the impact that the original does here. I re-watch it every once in a while simply because it's so well-made it's an enjoyment to just watch it.
Almost every film in 50s and 60s had at least one of these actors in. A great cast
The old man who was so attached to the guilty verdict really demonstrates a failure to listen and a resistance to change merely on the basis of refusing to humble oneself by admitting “I was wrong”
The Sports guy has always stuck with me since seeing this film many years ago. I have encountered and I'm sure anyone reading this has too, the guy who doesn't care about politics or whats going on at the local school, but can tell you the top draft picks for the local team.
Like this one blew me away as a kid and it still does to this day. This is truly one of the best pieces of media I've ever seen. It's phenomenal on every level.
this is the first movie i saw as a kid that made me realize what good writing could do because they never leave that room but every second is so interesting and filled with tension and suspense.
Which makes it all so damn good.
Lee J Cobb was brilliant in his portrayal of number 3 juror, a bigoted, angry middle aged man, who seemed to be nursing a deep emotional wound because his teenage son had walked out on him. His character was diametrically opposed to juror number 4, the clear thinking and unemotional stockbroker, who remained composed throughout the entire time, but also who actually listened calmly to the evidence and assembled logical and rational reasons as to why he thought the defendant was guilty. When there was an overwhelming evidence of doubt, then he changed his verdict to not guilty. Juror number 4 was played by the unflappable and impeccably spoken E G Marshall.
Thank you for reacting to my favorite film. I’ve always tried to get other people to watch, it’s such a beautiful piece of art that shines a light on multiple layers of humanity. Far too often it get’s overlooked, but it always speaks to our biases and how are outlook is shaped by our background and experiences.
YES! My all-time favorite film! This may appear on the surface like a typical old talkie movie, but I would argue it is the greatest study on prejudice ever, while still being an extremely tense and entertaining film. I always love seeing people experience it for the first time.
Today people make their judgement with snippets of information they might have received watching a one minute biased news story.
Good review. I have watched this film more times than I can remember and yet never picked up on the ad man’s floor plan reaction. Thanks.
One of my favorite films ever made. A great factor they used in this movie was the heat factor. When one of the characters say "Today is going to be the hottest day of the year." It may not seem important but the heat comes into play by elevating their anger which increases the tension. So well done!
This is deff one of my faves! So glad you're watching these movies not everyone reacts to!
Thanks for the awesome videos 💕
This movie is timeless.
It is a very important American film. It's about being a responsible citizen. How we as common men, can be part of our justice system.
This and Lifeboat have been my go to as examples of storytelling with limitations. Dialog as art unto itself
Lifeboat. Yes
My high school civics teacher made us watch this film. Many years later I was on a jury for a tax case where the gov't had acted really shady to prosecute this old couple. After first vote it was 10-2 in favor of guilt. Over 3 days of brutal deliberations me and the other not guilty voter shifted the other 10. I didn't make many friends on that jury but yeah...felt like I took the responsibility seriously. I thought of this film afterwards and was thankful the stakes were a lot less than someone's life. Still, everyone should see 12 Angry Men in case you ever end up on a jury....and it's just a perfect film
That’s awesome to hear for real!
One of my all time favourites, it was actually one of the most engaging first viewings I've ever experienced!
A great movie that you should watch is "Anatomy of a Murder." A story about a small town murder trial with a small town lawyer, played by Jimmy Stewart, trying to get his obviously guilty client off. Somewhat cynical masterpiece.
And more courtroom drama: Witness for the Prosecution (1957).
And 'Town without Pity' with Kirk Douglas.
Please refer some more. I am tired of modern movies
This is my favorite movie of all time - I love that you're reacting to it!
Still want to say to the angry Juror - 'here's 20 bucks, find a pay phone, make some calls, track down your son, say you want to meet for lunch, talk to him.'
Great movie! The cast is loaded with strong character actors. There is so much happening in every scene, easily worth rewatching.
Had to watch this during a summer school class in college. I should go back and hug that professor! 💚
I’ve only seen this movie once, maybe twice, but its explanation of “innocent until proven guilty” has always stayed vividly with me. I’ve especially remembered it when waiting to see if I’ll get picked for jury duty, but I also think of it when I see hot takes about the news or politics online.
I’ve seen this classic a number of times n the biggest thing that stands out now is the glaring difference of these people ‘s ability to express their thoughts and the ability of others to comprehend the thoughts and respond w words n not extreme emotions. Like an adult to a child “use your words”
If you are doing more older films, I highly recommend the 1961 film The Hustler staring Paul Newman, Jackie Gleason, George C. Scott, and Piper Laurie. It's in my top 5 all time and a great example of character development.
Agreed, that is a classic film.
I suggest On the Waterfront...You don't understand! I could have been somebody, I could have had class! Instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it
Oh man... A newspaper in a jury room? No way...!
It was a great Best Picture competition that year, between the "small film" 12 Angry Men and the "big spectacle" Bridge on the River Kwai. The other nominees for that year are good too, but these two are among my favorite films of all time. Kwai won, BTW.
That has to be like choosing between The Beatles and Elvis Presley.
In my personal opinion, 12 Angry Men literally the most perfect film ever made. Everything about it from the performances, direction, writing, cinematography, is absolutely pitch perfect.
It should come as no surprise that the film is actually this good. A fantastic cast and it was directed by Sidney Lumet the director of Serpico, Network, AND Dog Day Afternoon-- which was the GREATEST acting of Al Pacino's entire life by a mile.
I think the brilliance of this script is that each of us can identify with the expressions of multiple characters.
This film is a masterpiece, and I am so glad my father introduced me to it years ago. It is the very definition of a classic, an example of good writing and a great exercise on critical thinking. I hope it stays with every one of you, and I hope you can all share it with friends and family.
My Dad was the one who showed it to me too.
I can’t lie, I really appreciate your assessment of the film much more than any other reactors. Most just ramble while a movie plays but you actually have something to say. Thank you, and keep it going brother.
This is my favourite film, so this was really a nice surprise
Happy to hear :)
Ever since I've found your channel and gotten to know your style a bit, I knew this would be a movie you would REALLY appreciate.
I was 8 when this film was released. I probably first saw it on TV a few years later. I was so inspired by the veracity of the portrayals that I began acting in high school dramas. (Coincidentally, I played the foreman in a jury drama as a HS senior.) I can't remember seeing any film that has been better crafted logically, artistically, or cinematically.
This is one of those classic films that ages like fine wine.
I like how different assuptions and prejudices are overcome throughout the runtime, until finally there's just this one guy with his very personal bias, based on pain in his life.
Thank you for tackling the classics. A good courtroom drama is "Inherit The Wind". It's based on a stage play about the early teaching of evolution in school. Or "To Kill A Mockingbird". Also "Witness For The Prosecution". Keep taking us on your journey.
Always brother! Happy to have a look into them!
To kill a mockingbird is one of my all time favourite films (and book)
Inherit the Wind is another masterpiece. Excellent films listed!
There are NO current actors working today that could make this movie what it is... A technical, acting, directing and writing masterpiece!!!!
I've been hoping you'd get to this one! I am here for any classic content, but the 30s-early 60s, especially. If you decide to continue visiting films from this era, I think you will find it greatly rewarding, and frankly, I would be thrilled. There are so few reactors diving into the movies that laid the framework and broke barriers for all that we love today. Thanks for all you do! 😊
I've been watching classic films because it feels raw. The classics couldn't rely on the digital techniques of today. They focused making the acting, dialog, and subject matter compelling to keep people's attention. Today it's action and filling in details with CGI.
This was originally a 1954 television drama, in the early days of television when there were a lot of anthology series. After this movie version, it was adapted for live theater with productions all over the world, some including women jurors and with different ethnic conflicts highlighted. There was a 1997 made-for-television version with some black jurors, though still all-male. And a Russian film called "12" where the defendant was Chechen. This story is interesting to me because I hung a jury once, 11 guilty, 1 not guilty and I think having seen this was one factor in my holding out.
It takes courage to stand alone, even in the face of popular opinion. There is heroism there in Juror No.8, taking the difficult path for the right reasons.
This film is so layered it could be a loaf of bread. Great reaction James.
Next you need to take a look at Lumet’s 1964 film ‘Fail Safe’ (also starring Henry Fonda) and then compare it with Kubrick’s ‘Doctor Strangelove’
Your observational skills are incredible. I’ve seen this movie dozens of times and it was such a joy to watch you explore this film and discover all the nuance. Best wishes to you in your future.
This one of the (very) few movies that is actually a 10.
I left my story comment on Brandon likes movies video about this one, but quickly that this was played in my classroom on a day we didn’t have a lot to do in my civil studies class. People were being loud and annoying but I tried my best to watch cause I was so invested in this film. Ended up asking to watch it when I got home and rewatched/finished it then, still love it to this day. Everyone should watch this.
High school kids being loud and annoying during intelligently written films is something I have too much experience with. 🙄
THIS HAS TO BE one of the best "reaction videos" ever - because 1) it's an important issue 2) illustrated superbly by this movie 3) reacted to accordingly, with a great deal of appreciation and reflection that helps us appreciate the value of the story - and the artistry and skill involved in conveying that story, that message, so effectively. I FIRST LEARNED OF THIS MOVIE through the author of the Best seller, EASYWAY TO STOP SMOKING - Allen Carr - ... in his book he explained how easy it can be to stop smoking if we apply the 12 ANGRY MEN approach of taking a seemingly impossible situation to turn around, and observe how ONE man can SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROY ALL THE FLAWED ARGUMENTS - AND WITHIN HOURS, what seemed like "obvious fact" (say, that stopping smoking has to be hard and unpleasant) most people can see in an entirely different light - that it's actually an ENJOYABLE experience with no downsides whatsoever.
I can;t explain as well as Allen Carr - Otherwise I'D have a best selling book - but it made me want to see the film / movie. I wasn;t disappointed. If you know any smokers who wish they could quit, I cannot recommend his book highly enough. He even turned a blind eye when i told him I'd made 100 or so photocopies of it to give to local people who wasted all their money on smoking - something which never gives them any return - unless you count a constant cough as one of the benefits. He didn't mind one bit. A REALLY good guy - I would LOVE to help carry on his good work, as i'm so grateful he helped me stop chain smoking - just by reading his little book. Amazing really.
This movie was academy award winning. As you probably realize. A good movie doesn’t have to have car chases, different locations or glitz to be a amazing movie. I watched you watch this movie knowing you were going to be blown away. Thanks for your reaction
Another great pick James. This is an amazing film. I love your observation regarding the use of music. Movies these days have a constant flow of music underneath nearly everything, and it all becomes a wash, losing its function to highlight mood. There are exceptions of course... Villeneuve for example.
I'm so glad you enjoyed this so much James! It's one of my top ten ever since I saw it as a teenager and gave me such a love of dialogue-heavy, one-location films such as this. I know that you had to give commentary throughout this but the film will hit you even more on repeated viewings when you'll be able to fully focus on the performances and screenplay - keep up the great work!
I've thought about seeing this movie for years, but haven't gotten around to it.
Thank you for providing the opportunity!
Hey man, love your videos and reactions and your insight on filmmaking. Keep up the good work!
Great film, and the 1997 remake with Jack Lemmon, George C Scott, and a slew of ringers is worth a watch as well.
Fun fact: so much of what happens in the jury room should’ve caused a mistrial, like the juror bringing in his own knife as evidence.
Yep. It should STILL be shown in every school but not without discussion of what they did wrong had they been on a real jury and EDUCATING kids on what kind of a responsibility it is to sit on a jury and decide the fate of and justice for other people while maintaining your own integrity.
James Gandolfini as 6.
George C. Scott was a great stand-in for Lee J. Cobb, in the cable version. Oddly enough, he also stepped into Cobb's shoes as Lt. Kinderman, in The Exorcist III.
imagine someone trying to get a big ass knife like that into a court house to make a point now, lol
I read an article by a University of Penn teacher named Zachary Hermann titled "Finding What’s True - A cross-disciplinary search for truth and the critical thinking skills students need in order to assess it.” He asked a mathematician, a lawyer, a scientist, and a historian about their methods for finding the truth in their respective fields. I thought the lawyer's answer was interesting. In summation, "the law, when ethically applied, looks for standards of proof." "A guilt that is beyond a reasonable doubt." Innocent until proven guilty can also be translated as false until proven true. I love how this movie does such a great job of upending that by bringing humanity, in all its closed-minded bias and selfish desire, into the mix. Then bringing it back around through the thoughtful application of that same humanity, in all its capacity for empathy and critical thinking. The writing, the direction, the cinematography, the set design, the score, the acting...phenomenal! This is movie-making at its best.
A similar bit different and more current film is “Conspiracy” .. Kenneth Branagh, Stanley tucci and more .. it’s based on actual notes of a secret meeting held by the Germans to decide the “Jewish problem” .. it’s so good because it shows how it really happens, without 100% agreement, from different points, but ruthlessly accurate .. taking place mainly in one room .. it’s a great and horrible film
Agreed. It's a chilling movie with great performances. Shows how people are convinced by appealing to their various interests and roped into accepting what they know is wrong. Definitely worth a watch.
its a remake of a much better german film but yes it is very similar.