Buy 12 Angry Men Movie. Watch online or Download
Genres: CrimeDramaMyst
Starring: E.G. Marshall, Martin Balsam, Henry Fonda, Jack Warden, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, Jack Klugman
Director(s): Sidney Lumet
Available Quality: Hi Def
Country: USA
Year: 1957
Available Quality: DivX, Hi Def, iPod, Hi Def, Hi Def
IMDB Rating: 8.9 out of 10 (171326 votes)
12 Angry Men focuses on a jurys deliberations in a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused in the stabbing death of his father, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be open-and-shut The defendant has a weak alibi a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty only Juror No. 8 (Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after all, the jurors must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. As the deliberations unfold, the story quickly becomes a study of the jurors complex personalities (which range from wise, bright and empathetic to arrogant, prejudiced and merciless), preconceptions, backgrounds and interactions. That provides the backdrop to Mr. Davis attempts in convincing the other jurors that a not guilty verdict might be appropriate.
 |
12 Angry Men (iPod) | Resolution: 480x288 px | Total Size: 304 Mb |
|
|
 |
12 Angry Men (Hi Def) | Resolution: 852x512 px | Total Size: 679 Mb |
|
|
 |
12 Angry Men (Hi Def) | Resolution: 1808x1080 px | Total Size: 6707 Mb |
|
|
 |
12 Angry Men (Hi Def) | Resolution: 1200x720 px | Total Size: 4469 Mb |
|
|
 |
12 Angry Men (DivX) | Resolution: 640x384 px | Total Size: 701 Mb |
|
Movie Photos:
We have taken some photos of "12 Angry Men". They represent actual movie quality.
Visitors Review
penfrasha3 (23 May 2012)
required viewing
I've seen this movie at least a dozen times, but never tire of watchingit. I think it should be a requirement that this movie be seen by everyjury, before jury deliberations begin. It is a blueprint for how itshould be done. If all juries watched it, I think it would help them toreally think about all the facts presented, and help them be betterjurors. They could not help but to consciously fight againstpreconceived opinions and prejudices within themselves and from others.Lee J. Cobb just rips my heart out, and I cry right along with him atthe end, every time. It is obvious that the majority of IMDb voters areyoungsters with computers and internet access, who probably have nevereven seen classics like this, as evidenced by the huge difference inthe number of votes cast. In the hundred thousand range for movies likeLord Of The Rings, and in the twenty thousand range for this movie.Mind blowing special effects in Lord of The Rings, and just twelve menin a room talking, in Twelve Angry Men. One of the best movies evermade.
(23 May 2012)
I Never Tire of It!
I received this video last weekend and have since watched it three times, all the way through. I am not the least bit tired of it yet! I love movies that have all-star casts but no real "starring role"; 12 ANGRY MEN is just such a movie. It is fascinating to watch the interaction between twelve superlative actors confined in a small space (the jury room) for nearly the entire film. All of the actors -- including Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley, and Martin Balsam -- are superb. However, my favorite characters are the ones played by Jack Klugman, George Voskovec, E.G. Marshall, and Edward Binns. Klugman's character, a young man from the slums, clearly has some repressed anger but is basically a vulnerable, soft-spoken person. Voskovec's character is an immigrant from (I assume) Eastern Europe, well-mannered and thoughtful, though he becomes angry when he sees others not taking their democratic duties seriously. E.G. Marshall's character is a bit aloof and very reasoned; but unlike a couple of the others (Cobb's and Begley's characters), he is no bigot. When at the end of the movie he realizes that his judgment was wrong, he does not hesitate to admit it. Binns plays a kindly, working-class man who gives Cobb's character a few lessons in respect. And of course, Henry Fonda comes across as sincere, thoughtful, and compassionate. The superlative cast and direction (by Sidney Lumet) make 12 ANGRY MEN a classic that can be watched again and again.
dmachop (19 May 2012)
A brainy, thought-provoking movie without any action, romance.
It's a rarity to find such a film without any action, romance, comedyetc. and especially no commercial elements. Well, you can see that it'smade in 1957 and maybe that's the reason...?!!The movie starts with a scene in the court(as usual in some movies)where the accused has been proved guilty and given a death sentence forcommitting a murder. Here comes the actual part of the film, where thescene now shifts to the jury room, where twelve men take part in adiscussion. The beginning 20 minutes gives the details of jury member,how they're here. It's not so surprising that one decides the life of aboy/man by deciding him guilty or not guilty in order to get to abaseball game!!!As usual, you find an exceptional guy who keeps mum throughout theintroduction of the movie(and steals the show for the rest of the partof the movie!!!). He's the only guy who said he thinks the boy was notguilty since there's a little doubt in the murder. And there it starts,the whole discussion takes place with a few breaks and at the end ofvote count there seems to be increasing support for the boy being notguilty. However, there's a twist almost at the end of the film, wherejuror 3 and 4 tear apart the theories of the boy being not guilty. It'snot the actual hero who proves the accused is not guilty, but watch foryourself.Another one whose performance is to be mentioned is the role ofLee.J.Cobb who's also the executioner and shows up the emotional stressat the end, exceptional performance of the father!!! Finally, I givethe movie thumbs up if you're not a fan of action genres, but you enjoya thrilling ride not through adventure but dialogs that's been crispand provide a superb stroke of intelligence.
wes-connors (19 May 2012)
The Power of Persuasion
An outstanding reenactment of writer Reginald Rose's superlative 1954"Studio One" drama. Director Sidney Lumet shows how the boundaries incinematic art can be stretched both ways; necessarily minimalist, hemoves the actors and cameras in the jury room like a finely tunedballet. Dependable Henry Fonda gives his best, and it's one of the mostconvincing "Best Actor" performances ever committed to celluloid. Thesupporting cast is perfect.No matter how you feel about the film's thought-provoking thesis, youare captivated by juror Fonda's determination. When he introduces aswitchblade into evidence - during deliberations! - like the poundingof a gavel, you know Fonda's intentions are premeditated; and, watchinghim unravel each juror's mind - along with your own - is trulystunning. Anyone interested in becoming a lawyer should consider Fondaa study model. The defense rests.********** 12 Angry Men (4/13/57) Sidney Lumet ~ Henry Fonda, Lee J.Cobb, Ed Begley, E.G. Marshall
Bob Thurlow (19 May 2012)
Brilliantly done...
The big visual effects and action sequences of today's movies mightimpressyour eyes, but this movie will stimulate your mind. I was told the entiremovie took place in one room, so I was skeptical to view it, but I wasgladi gave it a chance. Excellent dialog, innovative characters and willfilmedtale cements this movie as one of the greatest of all-time.
(18 May 2012)
12 Angry Men DVD
Distributor was great; received the DVD in quicker than expected. The DVD itself is wonderful, with a nice bonus documentary about the making of 12 Angry Men.
(17 May 2012)
Great movie given lackluster DVD release
It is a shame that MGM has given us a DVD with no significant extras (only a trailer) in addition to the lack of English subtitles. This is one of the greatest of all American films; it deserves an SE treatment.However, the picture and audio are good, and the movie itself excellent, so it's worth a purchase.
G K (17 May 2012)
The film boasts a series of excellent performances by young actors who would soon become household names.
12 Angry Men is today viewed as a classic, highly regarded from both acritical and popular viewpoint. A murder case jury about to vote guiltyis convinced otherwise by one doubting member (Henry Fonda).Though unconvincing in detail, this is a brilliantly tight charactermelodrama which is never less than absorbing to experience. Acting anddirection are superlatively tight, and the film was important inhelping to establish television talents in Hollywood. In 2007, 12 AngryMen was selected for preservation in the United States National FilmRegistry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically,or aesthetically significant".
Robert King (13 May 2012)
Awesome!
One of the most intelligent films I've ever seen. Powerful throughout. Thewhole cast were incredible. I think this movie represents a huge wake upcall to humanity - things are not always what they seem. To look beyond ourown limited thinking and prejudices. Henry Fonda's performance is amazing.I felt as if I was sweating in that room with them!
gaityr (13 May 2012)
An acting and writing tour de force!
12 ANGRY MEN is quite simply a film masterpiece. You might not know it fromthe description--12 jurors who are complete strangers to one another arecollected in one room to decide a murder case. 11 believe the defendant, ayoung boy from the wrong side of the tracks and living in the slums, isguilty, beyond the shadow of a doubt. The last one, Juror #8 (Henry Fonda),believes there is a reasonable doubt about the boy's guilt. How Juror #8eventually gets the other jurors on his side is the point of the entirefilm, and it almost entirely takes place in the one small room. Hardlysplashy, with no special effects--just 12 actors, a script, and the camera.Sounds boring? This film is anything but. Reginald Rose writes a greatstory, and though you sometimes get the feeling that this film is meant tobe a play, that's largely due to the slightly claustrophobic feel of havingthe entire proceedings of the film take place in one room. Works for a play,but in a film, one expects cuts to other places, wider shots etc. Still,even this counts in favour of 12 ANGRY MEN, because it forces one toconcentrate on the case, the dialogue, the actors, the characters. Of coursethe film is talky. There's hardly any action. But it couldn't be morewell-paced or timed. In fact, it's exciting, in its way. Every time a newvote is called, every time a vote changes to 'not guilty', the audiencefeels the triumph of something, some 'je ne sais quoi'. Director SidneyLumet does an excellent job of manipulating the black and white medium hechose for this film, making the film timeless (even more so than the 1997 TVremake with Jack Lemmon in Fonda's role--yes, the jury is no longer one of'12 Angry White Men', but colour still dates a film in a way black and whitedoesn't). The character study is really what makes the film: you'll recognise everyonein that jury room, from the non-strident nonconformist (Henry Fonda) throughto the man who has such great difficulty separating his personal emotionsfrom the facts of the case (a stunning Lee J. Cobb). There's the bigot (EdBegley) who realises that his words will always fall on unsympathetic ears;the flighty guy who just wants to get to his baseball game (Jack Warden);the shrewd old man who shouldn't be discounted just because of his age(Joseph Sweeney); and the stuffy intellectual (E.G. Marshall) who isn't toouptight to change when he realises he's wrong. That's only half the cast ofcharacters in this film, and aside from the rather unfortunate foreman orJuror #1 (Martin Balsam), every single character is well fleshed-out and abelievable person. You can understand the reasons why they change theirvotes; it's all perfectly within character. Quite an accomplishment, tobring to life 12 men in the space of one and a half hours. Much credit, ofcourse, must go to the writing of Rose for real, credible characters anddialogue. One remains riveted to the film even though it's mostly talk andno action; that's surely an indication of how great the writing and actingin 12 ANGRY MEN is.Henry Fonda does a fine job as the man who initially stands alone with hisown reasonable doubt. As usual, he underplays his character rather thangrandstanding it, thus allowing for his fellow actors to shine in theshowier roles. All of them turn in brilliant performances, but of particularnote would be Cobbs, whose final impassioned stand as the odd man out (in acomplete reversal of the beginning of the film) is simply stunning. Marshalland Sweeney are excellent in their roles as well. This is most certainly one of the best films ever made: understated,underplayed, but definitely not over-rated. You've heard about 12 ANGRY MEN,I'm sure--so if you haven't seen it, why not? You're missing out on a greatscript, a great cast, and a great moral about the value of democracy in theAmerican judicial system (one that isn't hammered into the audience--it'smade with no self-congratulatory fanfare). Watch this--it's worthit.
Wayne Christopherson (13 May 2012)
My favorite movie of all time
The actors are perfect.The pace of the movie is perfect.The dialogue is perfect.The setting is perfect.As you can see I loved this movie. It is in black and white and this alsoadds to this movie, since this movie is about black and white turning togray. This movie is timeless and priceless and is the only movie that Ihave been compelled to purchase.
(13 May 2012)
Decisions - A reflection of who we are..
A record hot day and a man's life is at stake as he is about to be sentenced to death by 12 jurors from various backgrounds. These 12 jurors, all men, represent Caucasian America of the 1950s, and the values within the American fabric. The 12 men are all assembled in a small conference room after the trial where they should all agree upon the man's guilt or innocence. Juror No. 3 (Lee J. Cobb) spits out that it is an open and shut case as the man is obviously guilty as the jurors sit down to discuss the man's guilt. The only person that seems to disagree is Juror No. 8 (Henry Fonda), who feels that the man might not be guilty after all.The battle of persuasion begins as the majority of the group tempts to pressure Juror No. 8 into submission as they all want to leave the hot room without a fan and return to their daily tasks. However, Juror No.8 believes that when a man's life is at stake, one should take more than a few minutes to ponder the guilt as they could be wrong. This notion is exactly what the film wants to depict as it becomes a lesson of the Constitution and people's right to a fair trial.12 Angry Men takes place in the small conference room where the audience is to be enlightened about the characters and their values. As the story unfolds it becomes apparent that the values of the jurors' influence their decision making. The decision of sentencing a man to death will be a reflection of their own background, education, and upbringing. In essence, the decision is a reflection of each juror. This decision making is drawn into the light through lengthy discussions based on their personal notions. This means that the audience is presented with meticulously brilliant character study.Sidney Lumet directs a brilliant post-courtroom drama, which is supported by an excellent script. The cast carries the script to higher grounds as the cast's performance is outstanding. The cast consists of talented actors such as Martin Balsam, Jack Warden, E.G. Marshall, Henry Fonda, and Lee J. Cobb. The cinematography enhances the hot claustrophobic atmosphere in the conference room, which pushes the film to the top. For example, the camera is being held with a slight superior angle in the beginning which progressively moves to an inferior angle toward the end. This intensifies the claustrophobic atmosphere as the ceiling is being observed within the shot with constant use a closed shot. The slow movement of the camera into an inferior angle also augments the importance of the characters, which is essential as character traits are a dominant part of the film.In the end, the audience will have received an important political story of people's rights in a democracy, which will offer much to ponder. The film also offers a terrific character study as the many jurors' decisions will reflect upon their character. Lastly, 12 Angry Men offers a solid introduction into film making as it displays brilliant use of the camera, mise-en-scene, and performances in front of a camera, which comprises a complete and brilliant cinematic experience.
JoeytheBrit (10 May 2012)
12 Angry Men
It's funny how time changes your perception of films. It must bethirty-plus years since I last watched 12 Angry Men, and in those yearsI've always thought of Lumet's jury drama as a near-perfect piece ofensemble film-making. Today, I still believe it's a classic, but theflaws in both procedure and character development are a little morevisible than they were thirty years ago. Having said that, there's notmany people could write and film a compelling film about a dozen mensat around a table talking.The jury here has to decide the fate of a street punk accused ofstabbing his father to death. The evidence of his guilt seemscompelling: a woman witnessed the murder and a neighbour claims to haveseen the boy fleeing the scene. The suspect has no real alibi to speakof, and his lawyer is apparently on work experience. Eleven of thedisparate group of male jurors immediately vote guilty, but one  HenryFonda  votes not guilty, thus kicking off ninety minutes of sometimesoverwrought debate.Given the fact that practically the entire film takes place in oneroom, director Sidney Lumet does well to prevent things from becomingstale. His camera often gets in tight on the tense, sweating faces ofthe jurors as they verbally slug it out. You can feel both thestifling, claustrophobic heat in the room  a hot summer's day, with noair conditioning and a broken fan  and the pressure felt by each ofthe jurors as they struggle with the facts of what initially seemed aclear-cut case. For the viewer, the time flies by, even though the onlyaction is the slowly spreading sweat stains beneath each man's arms.The story is, if course, more than just 12 men deliberating; it's astudy of man as a group, the way they interact, the differences betweenthem, their weaknesses and strengths. To this end, each seems a littletoo neat and precise, a bit too compartmentalised. Here you have Mr.Prejudice, there is Mr Flippant. Lazy, hesitant, diffident, bigoted,they're all there, and at times it feels as if writer Reginald Rose isticking off each of the sins as he changes each juror's point of view.Nevertheless, the arguments are mostly logical, even if much of what issaid and done would not have been permitted in a jury room even back inthe 50s.And of course that cast is something else. It's like a who's who oflate-fifties American character actors, and each player fits his roleperfectly. Even the lesser known names such as Edward Binns hold theirown. Ironically, perhaps the least convincing performance comes fromone of the better-known actors: Lee Cobb, as the Public Avenger, chewsthe scenery every chance he gets, and at times he's a little toooverwrought to be believable. Fonda is Fonda, which is good enough, butit's Jack Warden as the guy with tickets to the ball game who gave themost convincing performance for me, even though it wasn't the showiest.Despite its flaws, 12 Angry Men still stands up as superior, qualityentertainment. If you consider yourself a film buff  or even just amovie nut  you really should add this one to your 'watched list.'
Charles Saint-Pierre (10 May 2012)
12 angry men, one great movie, a million happy movie buffs.
This is definitely a masterpiece. It's bright and simple. Nothing isconfusing. The actors are great, the script is great, the directing isgreat, everything is great. This movie goes to show that you don't need athousand actors and huge settings to make an excellent picture. All youneed is a good story and boy did Sidney Lumet have a good one or what.Fonda is great as the one juror who believes the accused might be innocentor is at least not convinced that he did do it. Lee J. Cobb is equallygoodas the juror convinced that the boy is guilty and whom Fonda must try toconvince that he should try to consider the facts before just believingtheD.A.'s word. The 1997 remake was also very good but movie buffs arestrongly advised to accept no substitutes. See it at allcosts.
LeRoyMarko (08 May 2012)
What a great film this is
Everybody should see this movie. I first saw it in my 12th grade law class(that was more than 10 years ago) and I just finished watch it again.Fantastic! I think it truly shows us what a great debate can do to theunderstanding of a case. It's justice at its best. We all have prejudicesthat we must try to put away when making a decision like these men have tomake. Why not try to apply this decision making system in our daily life.Maybe then, we would live in a better world.You can feel the tension in that room. First of all, almost all of theaction is in the jury room. It's also almost in real time, so you can followexactly what happen in the hour and half that the men spend in that room.Another thing, it's the hottest day of the summer and the fan isn't workinguntil almost at the end. I find also interesting that these men, at the end of the movie, know a lotabout each other, but they don't even know each other's name. That's whyjury #8 asks jury # 7 his name when exiting the court building at theend.Truly a classic to be watch by everybody.Out of 100, I gave it 89. (That's one of my 25 best movies everseen)
(08 May 2012)
Painless purchase
This review is from: 12 Angry Men (DVD) This video was purchased as a gift, and I was pleasantly surprised that it arrived sooner than expected. Great shopping experience!
Sultan Ameer (07 May 2012)
A movie that gives a perfect example of multiple aspects of human nature.
I won't say that this is "The Best Movie Of All Time" because there isno such thing as "The Best Movie Of All Time" but this movie isdefinitely one of the greatest and my personal favorite of all time. Iwon't point out how well this movie was directed or how well this moviewas written or how well actors acted in this movie because in case ofthis movie and some handful of other movies talking or arguing aboutthese things doesn't matter. Some movies are not just aboutentertainment, some movies are beyond than just entertaining, somemovies are something more than just entertainment and surely this movieis one of them.This movie is a perfect example of multiple aspects of human nature.This movie gives a perfect example of justice. This movie shows howreliable justice is and why justice is not always justice. This moviegives an idea about why world issues doesn't solve and not only an ideaabout issues of today's world but world issues from any age.This movie has a huge influence in my life.
K-Slicer (07 May 2012)
Always watch the classics!
I haven't seen too many classics in my time and I am particularly fond ofthis one. When it comes to the justice system and political jousting, thisis probably the best movie ever made. Jury deliberations are always held outof public view and it was interesting to see how they could possibly go.Granted that this movie is a work of fiction, I found it to be one of themost realistic films of all time as well. This is a dramatic legal classicand I can see where Scott Turow and John Grisham got some inspiration fortheir respective career choices maybe.Here are my reasons (some spoilers may be revealed): (1) The performance ofHenry Fonda anchored this rather extraordinary piece of celluloid. It wasone of the first film roles that really preached political correctness andit was done with both levelheadedness and style. At the time, Fonda took onthe underdog character in a completely new and different way and that madeit the best performance in the movie. (2) This was a movie filled with a lotof excellent performances and the next best one goes to E. G. Marshall. Tome, he was the actual conservative of the movie (sorry Mr. Cobb). His viewswere exactly opposite of Fonda but he kept a sound mind. He logicallychallenged Fonda at every turn but he never lost his cool. While Ed Begleyand Lee J. Cobb played the "conservative" roles (more like fascist bigots inmy opinion), Marshall kept his emotions in check and kept with the coldlogic (much like Fonda) and that is why I found his performance to fit thebill of true conservative. (3) Another great performance was done by JosephSweeney. He proved that old men know their stuff. He reminded me of mymaternal grandfather who is a very learned and observant man himself.Sweeney definitely stole a few scenes from both Fonda and Marshall. Hedefinitely should have been nominated for a supporting actor Oscar. (4)Keeping with the same logic, I really liked George Voskovec. He provided theoutside perspective in the movie. The tense scene he had with Jack Wardenwas the most emotional moment in the film next to Lee J. Cobb's breakdownbefore the end of the film. Granted the nationality of his character wasunknown, it goes to show that people of all ethnicities share the liberalviews on very tenuous issues. (5) The fifth best performance goes to the manwho played Quincy for seven seasons on the show of the same name. What madehim stand out was the fact that he didn't vote not guilty right away eventhough he was a slum survivor like the defendant in the murder trial. Thatis a point that those of the same background will always feel sorry for oneanother. That role was put into the movie to reinforce the sense of realitythat the movie was trying to portray. (6) Even though I haven't seen a lotof his films, I found Sidney Lumet's direction of "12 Angry Men" to be Oscarworthy. He definitely cared about this movie and it was maybe the best filmhe ever had the chance to helm. (7) This movie was spectacularlywell-written. Some of the scenarios couldn't have come about without a greatwriter to do it. Reginald Rose did a great job in coming up with anexcellent screenplay and an excellent set of circumstances to play aroundwith. His talent is evident with the fact that the old man pointed out thelast fact and the leader of the non-guilty side didn't. (8) Thecinematography made me feel the heated claustrophobia that the jurors weresuffering through. Throw in a few lighting switches and a small change indramatic effects and you have an emotionally-charged picture. I was reallyintrigued by the close-ups on some of the actors. You could really sense theraw emotion all those men felt as they debated away on such a weightydecision. It was beyond words at some moments. (9) This truly was a summermovie. The heat coming into a confined space and the rain coming down atnight signaled this thought. I am not a big fan of typical popcorn films andI believe this a needed reprieve from that. I watched this film during asummer thunderstorm and I had to smile at the poetry behind it. It will makeanyone blink a couple of times. (10) Not only is this a summer film, it is atime capsule film. Nowadays, no one could get away with making a film abouta jury filled with only white men. Men and women from all standings wouldhave to be thrown into the mix to satiate the public and the hounds ofpolitical correctness (aka most of Hollywood anyway). I wasn't offended bythis movie at all even though it lacked politcal correctness in terms of thetimes we currently live on. At that time, it was legally acceptable to do assuch and the times eventually change. This film captures the late fifties'mentality on the legal system, political correctness, and class struggleperfectly. Ten reasons give this movie a score of ten.Overall, I found "12 Angry Men" to be a classic that everyone from all walksof life should watch. Not only does hit hard on the times in which it tookplace, it makes a lot of good points on the unfairness of the legal systemand fallability of mankind. All sorts of political opinions and logicalpaths were followed but it was easy to understand and it made "12 Angry Men"all the better. It should not be missed! Here ends my rant!
babynana (06 May 2012)
I didn't like the choices that the directer made in this movie.
In the movie The 12 Angry Man, I didn't like the choices that thedirector made in the movie. First of all, the actors were overactingand they don't sound and their emotion doesn't look believable. Forexample, when the juror number 3 was having his moment talking abouthis kid who he "made the man out of him" by abusing him and later hiskid punched him and ran away. His emotions and the way his voicesounded doesn't seem convincing to me. It seems to me like they arejust reading their script out loud. Secondly, the camera angle wasn'tgood. The camera was mostly close up and it was quite boring. You wantthe audience to look excited or interesting so they will pay moreattention to the main points but this movie didn't do that much of agood job. For example, in the jury room, when they were voting one byone, the camera was close up to them that I didn't get to see thereaction on other juror faces when they were voting one by one. I thinkit will be good to see other juror face and trying to make eye contactwith juror to change their vote. Finally, the actor that they chose toplay the role of the boy who was abused all his life and is a troublemaker, the actor looks nothing like his character in the play. So therefore I think the choices that the director made in this movie weren'tthat bright and it could have been better and more interesting.
(05 May 2012)
not quite as good as I once thought it was
This review is from: 12 Angry Men (DVD) Too bad the Henry Fonda character doesn't do a one-eighty at the end. Now, that might have made us sit up and take real notice.
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20