The final juror's switch from not guilty to guilty was so emotional. You kind of hated the guy the whole film, but once he tears up that picture and breaks down in tears saying 'not guilty' its a very emotional moment. Brings me to tears every time.
It's the moment he has the terrible epiphany that he's been using the boy on trial as a proxy for his son; that his rage over this has been clouding his judgment. Even though it was gradually made obvious to the other jurers, he was the last to face it for what it was.
Because he see himself and his son in theirs place. He see attack on boy's father same his son attacked him, blame him for all wrongdoings, not being able to admit his own fault for the way he treated him. There is seed of hope in his breakage. First step, maybe, to resolve things with his own son.
"Gentlemen, that's a very sad thing... to be nothing." Fun Fact: Feature directorial debut of Sidney Lumet. Hot Take Fact: Shot in a total of 365 separate takes. However because of the painstaking rehearsals for the film lasted an exhausting two weeks, filming was completed in 21 days. Method Director Fact: Sidney Lumet had the actors all stay in the same room for several hours on end and do their lines over and over without filming them. This was to give them a real taste of what it would be like to be cooped up in a room with the same people. The Quest For Real Time Fact: Once the jurors are sequestered the film proceeds in real time. About halfway through they establish that it's 6 o'clock. They reach their verdict in another 45 minutes. This would leave plenty of time for Jack Warden's juror character to still make the 8 o'clock ball game.
A really good reaction. This movie is just a masterpiece. No expensive special effects. No wonderful and colorful visual locations. No flash. Just excellent writing and acting carrying the movie.
@@MrValentineReacts I write this to You to bring You Eternal Hope from far away."The Rapture"- is A Truly Real Future Biblical Christian Worldwide Event in which Millions of Living True Christian Believers shall be "Transported" into Heaven to meet The Creator Of The World/The Maker Of The World/The Lord Himself and they shall be with him Forever and ever.Also in addition to "The Rapture" another Truly Real Future Biblical Christian Worldwide Event called "The First Resurrection" will also take place,which will "Resurrect" All-Dead True Christian Believers and will also "Transport" them into Heaven to meet The Creator Of The World/The Maker Of The World/The Lord Himself and they shall be with him Forever and ever! "The Rapture" collects All-Living True Christian Believers,while " The First Resurrection" collects All-Dead True Christian Believers.The Dead True Christian Believers shall rise first and then both:The Dead and The Living True Christian Believers shall Together be Transported into Heaven to be Together with The Christian God and to be Rewarded accordingly by The Christian God! This is not a joke.I have seen "The Signs" and these words are "True and Correct".Remember!Jesus Christ said:“You don’t have to wait for the End.I am right now,Resurrection and Life.The one who believes in me,even though he or she dies,will live.And everyone who lives believing in me does not ultimately die at all.Do you believe this?”
@MrValentineReacts AS a new subscriber to your channel after watching this reaction. I can guarantee you that you will rewatch it many more times in your lifetime. I'll be turning 59 at the end of October~I saw it the first time in my preteens. I have lost count how many times I've actually seen it. But I make it a point before subscribing to see if a reactor has watched it yet. Not many will get involved in older films much less black and white. It is one of my litmus tests I go by along with a few others when it comes to drama; and especially court centered films. My sideline is that I'm an International prisoner AND human rights advocate for almost 40 years. I deal wity every level of the system from my juveniles to my people on Death Row and political prisoners. This case is set in the NYS Superior Court and we no longer have the death penalty thankfully. But we are giving out Life sentences to our 16 yr old. We recently within the last few years after decades of a fight have made progress. They're not housed with the adults UNTIL they're 18. Yeah, we used to put them in with the adults. Mental health us changing but of course not as swiftly as it should. So I do spend a lot of time talking with families post suicides. All about "Cost cutting meds" and all instead of keeping the same as outside meds, don't you know. It took losing my boy Kalief Browder to really tear part of the bandage off of Rikers~he was one of my juveniles. I'm going to see what else you have here and I've already brought in a few of my people to your channel. None of us do Patreon but it'll help your channels njmbets with the algorithm anyway. We pay for families that can't afford things. Especially when it comes to the cremations after executions. DNA costs money too, that's not free and we take in elderly returning citizens when we get a compassionate release. All their relatives are usually gone by then, we're not gonna put them inti a DSS shelter. We do hospice too if we can so I'll just put our requwsts here. I've got a like probably 30 right off my head but I haven't looked through totally your videos to see ALL of what you've done yet. I will tell you check out Parasite for yourself. It isn't easy to do a reaction for but a worthwhile film. The subtitles are a hard transition and it's virtually impossible because I've seen two of my other ppl here try. It didn't end well, it just isn't truly feasible between screen size and editing and them basically having to explain the scenes. So of someone came here and just wanted to check it out and hadn't seen it first they'd be totally lost. But on your own time, it's a great film to explore. Enjoy your Indigenous Peoples Day!
The young actor who played the defendant was Italian. Many Italian immigrants made their way to America between say the 1880s and 1920s. There was a lot of prejudice against Italians (who were not considered "white" at that time) for much of the 20th century in America (up into the 1960s/1970s). But, I think they also chose that young man because he could pass for many different ethnicities (such as Puerto Rican or other hispanics, who also faced a lot of prejudice in the 1950s---along with the Italians, African Americans, Asians, etc...and as the Irish did a generation or two earlier). I think it's also why they never specify a race or ethnic background in the dialogue, because they wanted more people to be able to relate to that part of the message and because it was about prejudice in general (which can include socio-economic prejudice as you pointed out), not just prejudice against one specific group or race of people. But, I did want to specifically point out the Italian angle, as many young people do not seem to know that there was a lot of prejudice and discrimination towards Italians in the recent past. Anyhow, great reaction to a great film Mr. Valentine. 👍
I was born the year this film was made. My dad was a first generation Italian-American. He said that until the 90s, this was the only movie he ever saw that depicted the kind of prejudice he and his neighbors faced in the 40's and 50's and even beyond. Of course, his dad saw it worse. My dad escaped to the Air Force.
One of the best films of all time. And they never tell you if the boy was really innocent or not…because it doesn’t matter. That isn’t the point. In a strange way, the film isn’t about the boy or the case at all. It is about *you,* the viewer. Would *you* overcome your prejudices and biases? Really brilliant.
I always loved EG Marshall's performance in this. Particularly the calm, yet furious way he says, I hear you, now sit down and don't open your mouth again. He has a great supporting performance in another excellent film, the Humphrey Bogart-starring The Caine Mutiny. He plays the prosecuting attorney in that film, and he's similarly cool and analytical. Lee J Cobb, who played Juror Number 3, is a marvelous character actor from the era. Outstanding performance from him in On the Waterfront.
BRILLIANT reaction and analysis of this amazing film. There aren't too many that can boast award-winning performances from the entire cast. Sidney Lumet gave inspired direction and the camera work was absolutely perfect. Excellent job with your commentary. I'm a happy subscriber.
One of my favorite movies of all time. Lee J. Cobb (the guy with the issues with his son) gives the performance of a lifetime. You more or less noticed everything about the movie so I don't really have that much to add but I would say I would love to have seen it on stage as a play and still hope to.
I've been called to jury duty three times. First time, they had enough people, so I didn't have to serve. Second time, I served. It was a shooting case, and the whole thing had to be done in Spanish, through translators. We all knew he did it, but by the rules, we had to find him not guilty. I read that he went down on a federal drug charge soon thereafter. Third time, I was seated, questioned and excused. Probably because I had served before.
I don't know how many times I've seen this since I was a young teenager. I'm in my 60s now and every time I watch it I notice something new. Watch it with focusing on Jack Warden's character, Juror #7, and he's doing little tricks and jokes in the background. Ed Begly's character, Juror #9, is biased against poor folks, says," I've lived among them all my life! " Which would mean he's living, and always lived in the same " bad neighborhood" as the people he's vilifying. Very narcissistic, that need to feel superior to those around you. There's a thousand insights to be had here. The skill with the English language shown in 12 Angry Men would make Shakespeare envious. Thanks for sharing your reaction.🧓🎭💖💋
Paul Winkle, who says the boy is definitely guilty, has been saying to me for months that the knife fight in "Rebel Without a Cause" is a crusher. But it's not, at all. Anyone can watch the "Rebel Without A Cause" knife-fight scene on UA-cam. The best video is titled "Rebel Without a Cause (1955) - The Knife Fight Scene (5/10) | Movieclips" and the channel is Movieclips. 1) During the knife fight scene, at least 13 stabs/jabs/thrusts are attempted with switchblades, and *all of them* are attempted with an "underhanded" motion/grip: the way a switchblade should be used, not the way a normal knife would be. 2) From the beginning of the knife fight - from the first point where both fighters have their switchblades open (0:33) - to the end - (where the winner throws down his knife (2:02)) , it lasts for 1:29 seconds, which is 89 seconds. There are 2 fighters with their knives open through nearly all of that, so I will multiply that by 2: switchblades are open for about 178 seconds. Of that time, only 1 fighter at any point holds his switchblade the wrong way - that is, the way a person would hold a normal knife - and that lasts for only about 5 seconds (1:25 to about 1:30). 5 seconds is less than 3% of the total time. To recap: 1) 100% of the 13+ stabs/jabs/thrusts are done the correct way for a switchblade. 2) For less then 3% of the time is a switchblade held the wrong way, and no stab/jab/thrust is done with it when held the wrong way. THIS IS PAUL'S GREAT REFUTATION THAT HE'S BEEN PUSHING FOR MONTHS! LOL
Henry Fonda, who played juror number 8, was a sadistic gunfighter in "Once Upon a Time in the West." Lee J. Cobb, who played juror number 3, the guy with the son, was a kindly police detective in "The Exorcist." Martin Balsam, who played juror number 1, the foreman, was the private detective Arbogast in Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho." Jack Klugman, who played juror number 5, the man from a slum, had his own TV shows, including "Quincy" in which he played a medical examiner. The film might have been a little louder compared to your voice.
Please consider watching the original 1975 version of the Stepford Wives. The remake took what was a deep, layered, examination of changing societal roles, & butchered it beyond all recognition. Rendering it absolutely meaningless. I would love your analysis of this timely classic.
With regard to the "circumstantial evidence," you have to remember when this movie was made. Forensics basically just didn't exist. You saw how they handled the knife. Up until around the 1980s, all cases were pretty much a combination of circumstantial evidence and witness testimony, and that was it. There just wasn't anything else. It sucks...but the only practical alternative at the time would've been to not prosecute anyone...for anything...ever. Even if they'd understood inferential reasoning and mathematical logic in that era...it wouldn't have made any difference. With no forensic evidence of any sort, and no consistent or effective procedures for handling what little physical evidence there was...a conviction would be impossible. That's really the whole reason jury trials were created in the first place. Not to check the power of the court, but just to spread out the burden of the process so killers wouldn't always go free and innocent men wouldn't always be condemned. It's a shitty system to use, but when there's nothing else, the only alternatives are "zero-tolerance" laws, or just not bothering to have laws at all. Today, things are slightly different. Hypothetically, we have forensics and proper procedures. In practice, very little has actually changed at all. But now, there's no excuse for it.
As always a great reaction! Your ability to catch all those details and little plot points is so refreshing. And your vocabulary is immaculate, I'm learning a lot while following along, thank you. With Dune part 2 lingering on the horizon in the beginning of March, would you be up to reacting to Dune part 1? I'd very much be interested in seeing your opinion on it, sir.
This is an iconic film. So many future stars in this movie. Old movies are just better than 90 percent of the crap that is being put out these days. Jack Klugman was one of the actors, that would go on to be, if not a big star, a journeyman actor on both the Big screen and TV. Good stuff. Thanks
Another thing that's brilliant about this movie is how ridiculously low budget it was. It's just a bunch of guys in a room and relies entirely on the strength of the script and acting. It was a star making turn for quite a few of the actors in this, though, and one of the biggest feathers in Henry Fonda's cap.
Thanks for the great reaction. You singing “One is the loneliest number” along with a couple other comments, makes me think you are older than you look or wise beyond your years.
On re-watch we see all the jurors staying in character from the very beginning. For instance, the juror who defended the old man had been looking after the old man from the beginning. This story was originally done as a live telecast in 1954...that version is available on UA-cam. It's also brilliant (with a couple of the same actors), but limited by the live television medium in camera angles and lighting. There's also a 1990s version, also available on UA-cam. That version has a diverse cast, so the racism issue is spun very differently. This 1957 version is the best, though.
If you are really interested in film, you should check out at least a couple of other ones mazde by Sidney Lumet. Look for Fail Safe, the other film he made with Henry Fonda...and look for The Verdict with Paul Newman, another Lumet courtroom drama. Oh...and if you have never seen My Cousin Vinny, that is another terrific courtroom film.
Great reaction. Love the camerawork in this movie. The way it starts off with us looking down on the men in that room, and in the end has us looking up to them.
This is on my personal top 50 of all time. What's also fascinating is the expanding of your audience's vocabulary. Educating without heavy handedness. Masterful. Well played.
I always find the final scene, meeting on the steps and then departing, to be the most compelling, and overlooked aspect of this movie. How often we have intense interactions of life-altering moments with complete strangers that we will never meet again.
A fun little FYI: The prejudice juror who who everyone eventually turns their backs on… On the show, Better Call Saul, when Jimmy worked at the pristine law firm, the lawyer who played the guitar in his office as a form of meditation and eventually fired Jimmy, he (the actor) is the son of the juror mentioned earlier.
Brilliant movie. My law teacher had us read the screenplay in 7th grade. That was a great approach on his part. Still one of my favorite films. Excellent reaction and summation Mr. V.👍
It goes back to Magna Carta (1215), it was special because it was the first time everyone was subject to the same law, even the King could not break the law, "“No free man shall be seized, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, exiled or ruined in any way, nor in any way proceeded against, except by the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land. “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.” Because of this we have trail by jury.
I really liked your observation regarding “You can’t hear yourself think.” I’d never thought twice about it, but you’re right about it being an apt metaphor. Nice. Another worthwhile reaction/review. I continue to enjoy your creative use of language. For instance, applying “majestic” to this film is an unusual but compelling choice. As well, I’m down for, and on, your coveralls. Peace.
This film is one of the most amazing films of the 20th century! You analysis is so on spot. I have served on a jury. We must all go under the presumption of innocent for the defendant with the presumption of innocence, unless the evidence provided shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. This must include everyone. This shows the amazing system that we have and yes, I acknowledge that as some flaws in the system. There can be no doubt amongst jury members of the decision of guilt provided by the defense and the prosecution, especially when the penalty of this might an person's full life time imprisonment or even death by penalty. This is a film that is magnificently shows this but also that justice must be blind and the juries most also come into their conclusion that the defendant is innocent instead of guilty even though we all carry out own baggage as we are all not in stake of the outcome. I do think there was some liberty provided in the jury process such as the knife to table scene and the jury's conclusion of evidence provided about the woman's ability to see the alleged murderer without direct testimony from the prosecution, and having to instead to include their own interpretations, but this shows that the process should be fair and without personal biases. The jury must not try to find a reason to find that a defendant is guilty which is stated by the character who finally breaks down about their son when he says that "you cannot prove that he didn't get to the door" where he says that you cannot prove that he is not guilty without the reasonable doubt that this man with a limp "might not have been able to get to the door". It is not the jury's decision to prove anything, only to weigh the evidence provided to make sure there is no reasonable doubt. The presumption is innocent until evidence and trial testimony provide prove the the defendant is guilty without a reasonable doubt. The jury must only find be provided definitive evidence that is provided to prove the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is a reasonable doubt the jury must find them not guilty no matter their own personal beliefs. This movie is magnificent. The camera shots, the acting, the character portrays, the sounds played as I will note without any score or music is such a master piece that I think that all Americans should view in order to serve on a jury. They must not try to find a reason to prove guilt only that if there is a reasonable doubt of guilt. If there is reasonable doubt of guilt then the jury must find that the defendant is innocent. That is what is so hard for a jury.
Someone said two actors appeared in an earlier version, they were Jurors 9 and 11. Also the reactor thought #3 was going to stab #3-which happened twice in the original program. He instead folded the knife, handing the knife to #8. 32:44
The son of the guy who was the last to say not guilty was 22 years old. He said at the beginning. He said he hadn’t seen him for two years which means he hadn’t seen him since he was 20 years old.
Great movie. And there was no swearing, explosions, car chase scenes. Mostly all in one room. Probably a low budget. I think it showed their personalities in respect to their occupations. Architects detailed people ✌️❤️
Really enjoyed your commentary and insights. But I'm even more impressed that you've recently reacted to four of the 10 movies I always recommend to new channels - 12 Angry Men, Saving Private Ryan, Princess Bride, and Duck Soup - because they are some of my all-time favs, and because they are flicks I will never not watch a reaction to. What's more, in watching those vids, I heard you mention two more of the 10 - His Girl Friday and When Harry Met Sally. So, I certainly know your discretionary chops are sound. Nonetheless, I'll recommend a few more, in hopes there are a few here you have not yet seen, that you may be willing to react to. 1. THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN (1960 western) - so much testosterone, this movie has literally ALL the balls! 2. GLORY (1989 Civil War drama) - as epic, maybe even moreso, that Saving Private Ryan, 3. CLERKS (1994 dark comedy) - the small, independent movie that launched the career of director Kevin Smith, which he mad by selling his comic book collection and maxing out his credit cards, 4. THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION (1994 prison drama) - one of the greatest movies ever, which I'm sure you've seen, but list it anyway just in case not, 5. 1776 (1972 musical) - covering the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, in some ways apocryphal, but in other ways amazingly accurate, 6. TWEVE O'CLOCK HIGH (1949 war drama) - a movie that to this day is taught in leadership courses to highlight differing command styles, 7. STAGECOACH (1939 western) - directed by John Ford, the movie that launched the career of John Wayne, 8. CAPTAIN BLOOD (1935 pirate adventure) - the movie that launched the career of Errol Flynn, 9. DEAD END (1937 gangster drama) - with Humphrey Bogart, the movie that launched the careers of the Dead End Kids/East Side Kids/Bowery Boys, 10. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY (1940 social comedy) - with Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant, the movie that won Jimmy Stewart his only Oscar, BONUS TV RECOMMENDATION 1. FIREFLY (2002 space western) - Despite lasting just 14 episodes, simply the best tv show ever. BONUS SHORTS RECOMMENDATION 1. The Three Stooges - It might be fun to review a few of these classic shorts in one video. I'd recommend “Men In Black” (1934), “Disorder In the Court” (1936), “A Plumbing We Will Go” (1940), and “Micro-Phonies” (1945).
His Girl Friday is a movie I can watch ad infinitum!!!! Grateful for the recommendations. Heard of most of those; the only movie I've seen is Shawshank lol. others added to my list. will be watching glory sooner rather than later thanks for watching 🙏🏾
Just watched this reaction 3 hours ago - since then i ran across a few more. I was going to give you a 9 out of 10 on use of Vocabulary (I love it! - feel like a kid again watching Seseme Street ;-) )., because you didn't say "Juror number 7 has Perspicasity(sp)" - but you used "perspicious"(sp - i suck a spelling so not sure on it) on your "Inside Out" reaction (what a fun movie that one is!), so I'm going to give you a 9.8 here. Trivia from the 4? reactions I seen from you since this 1st one - since a few hours ago: The Exercist - the Cop was Lee J Cobb - the same guy that is here in this movie with the "personal son issues", the Voice of the Demon was Mercedes MCabridge, she was in a few movies and TV shows of the 50's and 60's, and prior to movies was a big radio actress - 30's/40's radiodramas. Misery: James Cain was great in his earlier movie "Rollerball" too. Great movie if you have not seen it, highly recommend. (the original of course - remake is crap of course) Carey: The crazy mom was Piper Laurie, she was in an excellent movie with Paul Newman and George C Scott called "The Hustler" Oh and no Miss Collins did not laugh at Carey, if you re-watch you see her in shock in the shot of the audience faces - and literally 2 seconds later we see Carey seeing her in the audience laughing. Collins was a good gal. RIP.
I read that the director had the set walls of the jury room moved in closer to the table as the movie progressed. This was to add claustrophobic tension to the drama plus extra close-up shots.
actually to me.. the best symbolism (and most beautiful part) of the movie was when Henry Fonda patted Lee J Cobb lightly on his shoulder... then helped him put on his jacket... #masterful
In this country, maybe more countries we can plan our emotions over right good judgment. Benjamin Franklin, stated something to the effect that it would be better to let 100 guilty people go free rather than to ever wrongly, prosecute, one innocent person.
The full quote, attributed to Socrates by Plato during the trial of Socrates is: "On the other hand, if I say that it is the greatest good for a man to discuss virtue every day and those other things about which you hear me conversing and testing myself and others, for the unexamined life is not worth living for men, you will believe me even less." So, it is not something you made up, and was rather quite fitting in the context you used it, even if you did shorten it down to its most often quoted form. From my experience, people tend to only examine their lives way too late when they're already suffering regrets and disappointments. Henry Fonda's and Joseph Sweeney's characters do a good job in getting the other characters to undertake some much-needed self-reflection throughout the course of the deliberation.
I understand this film did not win the Oscar for best film of 1957. The Bridge on the River Kwai won the best film Oscar for this year, which is another brilliant film!
Just viewed your "Good/Bad and Ugly" reaction. I LOVE Eli Wallach (the Ugly) (in a trillion parts from the 50- to 2000 (he was great in the 50's gangster movie "the line-up") under-rated actor for sure. you mentioned the music - 95-percent sure it was Ennio Moricone (who I'm pretty sure did the music for the other - and better IMO of course - Leone movie western "Once Upon a Time in the West (my fav Western) another underrated actor would be the one in "Once Upon a Time in the West" - Jason Robards, who never got top star status - but for me he was top tier actor. "Once Upon a Time in the West" is the only movie where Henry Fonda played a villain (he plays one very well too). then you got the main guy Charle Bronson - never thought he as much of an actor (no disrespect to the man - never knew the man), but he carries his role well enough - Robards makes the movie better then Fonda, but of course utlimately what makes the movie a classic is the writing, and script, then the cinimatography and music. Bronson is a good enough actor to make his character work, just sayin IMO he at best an average actor, and would not have objected to having his character played by a better actor. The movie remains a top 20 of all time with or without Bronson in the cast. IMO Oh, just saw your reaction to "Tomestone" Sam Elliot is like those other two above (Eli Wallach/Jason Robards) - mid-star status, but top tier in talent. Check Elliot out in the movie "The Contender" a box office flop, but excellent political thriller (aka 2000) - it has other major actors in it - the excellent Jeff Bridges and Gary Oldman There is a scene in "The Contender" where Lane Hanson (I forget the actresses name - and she's good (played "Pat Nixon" in the movie "Nixon" (which is an excellent movie also BTW )) says in effect "Come-on Kermit, if we play there game we are not better than them", and Kermit (Sam Elliot shouts - VERY VERY LOUDLY!) shouts "WE ARE NOT BETTER THAN THEM"..............and Senator Hanson just sits there in shock over his shouting, and sheds a tear.
I will make a concerted effort to watch more Eli Wallach. He was transcendent lol. Same with Sam Elliot who I discovered in 'a star is born' then 'the big lebowski' Definitely gonna watch 'Once Upon A Time in the West'; especially upon learning Fonda is in it. thanks for the suggestions!
@@MrValentineReacts you are quite welcome: if you liked 12 Angry Men with Fonda, then you will also like "Failsafe" - with Fonda as the US President (a movie about a near WW3), and directed by the man as 12 Angry Men (Sidney Lumet - tied with another Giant Elia Kazan - both second only to "The Father" Standly Kurick. there is another excellent movie of the same time as Failsafe and Mr Strangelove - which is arguably as good - directed by another tallent of the time Frankenhiemer(sp) - called "7 days in may", with a top tier (and i'm talking cream of the crop actors of the early 60's - but somehow this movie has been forgotten - not sure why, its excellent!!!!! - calls into question "good and evil" verse "gray and misquided" - a thinker's movie for sure (as is Failsafe (Failsafe per "what would you do if you were the President".............I would say more on the particulars of this, but it would expose spoilers..Failsafe/like 7 days in may is a philosophical film). BTW if I were Henry Fonda and the US president placed in his shoes - I'm not sure if I'd have the character to do what he did, not even sure if that is a good or bad thing - make you think. anyway, thanks for the reply Sir! BTW I don't hate General Scott (Burt Lancaster), i believe he loved his country and was a patriot - as I view myself - he just lost faith in the "institutions/guardrails" working as they should.
I appreciate your commentary and thoughts very much, but unfortunately some of it is done right over dialogue and important scenes and moments. I've been enjoying your new channel and glad I subbed; but, here is a really important thought to keep in mind: film was very expensive to produce; in old movies of this caliber, every single camera angle and every word uttered was such important real estate. So much thought goes into every moment of this film. Maybe you'll get a chance to watch it over without reacting to it; I know that can be a tough thing to juggle as I tried it and I suck at it; and take all those details in. But all in all, very interesting reaction to watch. Your summation is great.
@@MrValentineReacts Since you ask. These aren't necessarily the movies the critics would pick for Henry Fonda movies but these are the six that really stand out for me. THE GRAPES OF WRATH (1940) A great movie based on a great novel with some iconic lines in a role that made him an a-lister THE OXBOW INCIDENT (1943) maybe the most critically acclaimed of his movies and arguably maybe the first modern western THE WRONG MAN (1956) The only true story Alfred Hitchcock ever directed. And a film that had a big influence on Martin Scorcese THE ROUNDERS (1965) a fun and often overlooked film without much to say other than enjoy the ride BIG HAND FOR A LiTTLE LADY (1966) It is so obscure probably no one else would have this movie on their list of 6 greatest Henry Fonda movies but I love this film and you'll have to see it to understand why. It is not one of those movies you want to say much about beforehand. Like 12 ANGRY MEN, just watch and enjoy some great performances from an ensemble cast of '60s character actors (Paul Ford in particular is amazing).. SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION (1971) Sometimes a truly great movie based on a Ken Kesey novel. A good introduction too to Paul Newman who directed and starred in it. And if you liked Lee J. Cobb in this movie, you might also want to check out one of the greatest movies to come out of the '50s ON THE WATERFRONT with Cobb as the heavy in that one too.
I thought my fellow jurors were quite remarkable. I wanted to stay in touch. No one else grabbed that opportunity. I now have no idea of their names or anything else.
I am many, U believe would love you to react to Mildred Pierce with Joan Crawford and so many delightful character actors from the 40's. It is brilliant in my viewing of movies.
We also have only the policeman word on whether the kid could remember what he saw. Police who also may have pushed him down the stairs. Police who already thought he did it. Perhaps the kid was stunned that his dad was dead. Feeling awful that his last words were ugly with his dad. This was before Miranda rights. Interesting how we put weight on the how these jurors remember people's testimony. So we are geting filtered uncrossexamined heresay and taking those things as the facts.
Reasonable doubt does not mean not impossible. The kid had the unusual, if not unique, murder weapon. The kid had motive, no one else is suggested as a possible suspect. The victim was poor, so robbery was not a motive. In that brief period the kid is out someone else runs up the stairs and kills him is far fetched. The juror answered multiple questions about the movies he saw before he missed a detail. He remembered quite a bit. The kid remembered absolutely nothing, not if it was a western, comedy, no one in the movie. No one saw him at the movies. Can you imagine not being able to remember anything in the hours after watching a movie? Regardless of how a switchblade is typically used, whoever used it used it overhand. Try changing a pencil from an underhand grip to and overhand grip onehanded. It's easy, and if you use that type of knife frequently it would be instant. Say there's a 1% chance that someone else wanted to kill the victim and did it in the short time the son was away. Say there is a 1% chance of the killer having the same knife. Say there is a 10% chance the kid can't remember anything. That brings it to a 1 in 100,000 chance. That is beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind.
Isn't making up numbers out of thin air, like you did, fun!! 1) The knife. The knife could have fallen out of the boy's pocket as he was leaving his apartment, heading to the movies: it fell right outside the door, but he didn't hear it hit the floor because of the noise of the door closing. That puts the knife at the scene of the crime to begin with. There is no need to explain how the knife went from someplace else to the apartment. For example, there is no need for some stranger - who doesn't know the boy or the father, or where they live - to find the knife blocks away on the street and just so happen to walk to the old man's apartment. Where the old man lived was a slum so just about anyone - homeless people, drug dealers, pimps, robbers, home invaders, anyone - could have walked inside the building and found the knife on the floor right outside the old man's door. It could even have been someone who lived in the same building and who hated the father (for example, because this other person knew the old man used his fists to beat the son, beating the son all the time). This bum/thug/robber finds the knife outside the door on the floor and says something to himself ("sweet knife!") or makes some noise when picking it up and opening it up. The old man hears someone outside his door and opens it, only to be confronted with a bum/thug/robber with an open switchblade knife, and that person forces his way into the apartment. A fight ensues and the stabbing occurs ... with the bum/thug/robber doing it the wrong way (from above, down and in, instead of upward and with an underhand motion, as the son probably would have done since he was very handy with switchblades). There were no fingerprints on the knife (forensic DNA anlysis was not available yet), so there was no forensic evidence showing the boy was holding the murder weapon when the stabbing occurred, or even that the boy ever held the murder weapon. Heck, there isn't even any forensic evidence showing that the murder weapon was the same knife the boy bought: it could have been just a similar-looking knife, like the one juror 8 bought at a pawn shop just 2 blocks from the boy's place. The only evidence indicating the two knives were the same knife is that the friends identified the knife the police showed them as the one the boy had shown them. But without a serial number or something else definitive, no one could positively identify the two knives as being the same one, only that - from memory - the two looked very much alike. Even juror 3 (the final holdout) confused the knife juror 8 had bought with the knife used in the murder. NOTE: Heck, it's not impossible that one of the boy's friends killed the old man. The friend could have hated the boy's father, because the father used his fists to beat the son -- the friend's friend -- all the time. The friend could have waited for the boy to go to the movies, then knocked on the old man's door, rushed the old man, and stabbed him. The friend could have just so happened to already have a knife similar to the one the boy bought that night, or maybe when the friend saw the boy's knife that night he liked it, and after the boy left the group of friends, the friend went to a pawn shop and bought one similar to it. 2) The boy's alibi. That no one the police questioned remembers seeing him going in or out is useless: when I go to the movies I don't expect anyone who works there to remember me going in or out. And anyone who is honest would admit it is not at all unreasonable for someone else to have gone to the movies and no one there remember him or her. And I see movies all the time and can't name the main actors in them. That doesn't mean I didn't go see the movies. The movie gives us legitimate reasons why the boy might not be able to recall the names of the movies he saw or the actors: he was being questioned at 3 in the morning, after having been thrown down half a flight of stairs by detectives, and he was being questioned as a murder suspect, while his father's dead body was nearby in the apartment. None of those apply to juror 4 (the usually non-sweating juror), who could not accurately remember the names of the movies and actors he saw a few days earlier.
The father had a criminal record and was killed with an easy to obtain common weapon. He was a violent man. It's within the realm of possibility, he crossed someone that came to the house to collect.
Pleeeeease react to Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner with Sidney Poitier! It’s a beautifully done snapshot of race relations in the 60’s. Sooo good! I think you’d like it.
You need to double-check your word usage. I started noticing the awkward phasing subconsciously and then it became very distracting. Your review was great, but you were trying too hard to sound eloquent. There were at least ten or twelve times that I had to pause and think about what you were trying to say. I tried the phrases on my wife to make sure I wasn't being annoyed for nothing.
As usual, yet another UA-camr who doesn’t check his sound balance! Can barely hear the dialogue in the movie!!! If I turn up the volume, when you speak you’re way too loud and booming! Acchhh, what’s the point! 🤷♂
If we assume that the boy lost his knife through a hole in his pants without realizing it, and that someone else coincidentally used the exact same (looking) knife to kill his father, not using a gun, baseball bat, or anything else. The killer btw went of course to the boy's appartment without any connections to the boy, besides he likes to use the exactly same looking knife to kill ppl, the boy lost only few hours ago, which is a mindblowing coincidence in itself. If we assume that both eyewitnesses are lying, women never wear sunglasses in summer or that she is farsighted, and if we assume that the boy completely forgot his alibi, unlike the juror who only forgot a tiny detail from three days ago. Then, I mean, really taking all these assumptions together and pile it up to a big mountain of assumptions and coincidences, well then there is an astronomically small possibility that it wasn't the boy.
Not at all, apparently knife based violence was very common in that area, so much so that the character who grew up in the slums had a strong understanding of how the knives were used and what kinds of things someone would never do with them. And second, if an exact copy could be found in under half an hour for just a few dollars, chances are there's plenty more in the area. Odds are good that it's a very common kind of knife to be sold around that neighborhood. If the father was killed by someone else, them using the kind of knife we know could be easily bought in the area is actually quite plausible. We're also not assuming that either witness is lying. We're assuming that it's possible that they overstated the certainty of what they saw/heard to an extent. Eyewitness testimony is now considered to be remarkably unreliable by experts because the human brain fills in details with our assumptions around what's true. The fact is, you have to make a series of assumptions to decide that you know it was the boy. Maybe it was, but there's a very reasonable chance that it wasn't.
@@thegrandwombat8797 Then why dont we stop calling eyewitnesses into court? They seem to be useless. It is also funny to hear that in that area everybody is familiar with knifes. However this expert has stabed the dad from up to downwards. Doesnt seem to be a pro there, still he came with a knife. If the boy did it ppl say yeah the boy would fight otherwise. But if someone else from the hood does it that way, nobody gives a f... And the knife wasnt unique but still rare, even slumdog Juror did not counterd that point when some said "have never seen anything like this before". Not even the pawnshop owner, who for sure sees some knifes especially in that area as you stated. Plus the boy lost his knife only hours before the dad was killed. Someone else was lucky two times, he used the right kind of knife the boy had AND boy lost his knife. Pretty heavy stuff piling up against the boy. Well possible is everything, we are talking about reasonable doubt. Practically someone can adjust every story to fit into their own agenda
@@PaulWinkle How do you know the knife was rare? Selling them was illegal of course the pawnshop owner wasn't talking about selling them all the time. Don't mistake your assumptions for fact. Like you said, it's very easy to adjust any story to fit into an agenda.
@@thegrandwombat8797 Juror from the slums supported the statement. While we are watching his explanation regarding the angle of the stabbing, most ppl consider him as an expert regarding switchblade knifes. He was in the room all the time, just like any other juror. When someone said "this is a very unusual knife" he did not say "oh wait I've seen these often, I am from the slums", neither did he later. Pawnshop owner said sth similar. BTW I rewatched the scene around minute 25. It is even worse, the boy said that he got punched by his father several times, THEN he went to the pawnahop bought the knife, showed it around, "lost" it and so on...
@@PaulWinkle None of the jurors were neighbors of the kid, all we know about the neighborhood was that you could find and buy that exact knife for cheap at the first place the one juror who visited the neighborhood stepped into. And did you expect the pawnshop owner to say "yes I illegally sell knives all the time, it wasn't just a one time thing"? You seem pretty invested in the idea that the kid did it, not sure what's up with that, but the whole point of the movie is that we just don't have enough information to know either way. The evidence was written to not be overwhelmingly conclusive either way. He might have done it, he might not have, but to say it's almost certain that he did is categorically wrong.
![Understanding Marxism: Q&A with Richard D. Wolff [June 2019]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eU-AkeOyiOQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The final juror's switch from not guilty to guilty was so emotional. You kind of hated the guy the whole film, but once he tears up that picture and breaks down in tears saying 'not guilty' its a very emotional moment. Brings me to tears every time.
an excellent pendulum swing of emotions
It's the moment he has the terrible epiphany that he's been using the boy on trial as a proxy for his son; that his rage over this has been clouding his judgment. Even though it was gradually made obvious to the other jurers, he was the last to face it for what it was.
Because he see himself and his son in theirs place. He see attack on boy's father same his son attacked him, blame him for all wrongdoings, not being able to admit his own fault for the way he treated him.
There is seed of hope in his breakage. First step, maybe, to resolve things with his own son.
And I thought it was just softie me.
"Gentlemen, that's a very sad thing... to be nothing."
Fun Fact: Feature directorial debut of Sidney Lumet.
Hot Take Fact: Shot in a total of 365 separate takes. However because of the painstaking rehearsals for the film lasted an exhausting two weeks, filming was completed in 21 days.
Method Director Fact: Sidney Lumet had the actors all stay in the same room for several hours on end and do their lines over and over without filming them. This was to give them a real taste of what it would be like to be cooped up in a room with the same people.
The Quest For Real Time Fact: Once the jurors are sequestered the film proceeds in real time. About halfway through they establish that it's 6 o'clock. They reach their verdict in another 45 minutes. This would leave plenty of time for Jack Warden's juror character to still make the 8 o'clock ball game.
A really good reaction. This movie is just a masterpiece. No expensive special effects. No wonderful and colorful visual locations. No flash. Just excellent writing and acting carrying the movie.
Succulent screenwriting. Piercing emotion. I've watched a few times since. Thank you for viewing it with me!
@@MrValentineReacts I write this to You to bring You Eternal Hope from far away."The Rapture"- is A Truly Real Future Biblical Christian Worldwide Event in which Millions of Living True Christian Believers shall be "Transported" into Heaven to meet The Creator Of The World/The Maker Of The World/The Lord Himself and they shall be with him Forever and ever.Also in addition to "The Rapture" another Truly Real Future Biblical Christian Worldwide Event called "The First Resurrection" will also take place,which will "Resurrect" All-Dead True Christian Believers and will also "Transport" them into Heaven to meet The Creator Of The World/The Maker Of The World/The Lord Himself and they shall be with him Forever and ever!
"The Rapture" collects All-Living True Christian Believers,while " The First Resurrection" collects All-Dead True Christian Believers.The Dead True Christian Believers shall rise first and then both:The Dead and The Living True Christian Believers shall Together be Transported into Heaven to be Together with The Christian God and to be Rewarded accordingly by The Christian God!
This is not a joke.I have seen "The Signs" and these words are "True and Correct".Remember!Jesus Christ said:“You don’t have to wait for the End.I am right now,Resurrection and Life.The one who believes in me,even though he or she dies,will live.And everyone who lives believing in me does not ultimately die at all.Do you believe this?”
@MrValentineReacts AS a new subscriber to your channel after watching this reaction. I can guarantee you that you will rewatch it many more times in your lifetime. I'll be turning 59 at the end of October~I saw it the first time in my preteens. I have lost count how many times I've actually seen it. But I make it a point before subscribing to see if a reactor has watched it yet. Not many will get involved in older films much less black and white. It is one of my litmus tests I go by along with a few others when it comes to drama; and especially court centered films. My sideline is that I'm an International prisoner AND human rights advocate for almost 40 years. I deal wity every level of the system from my juveniles to my people on Death Row and political prisoners. This case is set in the NYS Superior Court and we no longer have the death penalty thankfully. But we are giving out Life sentences to our 16 yr old. We recently within the last few years after decades of a fight have made progress. They're not housed with the adults UNTIL they're 18. Yeah, we used to put them in with the adults. Mental health us changing but of course not as swiftly as it should. So I do spend a lot of time talking with families post suicides. All about "Cost cutting meds" and all instead of keeping the same as outside meds, don't you know. It took losing my boy Kalief Browder to really tear part of the bandage off of Rikers~he was one of my juveniles. I'm going to see what else you have here and I've already brought in a few of my people to your channel. None of us do Patreon but it'll help your channels njmbets with the algorithm anyway. We pay for families that can't afford things. Especially when it comes to the cremations after executions. DNA costs money too, that's not free and we take in elderly returning citizens when we get a compassionate release. All their relatives are usually gone by then, we're not gonna put them inti a DSS shelter. We do hospice too if we can so I'll just put our requwsts here. I've got a like probably 30 right off my head but I haven't looked through totally your videos to see ALL of what you've done yet. I will tell you check out Parasite for yourself. It isn't easy to do a reaction for but a worthwhile film. The subtitles are a hard transition and it's virtually impossible because I've seen two of my other ppl here try. It didn't end well, it just isn't truly feasible between screen size and editing and them basically having to explain the scenes. So of someone came here and just wanted to check it out and hadn't seen it first they'd be totally lost. But on your own time, it's a great film to explore. Enjoy your Indigenous Peoples Day!
The young actor who played the defendant was Italian. Many Italian immigrants made their way to America between say the 1880s and 1920s. There was a lot of prejudice against Italians (who were not considered "white" at that time) for much of the 20th century in America (up into the 1960s/1970s). But, I think they also chose that young man because he could pass for many different ethnicities (such as Puerto Rican or other hispanics, who also faced a lot of prejudice in the 1950s---along with the Italians, African Americans, Asians, etc...and as the Irish did a generation or two earlier). I think it's also why they never specify a race or ethnic background in the dialogue, because they wanted more people to be able to relate to that part of the message and because it was about prejudice in general (which can include socio-economic prejudice as you pointed out), not just prejudice against one specific group or race of people. But, I did want to specifically point out the Italian angle, as many young people do not seem to know that there was a lot of prejudice and discrimination towards Italians in the recent past.
Anyhow, great reaction to a great film Mr. Valentine. 👍
I appreciate your thought provoking socio-historical analysis. Thanks for viewing along with me!
I was born the year this film was made. My dad was a first generation Italian-American. He said that until the 90s, this was the only movie he ever saw that depicted the kind of prejudice he and his neighbors faced in the 40's and 50's and even beyond. Of course, his dad saw it worse. My dad escaped to the Air Force.
A wonderful reaction. I belive you "got" this movie exactly as the writers and director intended. Looking forward to see you react again.
One of the best films of all time. And they never tell you if the boy was really innocent or not…because it doesn’t matter. That isn’t the point. In a strange way, the film isn’t about the boy or the case at all. It is about *you,* the viewer. Would *you* overcome your prejudices and biases? Really brilliant.
Bro you are killing it with these classics... Fantastic film
I always loved EG Marshall's performance in this. Particularly the calm, yet furious way he says, I hear you, now sit down and don't open your mouth again. He has a great supporting performance in another excellent film, the Humphrey Bogart-starring The Caine Mutiny. He plays the prosecuting attorney in that film, and he's similarly cool and analytical. Lee J Cobb, who played Juror Number 3, is a marvelous character actor from the era. Outstanding performance from him in On the Waterfront.
BRILLIANT reaction and analysis of this amazing film. There aren't too many that can boast award-winning performances from the entire cast. Sidney Lumet gave inspired direction and the camera work was absolutely perfect. Excellent job with your commentary. I'm a happy subscriber.
Stupendous from the first to the final frame! appreciate your watching these movies with me
@@MrValentineReactsEven your comment replies are loquaciously laudacious, with alliterative aspects, and that made me a speedy subscriber.
One of Henry Fonda's greatest roles. They shot this film in sequence, which didn't happen very often.
One of my favorite movies of all time. Lee J. Cobb (the guy with the issues with his son) gives the performance of a lifetime. You more or less noticed everything about the movie so I don't really have that much to add but I would say I would love to have seen it on stage as a play and still hope to.
I've been called to jury duty three times.
First time, they had enough people, so I didn't have to serve.
Second time, I served. It was a shooting case, and the whole thing had to be done in Spanish, through translators.
We all knew he did it, but by the rules, we had to find him not guilty.
I read that he went down on a federal drug charge soon thereafter.
Third time, I was seated, questioned and excused. Probably because I had served before.
You'll appreciate it even more when you sit down 30 years from now and watch it again.
Maybe when the last guy said not guilty, he was also releasing his son from the judgement he was holding him to.
I don't know how many times I've seen this since I was a young teenager. I'm in my 60s now and every time I watch it I notice something new. Watch it with focusing on Jack Warden's character, Juror #7, and he's doing little tricks and jokes in the background.
Ed Begly's character, Juror #9, is biased against poor folks, says," I've lived among them all my life! " Which would mean he's living, and always lived in the same " bad neighborhood" as the people he's vilifying. Very narcissistic, that need to feel superior to those around you.
There's a thousand insights to be had here. The skill with the English language shown in 12 Angry Men would make Shakespeare envious.
Thanks for sharing your reaction.🧓🎭💖💋
intriguing observations! will definitely watch it many more times. appreciate you watching🤙🏽
Paul Winkle, who says the boy is definitely guilty, has been saying to me for months that the knife fight in "Rebel Without a Cause" is a crusher. But it's not, at all.
Anyone can watch the "Rebel Without A Cause" knife-fight scene on UA-cam. The best video is titled "Rebel Without a Cause (1955) - The Knife Fight Scene (5/10) | Movieclips" and the channel is Movieclips.
1) During the knife fight scene, at least 13 stabs/jabs/thrusts are attempted with switchblades, and *all of them* are attempted with an "underhanded" motion/grip: the way a switchblade should be used, not the way a normal knife would be.
2) From the beginning of the knife fight - from the first point where both fighters have their switchblades open (0:33) - to the end - (where the winner throws down his knife (2:02)) , it lasts for 1:29 seconds, which is 89 seconds. There are 2 fighters with their knives open through nearly all of that, so I will multiply that by 2: switchblades are open for about 178 seconds. Of that time, only 1 fighter at any point holds his switchblade the wrong way - that is, the way a person would hold a normal knife - and that lasts for only about 5 seconds (1:25 to about 1:30). 5 seconds is less than 3% of the total time.
To recap:
1) 100% of the 13+ stabs/jabs/thrusts are done the correct way for a switchblade.
2) For less then 3% of the time is a switchblade held the wrong way, and no stab/jab/thrust is done with it when held the wrong way.
THIS IS PAUL'S GREAT REFUTATION THAT HE'S BEEN PUSHING FOR MONTHS! LOL
Henry Fonda, who played juror number 8, was a sadistic gunfighter in "Once Upon a Time in the West."
Lee J. Cobb, who played juror number 3, the guy with the son, was a kindly police detective in "The Exorcist."
Martin Balsam, who played juror number 1, the foreman, was the private detective Arbogast in Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho."
Jack Klugman, who played juror number 5, the man from a slum, had his own TV shows, including "Quincy" in which he played a medical examiner.
The film might have been a little louder compared to your voice.
Please consider watching the original 1975 version of the Stepford Wives. The remake took what was a deep, layered, examination of changing societal roles, & butchered it beyond all recognition. Rendering it absolutely meaningless. I would love your analysis of this timely classic.
I watched the remake not too long ago and I remember being left dissatisfied; will had the OG to my to-do list.🤙🏽
With regard to the "circumstantial evidence," you have to remember when this movie was made. Forensics basically just didn't exist. You saw how they handled the knife.
Up until around the 1980s, all cases were pretty much a combination of circumstantial evidence and witness testimony, and that was it. There just wasn't anything else.
It sucks...but the only practical alternative at the time would've been to not prosecute anyone...for anything...ever. Even if they'd understood inferential reasoning and mathematical logic in that era...it wouldn't have made any difference. With no forensic evidence of any sort, and no consistent or effective procedures for handling what little physical evidence there was...a conviction would be impossible.
That's really the whole reason jury trials were created in the first place. Not to check the power of the court, but just to spread out the burden of the process so killers wouldn't always go free and innocent men wouldn't always be condemned. It's a shitty system to use, but when there's nothing else, the only alternatives are "zero-tolerance" laws, or just not bothering to have laws at all.
Today, things are slightly different. Hypothetically, we have forensics and proper procedures. In practice, very little has actually changed at all. But now, there's no excuse for it.
As always a great reaction! Your ability to catch all those details and little plot points is so refreshing. And your vocabulary is immaculate, I'm learning a lot while following along, thank you.
With Dune part 2 lingering on the horizon in the beginning of March, would you be up to reacting to Dune part 1?
I'd very much be interested in seeing your opinion on it, sir.
This is an iconic film. So many future stars in this movie. Old movies are just better than 90 percent of the crap that is being put out these days. Jack Klugman was one of the actors, that would go on to be, if not a big star, a journeyman actor on both the Big screen and TV. Good stuff.
Thanks
Another thing that's brilliant about this movie is how ridiculously low budget it was. It's just a bunch of guys in a room and relies entirely on the strength of the script and acting. It was a star making turn for quite a few of the actors in this, though, and one of the biggest feathers in Henry Fonda's cap.
And some of the best cinematography I've ever seen.
it's a perfect adaptation of the play, because rather than just doing simple still camera stuff, they used camera movement with excellent intention.
Thanks for the great reaction. You singing “One is the loneliest number” along with a couple other comments, makes me think you are older than you look or wise beyond your years.
On re-watch we see all the jurors staying in character from the very beginning. For instance, the juror who defended the old man had been looking after the old man from the beginning. This story was originally done as a live telecast in 1954...that version is available on UA-cam. It's also brilliant (with a couple of the same actors), but limited by the live television medium in camera angles and lighting. There's also a 1990s version, also available on UA-cam. That version has a diverse cast, so the racism issue is spun very differently. This 1957 version is the best, though.
If you are really interested in film, you should check out at least a couple of other ones mazde by Sidney Lumet. Look for Fail Safe, the other film he made with Henry Fonda...and look for The Verdict with Paul Newman, another Lumet courtroom drama.
Oh...and if you have never seen My Cousin Vinny, that is another terrific courtroom film.
39:50 I think it’s visual symbolism for raising the bar on what’s expected of a juror, but passing the bar may have been intended as well.
Great reaction. Love the camerawork in this movie. The way it starts off with us looking down on the men in that room, and in the end has us looking up to them.
thanks for watching with me. it is scintillating
This is on my personal top 50 of all time.
What's also fascinating is the expanding of your audience's vocabulary. Educating without heavy handedness. Masterful.
Well played.
One of the greatest movies ever.
I always find the final scene, meeting on the steps and then departing, to be the most compelling, and overlooked aspect of this movie. How often we have intense interactions of life-altering moments with complete strangers that we will never meet again.
so profound!
A fun little FYI:
The prejudice juror who who everyone eventually turns their backs on…
On the show, Better Call Saul, when Jimmy worked at the pristine law firm, the lawyer who played the guitar in his office as a form of meditation and eventually fired Jimmy, he (the actor) is the son of the juror mentioned earlier.
I love this detail so much.
Yours is one of the better analyses of this fabulous movie. “Passing the bar”, very nice 😊
Excellent choice for a film, Young man. not a detriment, wish I were still a young man.
Brilliant movie. My law teacher had us read the screenplay in 7th grade. That was a great approach on his part. Still one of my favorite films. Excellent reaction and summation Mr. V.👍
🤙🏽🤙🏽
If you don't mind,any idea how long before you get to "Hacksaw Ridge"? I just think you're going to love that one.@@MrValentineReacts
Probably one of my top 5 favorite movies, you really caught on to some stuff I hadn't thought of though.
It goes back to Magna Carta (1215), it was special because it was the first time everyone was subject to the same law, even the King could not break the law, "“No free man shall be seized, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, exiled or ruined in any way, nor in any way proceeded against, except by the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land. “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.” Because of this we have trail by jury.
I really liked your observation regarding “You can’t hear yourself think.” I’d never thought twice about it, but you’re right about it being an apt metaphor. Nice.
Another worthwhile reaction/review. I continue to enjoy your creative use of language. For instance, applying “majestic” to this film is an unusual but compelling choice. As well, I’m down for, and on, your coveralls. Peace.
The jury does not determine whether the defendant is guilty; he is presumed innocent. They determine whether the prosecution proved guilt.
I’m older- 62- but have only watched a few b&w movies - this one is timeless .. filmed in one room!.. message is unfortunately timeless
The guy’s son was actually around 22 years old. Him and the son fought when the son was 16 but he did not say the son left at 16.
This film is one of the most amazing films of the 20th century! You analysis is so on spot. I have served on a jury. We must all go under the presumption of innocent for the defendant with the presumption of innocence, unless the evidence provided shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. This must include everyone. This shows the amazing system that we have and yes, I acknowledge that as some flaws in the system. There can be no doubt amongst jury members of the decision of guilt provided by the defense and the prosecution, especially when the penalty of this might an person's full life time imprisonment or even death by penalty. This is a film that is magnificently shows this but also that justice must be blind and the juries most also come into their conclusion that the defendant is innocent instead of guilty even though we all carry out own baggage as we are all not in stake of the outcome. I do think there was some liberty provided in the jury process such as the knife to table scene and the jury's conclusion of evidence provided about the woman's ability to see the alleged murderer without direct testimony from the prosecution, and having to instead to include their own interpretations, but this shows that the process should be fair and without personal biases. The jury must not try to find a reason to find that a defendant is guilty which is stated by the character who finally breaks down about their son when he says that "you cannot prove that he didn't get to the door" where he says that you cannot prove that he is not guilty without the reasonable doubt that this man with a limp "might not have been able to get to the door". It is not the jury's decision to prove anything, only to weigh the evidence provided to make sure there is no reasonable doubt. The presumption is innocent until evidence and trial testimony provide prove the the defendant is guilty without a reasonable doubt. The jury must only find be provided definitive evidence that is provided to prove the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is a reasonable doubt the jury must find them not guilty no matter their own personal beliefs. This movie is magnificent. The camera shots, the acting, the character portrays, the sounds played as I will note without any score or music is such a master piece that I think that all Americans should view in order to serve on a jury. They must not try to find a reason to prove guilt only that if there is a reasonable doubt of guilt. If there is reasonable doubt of guilt then the jury must find that the defendant is innocent. That is what is so hard for a jury.
Someone said two actors appeared in an earlier version, they were Jurors 9 and 11. Also the reactor thought #3 was going to stab #3-which happened twice in the original program. He instead folded the knife, handing the knife to #8. 32:44
The son of the guy who was the last to say not guilty was 22 years old. He said at the beginning.
He said he hadn’t seen him for two years which means he hadn’t seen him since he was 20 years old.
:)
This movie shows the power of discussion and critical thinking one of best movies i have ever seen.
Great movie. And there was no swearing, explosions, car chase scenes. Mostly all in one room. Probably a low budget. I think it showed their personalities in respect to their occupations. Architects detailed people ✌️❤️
Really enjoyed your commentary and insights. But I'm even more impressed that you've recently reacted to four of the 10 movies I always recommend to new channels - 12 Angry Men, Saving Private Ryan, Princess Bride, and Duck Soup - because they are some of my all-time favs, and because they are flicks I will never not watch a reaction to. What's more, in watching those vids, I heard you mention two more of the 10 - His Girl Friday and When Harry Met Sally.
So, I certainly know your discretionary chops are sound. Nonetheless, I'll recommend a few more, in hopes there are a few here you have not yet seen, that you may be willing to react to.
1. THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN (1960 western) - so much testosterone, this movie has literally ALL the balls!
2. GLORY (1989 Civil War drama) - as epic, maybe even moreso, that Saving Private Ryan,
3. CLERKS (1994 dark comedy) - the small, independent movie that launched the career of director Kevin Smith, which he mad by selling his comic book collection and maxing out his credit cards,
4. THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION (1994 prison drama) - one of the greatest movies ever, which I'm sure you've seen, but list it anyway just in case not,
5. 1776 (1972 musical) - covering the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, in some ways apocryphal, but in other ways amazingly accurate,
6. TWEVE O'CLOCK HIGH (1949 war drama) - a movie that to this day is taught in leadership courses to highlight differing command styles,
7. STAGECOACH (1939 western) - directed by John Ford, the movie that launched the career of John Wayne,
8. CAPTAIN BLOOD (1935 pirate adventure) - the movie that launched the career of Errol Flynn,
9. DEAD END (1937 gangster drama) - with Humphrey Bogart, the movie that launched the careers of the Dead End Kids/East Side Kids/Bowery Boys,
10. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY (1940 social comedy) - with Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant, the movie that won Jimmy Stewart his only Oscar,
BONUS TV RECOMMENDATION
1. FIREFLY (2002 space western) - Despite lasting just 14 episodes, simply the best tv show ever.
BONUS SHORTS RECOMMENDATION
1. The Three Stooges - It might be fun to review a few of these classic shorts in one video. I'd recommend “Men In Black” (1934), “Disorder In the Court” (1936), “A Plumbing We Will Go” (1940), and “Micro-Phonies” (1945).
His Girl Friday is a movie I can watch ad infinitum!!!!
Grateful for the recommendations. Heard of most of those; the only movie I've seen is Shawshank lol. others added to my list. will be watching glory sooner rather than later
thanks for watching 🙏🏾
14:33 Word.
Just watched this reaction 3 hours ago - since then i ran across a few more. I was going to give you a 9 out of 10 on use of Vocabulary (I love it! - feel like a kid again watching Seseme Street ;-) )., because you didn't say "Juror number 7 has Perspicasity(sp)" - but you used "perspicious"(sp - i suck a spelling so not sure on it) on your "Inside Out" reaction (what a fun movie that one is!), so I'm going to give you a 9.8 here.
Trivia from the 4? reactions I seen from you since this 1st one - since a few hours ago:
The Exercist - the Cop was Lee J Cobb - the same guy that is here in this movie with the "personal son issues", the Voice of the Demon was Mercedes MCabridge, she was in a few movies and TV shows of the 50's and 60's, and prior to movies was a big radio actress - 30's/40's radiodramas.
Misery: James Cain was great in his earlier movie "Rollerball" too. Great movie if you have not seen it, highly recommend. (the original of course - remake is crap of course)
Carey: The crazy mom was Piper Laurie, she was in an excellent movie with Paul Newman and George C Scott called "The Hustler"
Oh and no Miss Collins did not laugh at Carey, if you re-watch you see her in shock in the shot of the audience faces - and literally 2 seconds later we see Carey seeing her in the audience laughing.
Collins was a good gal. RIP.
I read that the director had the set walls of the jury room moved in closer to the table as the movie progressed. This was to add claustrophobic tension to the drama plus extra close-up shots.
actually to me.. the best symbolism (and most beautiful part) of the movie was when Henry Fonda patted Lee J Cobb lightly on his shoulder... then helped him put on his jacket... #masterful
Always surprised how many people this is new to. I think we had to read it in school in grade six maybe?
In this country, maybe more countries we can plan our emotions over right good judgment. Benjamin Franklin, stated something to the effect that it would be better to let 100 guilty people go free rather than to ever wrongly, prosecute, one innocent person.
New sub here. Outstanding work, sir. Intelligent, engaged, articulate, spontaneous & humorous. Can't ask for much more. Thank you👍👍👍
much obliged, my friend. Thanks for the sub!
The full quote, attributed to Socrates by Plato during the trial of Socrates is: "On the other hand, if I say that it is the greatest good for a man to discuss virtue every day and those other things about which you hear me conversing and testing myself and others, for the unexamined life is not worth living for men, you will believe me even less."
So, it is not something you made up, and was rather quite fitting in the context you used it, even if you did shorten it down to its most often quoted form. From my experience, people tend to only examine their lives way too late when they're already suffering regrets and disappointments. Henry Fonda's and Joseph Sweeney's characters do a good job in getting the other characters to undertake some much-needed self-reflection throughout the course of the deliberation.
It took my silly self a while to realize Lee J . Cobb (juror 3) was the detective in The Exorcist 🤦🏽♀️
I didn't realize it was him until the editing process ! haha (I watched The Exorcist 2 weeks before this btw)
I understand this film did not win the Oscar for best film of 1957. The Bridge on the River Kwai won the best film Oscar for this year, which is another brilliant film!
I keep hearing about that film. I need to watch it!
I’m catching up on past reactions 😊 This movie was a brilliant drama and your word play was off the chain ⛓️💥 on this reaction 😂
Just viewed your "Good/Bad and Ugly" reaction. I LOVE Eli Wallach (the Ugly) (in a trillion parts from the 50- to 2000 (he was great in the 50's gangster movie "the line-up") under-rated actor for sure. you mentioned the music - 95-percent sure it was Ennio Moricone (who I'm pretty sure did the music for the other - and better IMO of course - Leone movie western "Once Upon a Time in the West (my fav Western)
another underrated actor would be the one in "Once Upon a Time in the West" - Jason Robards, who never got top star status - but for me he was top tier actor. "Once Upon a Time in the West" is the only movie where Henry Fonda played a villain (he plays one very well too). then you got the main guy Charle Bronson - never thought he as much of an actor (no disrespect to the man - never knew the man), but he carries his role well enough - Robards makes the movie better then Fonda, but of course utlimately what makes the movie a classic is the writing, and script, then the cinimatography and music. Bronson is a good enough actor to make his character work, just sayin IMO he at best an average actor, and would not have objected to having his character played by a better actor. The movie remains a top 20 of all time with or without Bronson in the cast. IMO
Oh, just saw your reaction to "Tomestone" Sam Elliot is like those other two above (Eli Wallach/Jason Robards) - mid-star status, but top tier in talent. Check Elliot out in the movie "The Contender" a box office flop, but excellent political thriller (aka 2000) - it has other major actors in it - the excellent Jeff Bridges and Gary Oldman
There is a scene in "The Contender" where Lane Hanson (I forget the actresses name - and she's good (played "Pat Nixon" in the movie "Nixon" (which is an excellent movie also BTW )) says in effect "Come-on Kermit, if we play there game we are not better than them", and Kermit (Sam Elliot shouts - VERY VERY LOUDLY!) shouts "WE ARE NOT BETTER THAN THEM"..............and Senator Hanson just sits there in shock over his shouting, and sheds a tear.
I will make a concerted effort to watch more Eli Wallach. He was transcendent lol.
Same with Sam Elliot who I discovered in 'a star is born' then 'the big lebowski'
Definitely gonna watch 'Once Upon A Time in the West'; especially upon learning Fonda is in it.
thanks for the suggestions!
@@MrValentineReacts you are quite welcome: if you liked 12 Angry Men with Fonda, then you will also like "Failsafe" - with Fonda as the US President (a movie about a near WW3), and directed by the man as 12 Angry Men (Sidney Lumet - tied with another Giant Elia Kazan - both second only to "The Father" Standly Kurick.
there is another excellent movie of the same time as Failsafe and Mr Strangelove - which is arguably as good - directed by another tallent of the time Frankenhiemer(sp) - called "7 days in may", with a top tier (and i'm talking cream of the crop actors of the early 60's - but somehow this movie has been forgotten - not sure why, its excellent!!!!! - calls into question "good and evil" verse "gray and misquided" - a thinker's movie for sure (as is Failsafe (Failsafe per "what would you do if you were the President".............I would say more on the particulars of this, but it would expose spoilers..Failsafe/like 7 days in may is a philosophical film). BTW if I were Henry Fonda and the US president placed in his shoes - I'm not sure if I'd have the character to do what he did, not even sure if that is a good or bad thing - make you think.
anyway, thanks for the reply Sir!
BTW I don't hate General Scott (Burt Lancaster), i believe he loved his country and was a patriot - as I view myself - he just lost faith in the "institutions/guardrails" working as they should.
Great word play and intelligent analysis. Subbed. :)
glad to make your acquaintance! 😊
I appreciate your commentary and thoughts very much, but unfortunately some of it is done right over dialogue and important scenes and moments. I've been enjoying your new channel and glad I subbed; but, here is a really important thought to keep in mind: film was very expensive to produce; in old movies of this caliber, every single camera angle and every word uttered was such important real estate. So much thought goes into every moment of this film. Maybe you'll get a chance to watch it over without reacting to it; I know that can be a tough thing to juggle as I tried it and I suck at it; and take all those details in. But all in all, very interesting reaction to watch. Your summation is great.
I enjoyed your reaction to this classic film!
You're quite the wordsmith, sir. I keep watching you react literally to add to my vocab haha
If you enjoyed this, may I recommend A Matter of Life and Death, from 1946. I think you'd like it
Lord I thought I liked puns, but you can call this reaction 12 ANGRY PUNS 😀
Looking forward to more of your perspicacious commentary. And this is a good movie for it.
Came to this comment thread for the chance to see or use the word perspicacious, in honor of Fonda’s character, and you beat me to it!
thank you all for the generosity! I enjoyed him in this; let me know some more Fonda bangers I should see
@@MrValentineReacts Since you ask. These aren't necessarily the movies the critics would pick for Henry Fonda movies but these are the six that really stand out for me.
THE GRAPES OF WRATH (1940) A great movie based on a great novel with some iconic lines in a role that made him an a-lister
THE OXBOW INCIDENT (1943) maybe the most critically acclaimed of his movies and arguably maybe the first modern western
THE WRONG MAN (1956) The only true story Alfred Hitchcock ever directed. And a film that had a big influence on Martin Scorcese
THE ROUNDERS (1965) a fun and often overlooked film without much to say other than enjoy the ride
BIG HAND FOR A LiTTLE LADY (1966) It is so obscure probably no one else would have this movie on their list of 6 greatest Henry Fonda movies but I love this film and you'll have to see it to understand why. It is not one of those movies you want to say much about beforehand. Like 12 ANGRY MEN, just watch and enjoy some great performances from an ensemble cast of '60s character actors (Paul Ford in particular is amazing)..
SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION (1971) Sometimes a truly great movie based on a Ken Kesey novel. A good introduction too to Paul Newman who directed and starred in it.
And if you liked Lee J. Cobb in this movie, you might also want to check out one of the greatest movies to come out of the '50s ON THE WATERFRONT with Cobb as the heavy in that one too.
@@stevesheroan4131 Wow, What are the odds?
@@itt23r Omg I love Big Hand for the Little Lady !!!
Glad you appreciated this wonderful piece of art. Thanks for the reaction.
I thought my fellow jurors were quite remarkable. I wanted to stay in touch. No one else grabbed that opportunity. I now have no idea of their names or anything else.
Great reaction! 😊One of the greatest movies ever made IMO
I am many, U believe would love you to react to Mildred Pierce with Joan Crawford and so many delightful character actors from the 40's. It is brilliant in my viewing of movies.
"The unexamined life is not worth living" was said by Socrates.
Now you need to explore the movies of each of those actors.
We also have only the policeman word on whether the kid could remember what he saw.
Police who also may have pushed him down the stairs. Police who already thought he did it.
Perhaps the kid was stunned that his dad was dead. Feeling awful that his last words were ugly with his dad.
This was before Miranda rights.
Interesting how we put weight on the how these jurors remember people's testimony. So we are geting filtered uncrossexamined heresay and taking those things as the facts.
Just subscribed. Love your vocabulary context. Refreshing. 😊
🤙🏽 thank you for the cherished sub!
Man! Great reaction. I love your love of cinema, your love of symbolism, and logic, and your love of words. New Sub. Thank you.
your sub is very much appreciated!🤙🏽🤙🏽
The cinema is such a joy
An unexamined life is not worth living - Mr. Valentine.
😂🙏🏾
The only thing Chappelle killed at his comedy shows recently is any decent person's respect for him
Great film- great reaction- thanks!
🤙🏽🤙🏽
I just found your channel. Love your astute analyses and especially your vocabulary!
thank you kindly!😊
I like the way you use words.
Oooh, this youtuber uses a lot of big words--I am naught but a humble pirate.😅😂😎🤓
Reasonable doubt does not mean not impossible. The kid had the unusual, if not unique, murder weapon. The kid had motive, no one else is suggested as a possible suspect. The victim was poor, so robbery was not a motive. In that brief period the kid is out someone else runs up the stairs and kills him is far fetched. The juror answered multiple questions about the movies he saw before he missed a detail. He remembered quite a bit. The kid remembered absolutely nothing, not if it was a western, comedy, no one in the movie. No one saw him at the movies. Can you imagine not being able to remember anything in the hours after watching a movie? Regardless of how a switchblade is typically used, whoever used it used it overhand. Try changing a pencil from an underhand grip to and overhand grip onehanded. It's easy, and if you use that type of knife frequently it would be instant.
Say there's a 1% chance that someone else wanted to kill the victim and did it in the short time the son was away. Say there is a 1% chance of the killer having the same knife. Say there is a 10% chance the kid can't remember anything. That brings it to a 1 in 100,000 chance. That is beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind.
Isn't making up numbers out of thin air, like you did, fun!!
1) The knife. The knife could have fallen out of the boy's pocket as he was leaving his apartment, heading to the movies: it fell right outside the door, but he didn't hear it hit the floor because of the noise of the door closing. That puts the knife at the scene of the crime to begin with. There is no need to explain how the knife went from someplace else to the apartment. For example, there is no need for some stranger - who doesn't know the boy or the father, or where they live - to find the knife blocks away on the street and just so happen to walk to the old man's apartment.
Where the old man lived was a slum so just about anyone - homeless people, drug dealers, pimps, robbers, home invaders, anyone - could have walked inside the building and found the knife on the floor right outside the old man's door. It could even have been someone who lived in the same building and who hated the father (for example, because this other person knew the old man used his fists to beat the son, beating the son all the time). This bum/thug/robber finds the knife outside the door on the floor and says something to himself ("sweet knife!") or makes some noise when picking it up and opening it up. The old man hears someone outside his door and opens it, only to be confronted with a bum/thug/robber with an open switchblade knife, and that person forces his way into the apartment. A fight ensues and the stabbing occurs ... with the bum/thug/robber doing it the wrong way (from above, down and in, instead of upward and with an underhand motion, as the son probably would have done since he was very handy with switchblades).
There were no fingerprints on the knife (forensic DNA anlysis was not available yet), so there was no forensic evidence showing the boy was holding the murder weapon when the stabbing occurred, or even that the boy ever held the murder weapon. Heck, there isn't even any forensic evidence showing that the murder weapon was the same knife the boy bought: it could have been just a similar-looking knife, like the one juror 8 bought at a pawn shop just 2 blocks from the boy's place. The only evidence indicating the two knives were the same knife is that the friends identified the knife the police showed them as the one the boy had shown them. But without a serial number or something else definitive, no one could positively identify the two knives as being the same one, only that - from memory - the two looked very much alike. Even juror 3 (the final holdout) confused the knife juror 8 had bought with the knife used in the murder.
NOTE: Heck, it's not impossible that one of the boy's friends killed the old man. The friend could have hated the boy's father, because the father used his fists to beat the son -- the friend's friend -- all the time. The friend could have waited for the boy to go to the movies, then knocked on the old man's door, rushed the old man, and stabbed him. The friend could have just so happened to already have a knife similar to the one the boy bought that night, or maybe when the friend saw the boy's knife that night he liked it, and after the boy left the group of friends, the friend went to a pawn shop and bought one similar to it.
2) The boy's alibi. That no one the police questioned remembers seeing him going in or out is useless: when I go to the movies I don't expect anyone who works there to remember me going in or out. And anyone who is honest would admit it is not at all unreasonable for someone else to have gone to the movies and no one there remember him or her.
And I see movies all the time and can't name the main actors in them. That doesn't mean I didn't go see the movies.
The movie gives us legitimate reasons why the boy might not be able to recall the names of the movies he saw or the actors: he was being questioned at 3 in the morning, after having been thrown down half a flight of stairs by detectives, and he was being questioned as a murder suspect, while his father's dead body was nearby in the apartment. None of those apply to juror 4 (the usually non-sweating juror), who could not accurately remember the names of the movies and actors he saw a few days earlier.
The father had a criminal record and was killed with an easy to obtain common weapon. He was a violent man. It's within the realm of possibility, he crossed someone that came to the house to collect.
This is a Movie Classic
You cut out the burn!!!
Nice reaction to this great movie. You just earned a new sub, I am liking your reactions a lot.
thank you, very kindly
Good choice for reaction. Vert good movie 😊
Wonderful reaction. Thank you.
appreciate you
A very good, and verbose reaction video.
Pleeeeease react to Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner with Sidney Poitier! It’s a beautifully done snapshot of race relations in the 60’s. Sooo good! I think you’d like it.
I've only seen the Bernie Mac reboot; I will def check that out. thank you!
Great review. I am very impressed.
Thanks for watching!
Great reaction
This video gets a like for the three consecutive fan puns. #fanofpuns
Great reaction video. You are very bright and funny. Plus you're very good looking. What a package! 🤩
😊 thanks for watching!!
You need to double-check your word usage. I started noticing the awkward phasing subconsciously and then it became very distracting. Your review was great, but you were trying too hard to sound eloquent. There were at least ten or twelve times that I had to pause and think about what you were trying to say. I tried the phrases on my wife to make sure I wasn't being annoyed for nothing.
😏😏
Acting was ‘ over acted!’ Back then..
As usual, yet another UA-camr who doesn’t check his sound balance! Can barely hear the dialogue in the movie!!!
If I turn up the volume, when you speak you’re way too loud and booming! Acchhh, what’s the point! 🤷♂
Bigots say thay.
Volumes is too low to watch.
If we assume that the boy lost his knife through a hole in his pants without realizing it, and that someone else coincidentally used the exact same (looking) knife to kill his father, not using a gun, baseball bat, or anything else. The killer btw went of course to the boy's appartment without any connections to the boy, besides he likes to use the exactly same looking knife to kill ppl, the boy lost only few hours ago, which is a mindblowing coincidence in itself. If we assume that both eyewitnesses are lying, women never wear sunglasses in summer or that she is farsighted, and if we assume that the boy completely forgot his alibi, unlike the juror who only forgot a tiny detail from three days ago. Then, I mean, really taking all these assumptions together and pile it up to a big mountain of assumptions and coincidences, well then there is an astronomically small possibility that it wasn't the boy.
Not at all, apparently knife based violence was very common in that area, so much so that the character who grew up in the slums had a strong understanding of how the knives were used and what kinds of things someone would never do with them. And second, if an exact copy could be found in under half an hour for just a few dollars, chances are there's plenty more in the area. Odds are good that it's a very common kind of knife to be sold around that neighborhood.
If the father was killed by someone else, them using the kind of knife we know could be easily bought in the area is actually quite plausible.
We're also not assuming that either witness is lying. We're assuming that it's possible that they overstated the certainty of what they saw/heard to an extent. Eyewitness testimony is now considered to be remarkably unreliable by experts because the human brain fills in details with our assumptions around what's true.
The fact is, you have to make a series of assumptions to decide that you know it was the boy. Maybe it was, but there's a very reasonable chance that it wasn't.
@@thegrandwombat8797 Then why dont we stop calling eyewitnesses into court? They seem to be useless.
It is also funny to hear that in that area everybody is familiar with knifes. However this expert has stabed the dad from up to downwards. Doesnt seem to be a pro there, still he came with a knife. If the boy did it ppl say yeah the boy would fight otherwise. But if someone else from the hood does it that way, nobody gives a f...
And the knife wasnt unique but still rare, even slumdog Juror did not counterd that point when some said "have never seen anything like this before". Not even the pawnshop owner, who for sure sees some knifes especially in that area as you stated.
Plus the boy lost his knife only hours before the dad was killed. Someone else was lucky two times, he used the right kind of knife the boy had AND boy lost his knife. Pretty heavy stuff piling up against the boy. Well possible is everything, we are talking about reasonable doubt. Practically someone can adjust every story to fit into their own agenda
@@PaulWinkle How do you know the knife was rare? Selling them was illegal of course the pawnshop owner wasn't talking about selling them all the time. Don't mistake your assumptions for fact. Like you said, it's very easy to adjust any story to fit into an agenda.
@@thegrandwombat8797 Juror from the slums supported the statement. While we are watching his explanation regarding the angle of the stabbing, most ppl consider him as an expert regarding switchblade knifes. He was in the room all the time, just like any other juror. When someone said "this is a very unusual knife" he did not say "oh wait I've seen these often, I am from the slums", neither did he later. Pawnshop owner said sth similar. BTW I rewatched the scene around minute 25. It is even worse, the boy said that he got punched by his father several times, THEN he went to the pawnahop bought the knife, showed it around, "lost" it and so on...
@@PaulWinkle None of the jurors were neighbors of the kid, all we know about the neighborhood was that you could find and buy that exact knife for cheap at the first place the one juror who visited the neighborhood stepped into. And did you expect the pawnshop owner to say "yes I illegally sell knives all the time, it wasn't just a one time thing"?
You seem pretty invested in the idea that the kid did it, not sure what's up with that, but the whole point of the movie is that we just don't have enough information to know either way. The evidence was written to not be overwhelmingly conclusive either way. He might have done it, he might not have, but to say it's almost certain that he did is categorically wrong.
Reactor likes to hear himself talk way too much for me.
Commenter likes to see himself write way too much for me.