12 ANGRY MEN (2BD/4KUHD)

In 2008, the American Film Institute (AFI) unveiled its list of Top 10 'Courtroom Dramas'. First on the list was 'To Kill a Mockingbird' (1962) and in second place was '12 Angry Men' (1957). In my humble opinion, I think that '12 Angry Men' should have topped the chart because it is not only profound but entertaining too. The film was praised by critics but was only a lukewarm success at the box office. At the 30th Academy Awards, it was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Screenplay (Reginald Rose). Amazingly, this was Sidney Lumet's directorial debut and it announced the arrival of a major talent. Lumet would later go on to direct such classics as ''The Pawnbroker' (1964), 'The Hill' (1965), 'Serpico' (1973), 'Dog Day Afternoon' (1975), and 'Network' (1976). '12 Angry Men' features an ensemble cast of great actors, including Henry Fonda (Juror No 8), Martin Balsam (Juror No 1), and Lee J. Cobb (Juror No 3) to name just three of the amazing twelve. I consider the film an epic, even though its 96 mins runtime takes place in a hot and sticky jury room, where the 12 jurors must decide on the evidence they have whether an 18-year-old "slum kid" is guilty of stabbing his father to death or not. A guilty verdict would yield a mandatory death sentence. Yes, the stakes are high. 11 of the jurors believe that the boy is guilty but Juror No 8 (Henry Fonda) believes that there is room for reasonable doubt and they all need to talk and discuss the case from a number of angles before deciding the kid is guilty. Of course, the other 11 don't take too kindly to this as they don't want to hang around, with one juror expressing anxiety that he might miss the Yankees game later that evening. Juror No 8 is left with the almost impossible task of trying to bring the other 11 around to making a reasonable and informed decision. No easy task as the 11 are certain that the boy is guilty and needs to be executed for murdering his father in cold blood. Things get quite personal at times, with jurors throwing insults at each other and there are occasions when it looks like some of them will come to blows. Professor of Law Emeritus at UCLA School of Law Michael Asimow referred to the film as a "tribute to a common man holding out against lynch mob mentality", while Gavin Smith of Film Comment called the film "a definitive rebuttal to the lynch mob hysteria of the McCarthy era". '12 Angry Men' is a comment on American democracy that was under threat at the time by the McCarthy crackdown. What the film is attempting to highlight is how, in a perfect world, a world without political repression, democracy should really work. The film postulates a simple premise, one that suggests that a true democracy values different opinions and these opinions should all be considered when trying to hammer out a reasonable compromise. After watching this film, you will be inspired and satisfied that the jurors in this particular case have done their job well, but you may also worry that sometimes jurors don't take their responsibilities this seriously and as a consequence the innocent end up going to jail or worse still facing the death penalty. Speaking at a screening of the film during the 2010 Fordham University School of Law Film Festival, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that seeing '12 Angry Men' while she was in college influenced her decision to pursue a career in law. After watching this brilliant legal drama you, too, may want to do the same thing.

For a friend. He enjoyed it

Great film

Great

We are all used to courtroom dramas, but one aspect that never seems to get dramatised is the Jury deliberations. I think one of the reasons for this lack is that this excellent film did it so well that no other Jury drama will ever stand up to it. We are never shown the court case the jury are deliberating. The film starts with the summing up of the Judge, and the jury filing into their room. What follows is an adsorbing ninety minutes as the jurors discuss the case and a verdict is reached. At first all but one (Henry Fonda) believes the defendant to be guilty, but Fonda has reasonable doubt, and a belief that as a man's life is at stake then the least they can do is talk it through properly. Having served in a jury myself (though in a British court and where the possible penalty for the defendant was a lot less severe than death) I recognised a lot of what was shown in this film. People willing to convict out of blind prejudice, people wishing to weigh every item of evidence before reaching a verdict, people wanting to just get it over with as quickly as possible. It is a tale that really struck a chord with me. For dramatic purposes some of the prejudices and arguments are a bit over the top, and as we have not seen the trial then the writer is free to introduce evidence and arguments out of thin air (the point about the glasses in the discussion of one witnesses testimony) in order to make a neat narrative. I can forgive these points. What I cannot, however, forgive is the lack of attention to legal detail. There are one or two instances, especially in the first discussion of the murder weapon, that are just plain illegal and would cause a juror to be dismissed. I have had to knock a star of for that. The film is brilliantly directed by Sidney Lumet. The action all takes place in one room, we are often distracted as two or three conversations are going on at once, in a very verite manner. As the movie progresses Lumet changes the lenses on the camera and the angle of the shots to give an ever increasing feeling of claustrophobia and tension. It is an excellent character study, as each of the 12 disparate men and their motives are examined. This is a combination of excellent writing, directing and superb acting. The twelve actors are on top form, and give convincing and moving performances. It is not often I enjoy a film with all talking in one room and no action, but this had me adsorbed. This DVD has a nice black and white widescreen transfer, which doesn't have any noticeable scratches or defects. The sound is pretty good. The only extra is a trailer. Four stars in total.

A great film. A classic.

There is little I can add to the many review comments already made but would add three observations as to why on seeing this 1957 film for the first time in 2012, I feel it is remains so powerful: 1. The film works so perfectly because it breaks all the rules of such courtroom dramas. In 1957 it must have been truly revolutionary viewing, explaining why four Oscar nominations including Best Picture followed. The claustrophobia of the jury room including its washroom under NY summer heat as the only set locations over 97% of the film are used to great effect. 2. The piece succeeds dramatically not just because it is well scripted (from a predecessor teleplay) but as the title "Twelve Angry Men" infers, from its power of great ensemble and emotional range playing by all the cast and not just a few leads. I would single out Joseph Sweeney as the retired but knowledgable observer and E. G. Marshall as the cool headed logical analyst alongside the already famous or soon to be famous cast in proving that the film works so well because it does not let Henry Fonda or Lee J. Cobb and Ed Begley have all the running time and lines. 3. Finally, given limited sets the creative use of camera positions especially the closing in on faces with different lens at key points shows how keeping it simple can also be very effective. In answer to why this film does not make more top film lists, I suspect its too theatric style staging leaves many feeling it is not their view of what great cinema is about. It is also interesting that when director Sidney Lumet returned to shoot another courtroom drama later in life ("The Verdict" from 1982 which included Jack Warden again in the cast), he adopted the completely opposite approach to lesser effect as per my Amazon review (http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R4ZZN5KBIMHOW/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0090NAFOO&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283926&store=dvd)

I have known of this film for years and from the off I have thought it was special. I had not seen it for some years so I bought it on Amazon. Well, having just seen it again, I have to say that it gets better with every viewing and I consider it one of the best films ever made. I'm no film critic but for sheer suspense and atmosphere no film has ever bettered '12 Angry Men'. The performances of those playing the jurors in this film are stupendous, from Henry Fonda and Ed Begley to John Fiedler each make a valued contribution. For me however, the star of the film is Lee J Cobb. We perceive him as a once loving father who has become very embittered because he feels deserted by his son who ran away from home. He is bent on inflicting on the accused the punishment he feels his own son deserves. This is a thread that is picked up early in the precedings and is bubbling under the surface for the whole film. The erosion of the prejudice and blinkered thinking so evident in many of the jurors is gradually exposed by a juror who is hesitant to so readily condemn a man to death, Henry Fonda. His stand eventually gains the support from one other jury member and from then on it is a war of attrition with the rest of the jury. It is fascinating, illuminating and emotive watching the other jurors as their pre-conceived idea's are broken down. We witness the gradual isolation of the bigoted Ed Begley, the exposure of Jack Warden's insensitivity, the icy detachment of E.G.Marshall is thawed and the inner tensions of Lee J Cobb are broken in a memorable climax. There is no need for any extra's on this DVD (although there is an original trailer included) the film stands on its own merits, a real cinematic experience. If you are even half contemplating buying it do not hesitate further , you will not be disappointed.

À posséder absolument !

"12 hommes en colère" retrace le huis clos d'un jury aux Etats-Unis. La lutte d'influence de chaque personnage en font un grand classique, avec un Henry Fonda de gala. Grand film !

The movie For a movie to take place almost entirely in a small room with 12 people to be this powerful is a testament to the writing and directing but above all else, the acting. It never feels dated or like a product of its time and is unique in that it never feels like the message is "racism is bad, don't be racist" but rather that racism can come in many forms and is prevalent in all of us to a certain extent. The disc A wonderful restoration. It looks great without looking fake (usually happens when a release had the de-noising cranked up to 11). It even comes with the 90s made for TV movie and while I was reluctant to give it a shot, it is a fine film in its own right with performances that feel like they have a high level of respect for the source material.

Ein achtzehnjähriger Puerto-Ricaner aus den Slums wird des Mordes an seinem Vater beschuldigt. Nach insgesamt sechs Verhandlungstagen sollen sich die zwölf Geschworenen zurückziehen und ihr Urteil besprechen. Im Falle eines eindeutigen Schuldspruchs droht dem Teenager die Hinrichtung durch den elektrischen Stuhl. Der Fall scheint klar zu sein, und tatsächlich erklären elf Geschworene den jungen Mann für schuldig. Einzig und allein der Geschworene Nr. 8 hat Zweifel an der eindeutigen Schuld des Jungen und beginnt, den Fall nochmal neu aufzurollen... Drehbuchautor Reginald Rose musste selber mal als Geschworener an einem Prozess teilnehmen, wodurch er zu dieser Geschichte inspiriert wurde. Allerdings stieß er bei den Produzenten größtenteils auf taube Ohren, als er angab, aus dieser Erfahrung einen Film machen zu wollen. Aufgrund der räumlichen Begrenzung eignete sich der hier dargestellte Stoff nämlich eher als Theaterstück. Regisseur Sidney Lumet nahm sich der Herausforderung an und lieferte gleich mit seinem ersten Kinofilm überhaupt ein wahres Meisterwerk ab. Dass dieser Film eine Art Theatercharakter aufweist, kann nicht bestritten werden. Tatsächlich verlässt man das Beratungszimmer der zwölf Geschworenen so gut wie nie. Aber das ist keinesfalls ein negativer Kritikpunkt. Ganz im Gegenteil, der Zuschauer wird somit noch näher in das Geschehen eingebunden, wodurch er nach und nach eine Bindung zu den einzelnen Charakteren aufbauen und ihre Intentionen und Sichtweisen besser nachvollziehen kann. Und das ist gut so, denn schließlich ist der Zuschauer hier voll und ganz auf die Schilderungen der Geschworenen angewiesen. Der Film beginnt damit, wie der Richter die Geschworenen über ihre Pflicht aufklärt. Der eigentliche Prozess ist zu diesem Zeitpunkt bereits vorbei. Nur durch die Rekonstruktionen der Geschworenen ist es dem Zuschauer möglich, der Handlung folgen und sich ein eigenes Bild vom im Film thematisierten Verbrechen machen zu können. Mit den falschen Mitteln kann so ein Vorhaben weit nach hinten losgehen, aber hier wird der Zuschauer durch geschickt verteilte Perspektivwechsel, neue Details und brisante Auseinandersetzungen klug bei der Stange gehalten, sodass der Film während seiner gesamten Laufzeit nicht ein einziges Mal langweilig wird. Die Spannungskurve ist mit der eines Dramas zu vergleichen, nur dass der eigentliche Höhepunkt hier erst in den letzten zwei Minuten erfolgt. Ob der Prozess mit einem Schuldspruch endet oder nicht, wird an dieser Stelle natürlich nicht verraten. Nur so viel: Die Schuld des Teenagers steht am Ende nicht eindeutig fest. Die Wahrheit bleibt dem Zuschauer gänzlich unbekannt, wodurch eine weitere Verbindung zu den zwölf Geschworenen entsteht, die sich ebenfalls auf ihre eigene Auffassung des Geschehens beschränken müssen. So gesehen kommt das Ende ziemlich überraschend und plötzlich. Besonders gut gefallen hat mir die Szene nach der Besprechung, in der zwei der Geschworenen sich gegenseitig mit Namen vorstellen. Deutlicher hätte die Kritik am Rechtssystem nicht herausgestellt werden können. Man hat einen ganzen Abend im selben Raum gesessen und über das Leben eines jungen Menschen entschieden, kannte aber nicht einmal den Namen des Sitznachbarn. Diese letzte Szene ist so einfach wie genial. (Hierbei ist zu erwähnen, dass die deutsche Synchronisation einen weiteren Namen hinzugefügt hat, der in der Originalfassung jedoch nicht vorkommt.) Die Schauspieler machen ihre Sache allesamt hervorragend, wobei das größte Lob an Henry Fonda und Lee J. Cobb gehen muss. Die beiden schaffen es fast im Alleingang, die ganze Ambivalenz des hier dargestellten Prozesses auszudrücken. Henry Fonda hat neben seiner eigentlichen schauspielerischen Tätigkeit hier auch als Produzent mitgewirkt. Allerdings war er mit dieser Arbeit dermaßen unzufrieden, dass dieser Film in dieser Hinsicht ein Unikat in seiner Laufbahn darstellt. Ferner mochte Henry Fonda es nicht, einen Film anzusehen, bei dem er mitgewirkt hatte. Aus diesem Grund sah er sich im Schnittraum nicht den gesamten Film an. Und dennoch bestätigte er Regisseur Sidney Lumet, dass er großartig geworden sei - eine Aussage, die man auch fast 60 Jahre später noch voll und ganz bestätigen kann.

Article conforme. Expédition et livraison impeccables. Très satisfait.