12 Angry Men

1957

Action / Crime / Drama

343
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 100% · 61 reviews
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 97% · 100K ratings
IMDb Rating 9.0/10 10 859201 859.2K

Please enable your VPN when downloading torrents

If you torrent without a VPN, your ISP can see that you're torrenting and may throttle your connection and get fined by legal action!

Get Guard VPN

Plot summary

The defense and the prosecution have rested and the jury is filing into the jury room to decide if a young Spanish-American is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. What begins as an open and shut case soon becomes a mini-drama of each of the jurors' prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused, and each other.


Uploaded by: OTTO
April 25, 2023 at 05:51 PM

Director

Top cast

Henry Fonda as Juror #8
Robert Webber as Juror #12
Lee J. Cobb as Juror #3
Jack Warden as Juror #7
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU 2160p.BLU.x265
700.07 MB
1280*720
English 2.0
NR
23.976 fps
1 hr 36 min
Seeds 80
1.52 GB
1792*1072
English 2.0
NR
23.976 fps
1 hr 36 min
Seeds 100+
4.32 GB
3840*2076
English 5.1
NR
24 fps
1 hr 35 min
Seeds 53

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by CubsandCulture 10 / 10

Juror #4 is why this is a great film

The film is considered a classic because of the heroism and humanitarianism of Juror #8, because of the film's great direction of keeping such a small space visually fresh and because well it's a darn good story. I think a lot of people think the film is about an innocent man being freed by a jury that was initially hobbled by prejudice and vindictiveness. I.e. Juror #10 is a bigot, Juror #3 was trying to convict because of personal demons around his son. That is the first impression the film gives. But the film is a lot more nuanced than that. Instead, the film is about a man-who probably did commit the crime-being freed because the state failed to met its evidential burden. The first take on the film is a moral polemic, the second take is compelling legal drama.

Juror #4-the calm, always reasonable and engaged stockbroker brought to life by e.g. Marshall-is where the second take comes from in my mind. Had every single juror who was in the "guilty" camp to the bitter end been bigoted, unreasonable the film would be poorer for it. Instead Juror #4 *sincerely* believes in the defendants' guilt *until* the core of the case is dealt with. I.e. The eye witness. The character is the best arguer and while he is clearly engaged by the proceedings he is not emotional, personal. Juror #4 is the best juror qua juror because he demonstrates the virtue of reasonableness. This character is why the final film is so great and nuanced.

While Juror #8 is the hero of *this* story Juror #4 is the model we should strive to follow if called to serve.

Reviewed by mark.waltz 10 / 10

One of the great theatrical examples of what makes for superb drama.

Theater at its best is practically impossible to get down on film correctly. When Hollywood gets it right, they create a work of art. In this case, they did it simply, without frills, casting actors who looked real and fell into their individual parts like kids into a swimming pool on a hot summers day. It's the hottest day of the year, and these twelve men must decide the fate of an accused killer. But twelve men means twelve personalities, twelve temperaments, twelve political views, twelve religious opinions and twelve preconceived notions. As the temperature swells, so does the temperament.

Having been a very reluctant jury foreman, I find myself seeing eye to eye with the shyness of the man forced to lead the proceedings. Everybody looks at you to get the ball rolling and hopefully get out of there as quickly as possible. Martin Balsam, as the foreman, tries to remain dignified and not be overly in control, losing that to one of the jurors who looks at the case in a completely different way than the others. Twelve personalities means plenty of neuroses, and in a very short time, seeing what's really going on in the minds of strangers whom you'll never see again.

This trial involves young John Sacova, accused of killing his own father, and the twelve men must decide whether he gets the chair or not. These men, only identified through their juror number, are completely different, and it's obvious from the start that some of them (John Fiedler in particular) vote guilty because they think they have to. Only one (Henry Fonda) votes not guilty, and of course, one of them says, "There's always one." There are the aggressive ones certain of guilt, empathetic ones who would like to see the charges reduced, and those who view all young people from certain areas as scum regardless of their situation. At 60 years old, this film shows the same prejudices we face today, yet shows that there is always someone not about to follow the crowd simply because something strikes them as off. It is Fonda who will pretty much control the room, although he does it in a subtle way where nobody realizes that he's pretty much taken over.

While jury's have changed in 60 years (allowing women to serve being the most obvious change), what hasn't changed in the conflict of trying to understand the truth and to agree with 11 other people about it. Fonda goes against what would be allowed today by acting on his own and visiting the neighborhood of the crime, but his passion in figuring out the truth is very admirable. He is quiet in his determination, making this typical Fonda but one that fills his soul with humility and integrity.

Under the direction of novice Sidney Lumet, the entire cast is outstanding. Familiar faces from all walks of show business each get their chance to shine. Jack Klugman, Ed Begley, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, to name a few. I could easily write something about each of them, but it's worth checking them all out yourself. The one juror who really makes an impression in creating his character is Lee J. Cobb as the very aggressive juror who is hiding behind similarities to the case, having had a contentious relationship with his son that sparks his instant sense that the defendant is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. He was deservedly nominated for a Golden Globe (as was Fonda), but the Oscars only acknowledged the film, director and script for nominations.

Each jury is its own story, and from city to city, nothing changes but the type of case and the date.

Reviewed by Marwan-Bob 10 / 10

Flawless

Oh Boy Oh Boy, it Took me Seven years to Rewatch This Masterpiece, Damn why don't they make em like this Anymore.

Read more IMDb reviews

33 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment