Hello W. You've mentioned more than once that The Lord of the Rings is your favorite. I realize that you have already seen them, but would you consider reacting to a second viewing of the trilogy? You have great insight and a unique perspective. I think a second viewing would be entertaining. Thanks for considering. (BTW... Theatrical Version please) ~Don
Whimsory used to make skit videos about a typical working class family and their friends/boyfriends. She played every role, and edited it all herself. It's why I sometimes call her "Pumpkin", because the youngest character was basically her as a little girl and was called "Pumpkin".
the irony of juror number 3 hating the kid because he compares him to how his own son, who he thinks doesn't respect his elders, When you remember that he himself started not respecting the old guy, Juror number 9 in the beginning of the film. Talking down to him so much that Juror number 6 literally steps in and says that he will lay him out if he talks to him in a disrespectful tone again. The writing in this film is utter genius, with so much being said that you can even notice things you've never noticed after seeing it dozens of times like I have.
No CGI, no blazing gun battles, no hand to hand combat, no cheesy one liners, no multiple location shots. Just 12 men in one room deciding the fate of a young man. Some of the best writing in a movie.
I wasnt born anywhere near 1950....and this is one of the best movies I have ever seen. That list is fine , dont listen to knucklehead trolls. This is a masterpiece of a movie.
The list is great if you look at it as an approximation and not set in stone. That’s how Whimsory is doing it, but the detractors want to argue specifics.
When I first watched this movie I was in high school and my film studies teacher made us watch it. All my classmates didn’t want to watch it because it was old af, but in the first 15 minutes everybody’s eyes couldn’t leave the screen. If Gen Z kids who are used to watching crappy movies can watch this and enjoy it than it’s a good ass movie!
Some movies are called classics because you can find ways to relate to the characters even if the film is 20, 30, even 60 years old. The power of good direction, great acting, and damn good writing.
From Juror #3's position, this trial is a representation of who is 'Guilty' in he and his son's current estrangement. He is desperate to place the Guilt on his son, but by the end he has to accept that he is the Guilty one.
Whimsory posts another great movie from the list she sometimes uses. I know that no matter how many times I’ve seen this, and how much I read by Ebert and others about its history, I know she’s gonna notice stuff I never saw, and her outro will teach me tons more stuff about it than I knew. Whimsory is the queen of movie channels.
I am always really happy to see young people checking this one out for the first time...especially my favorite reactors. Sidney Lumet is one of the great directors of all time, and this is his first movie and also one of his best. Another movie by Lumet that I always recommend is Fail Safe from 1964...it also stars Henry Fonda. Other older movies that I suggest that were not made by Lumet are...To Kill a Mockingbird(1962), Inherit the Wind(1960), and Judgement at Nuremberg(1961)...all three are highly renowned courtroom dramas filmed in black and white.
I love how Juror number 4 says he never sweats, but then he starts sweating when he gets asked about him and his wife going to the movies and can't say who was staring in the second feature.
"Don't you ever sweat?" "No." LOL, the funniest line from the show. I've seen E. G. Marshall in probably 20 movies and TV shows and he always plays this same character. Love seeing him.
I wached this in 2005 when I was 17 and it became my favorite film of all time. People always assume that I'm an "art film guy" for suggesting it, but the WHOLE POINT of suggesting and old movie is because it has stood the test of time. Do people seriously think that every single piece of classical music is still played today? nope, most of it was forgotten.
This movie is a perfect movie. People always say citizen kane is the non plus ultra, but there are so many pacing issues in that one. 12 angry men…nothing can be taken out, nothing can be added, acting, score, camera work, everything is spot on. Doesn’t have to be anyones favourite film, but it sure is flawless
Juror 3 is a hidden tragedy. Early on in the movie, he mentions that he sat on MANY JURIES BEFORE. By the end of the movie, we see that he sees himself as an executioner, and it's only reasonable to assume that the other juries he sat on didn't have their own Henry Fonda. There's no way to know for sure, but there's a high probability that he showed the same amount of personal bias on the other cases too. It's possible that he has blood on his hands. And that's what he puts together when he rips the picture of his son.
George C Scott crushes it as the bigoted #3. The way he focuses his anger on the external, the 'other', instead of dealing with his own life is so well written and Scott's simmering anger is brilliantly performed until he boils over and shows his true face before giving in to "Not guilty..." I still don't think he believes it, but can't argue with the facts Fonda is holding over him.
_Twelve Angry Men_ was originally made for television in 1954 as part of the “Westinghouse Studio One” anthology series. Joseph Sweeney, juror 9, the old man, is the only actor from the tv version to appear in the film. The full version is available on RU-vid.
Juror #11, the watchmaker, is the same actor too. I have The Criterion Collection copy of this, and the original “Studio One” episode is a bonus on the blu-ray.
"Them" means Puerto Ricans. At that time there was a lot of tension around the influx of Puerto Ricans moving to New York City. Another movie that touched on these tensions was WEST SIDE STORY.
This is one of the best movies ever made and I'm so glad you did a reaction to it as I love when people do. It is a classic example of how all you need is good writing and cast to make a perfectly compelling movie, that even though it's in black and white can still grip audiences to this day whilst covering such important topics like discrimination and racial prejudice. I LOVE THIS FILM + You Whimsory for covering it, keep up the great work cutie!
"Why do I feel bad for him?" Because he gave an amazing performance and it was a perfect twist that reinterpreted every thing Juror #3 had said up to that moment.
There is really no better film to watch people react to. It's just so solid and surprising, and it holds up today and probably will for another 70 years. Thanks for doing it!
Hi Whimsory, about Juror #9, I think those intense close ups were used because he is the most self - revelatory of all the jurors. When the camera goes close on him it shows the deep self reflection he has undergone and is about to reveal to everyone . The scene where he sizes up the old man witness, the juror is in the exact same circumstance. He is ignored, written off, taken for granted. He also has not been singled out for recognition. He understands why the old witness would seek attention by creating a scenario that everyone wants to hear. He has been tempted to do it himself. The only other juror who is as self revelatory is the Lee J. Cobb character. But that builds up throughout, and then he explodes at the end.
There is so much fantastic black and white cinema out there. The Third Man, Double Indemnity, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Some Like It Hot, The Maltese Falcon, Citizen Kane, Ikiru (To Live), Seven Samurai, The Seventh Seal, Modern Times, The Great Dictator, and so many more I can't think of right now. Luckily most of these are in the IMDb Top 250 list.
Thanks, Whimsory! ⚖ I knew you'd love this one! The writer, as you noted, was Reginald Rose; the director was Sidney Lumet. Rose also wrote Season 4 Episode 15 of THE TWILIGHT ZONE entitled "The Wonderful World of Horace Ford" (1963). Lumet did one of my all-time favorites, a mystery/comedy/drama DEATHTRAP (1982), which I highly recommend.
oh yea she def will love Death trap and the nice twists and then the GREAT ending. THe Play on broadway lasted over 1700 performances, and she would really love it
And now you know why "12 Angry Men" is near the top of the IMDB list of best movies. I loved, loved, loved your post-watch analysis! You said something at the end about going on for far too long, but I enjoyed the entire thing. Thanks! The movie was set in New York City. They never said what despised group the defendant was a member of, but he was probably Puerto Rican. A lot of Puerto Ricans live in New York, and there has always been prejudice against them. Sidney Lumet began the movie using camera angles above the jurors' heads, and slowly moved it downwards. He also used more close-ups as the movie went on. The result was an increasing feeling of being in a small space. Juror 8 (the first one to vote not guilty) was played by Henry Fonda, father of Jane and Peter Fonda, and grandfather of Bridget Fonda. He was in many well-regarded films, including "The Grapes of Wrath" and "Once Upon a Time in the West." Juror 10 (the bigot) was played by Ed Begley, father of Ed Begley, Jr., whom you may have seen in "Young Sheldon," "Better Call Saul," and "Arrested Development." I don't think it was just luck on Sidney Lumet's part that he directed such a fine film. He went on to direct many other great movies, including "The Pawnbroker," "Fail Safe," "Serpico," "Murder on the Orient Express," "Dog Day Afternoon," "Network," "The Verdict," and "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead." "Dog Day Afternoon" is a favorite of mine. I'd love for you to react to it. Did you notice that Juror 10 (the bigot) didn't speak a word after Juror 4 (the cool-headed juror) told him not to open his mouth again. Even when casting his final vote, he did it by shaking his head. One thing I like about this movie is how the different characters bring their own experience and perspectives into the jury room with them. The old man understood why another old man would testify the way he did. The guy who lived in a slum knew about how switchblades were used in actual fights. The smallest juror who brought up the question of the kid stabbing downward while being so much shorter than his father. Thanks!
Dog Day Afternoon is a favorite of mine, too. I've seen others react to it and it's still just as good to modern audiences. The Seventies were a great time for American cinema.
I love this movie for so many reasons but I have a special place in my heart for movies where the entire film takes place in one room. To be able to pull that off and be this captivating is something special.
"There isnt much demand for this movie". *I* am demanding this movie lol. I took criminal justice in college and two movies came up in classes. This and My Cousin Vinnie. Since you're open to older movies, I'll one up 1957 and recommend a silent movie called Metropolis from 1927. It was the basis for a whole genre of fiction called cyberpunk. It directly inspired movies like Blade Runner from 1982 (highly recommend that too). Metropolis may have no voice lines, but man it doesn't need it to be a great movie
Henry Fonda was the Tom Hanks of the 1940s - he was a highly acclaimed star who was known for playing these Everyman roles. He won an Academy Award, a BAFTA, and a Golden Globe for this film. And virtually all of the others were veteran character actors who had appeared in dozens of movies and TV shows of the period. The acting talent in that little room was incredible.
So good, one of the best ever made, all the way back in 1957, but doesn't get mentioned or watched anywhere near as much as the others at the top of the list. Under valued
@@YvesFey when people watch it, it seems to have a really positive impact on most people. But I think hardly any people have heard of it or know much about it, especially compared to the other films high on the imdb list. Shawshank, Godfather, Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings, Schindlers List, Pulp Fiction, etc. - most people have a level of awareness of these, which 12 Angry Men doesn't have
I believe the reason why, when juror #9 is speaking, the camera goes to a closeup, increasingly so as the movie progresses, is because it has been established, by the statements of the others as well as his identification with the old man on the witness stand, that most people don't care what he has to say. The closeups underscore the fact that he does indeed have some important things to say.
This is your best video yet. Also, I'm glad you noticed how bored the judge was at the very beginning of the film: it was important to set the scene for how literally nobody gave a shit about this kid.
I started using the IMDB top 250 list in 2009, and it's been a fantastic way to connect with what general film lovers vote on to be the all-time classics. I think a lot of complainers unfortunately take it personal that their favorite films aren't on there/aren't high enough. There's also a lot of amazing movies that used to be on there that no longer are but that's nothing to froth over. It's a reliable recommendation guide, not the gospel and everyone should know that.
Sidney Lumet's first theatrical movie directing job. He had previously only done TV directing. What an entrance. And the cinematographer, Boris Kaufman, had already won an Oscar for his work filming On the Waterfront.
Whimsory! If you want another profound and entertaining film from long ago, check out "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" (1967). A magnificent comedy-drama about upper class parents, their daughter and her surprise engagement to an African American man. Elite level cast: Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn and Sidney Poitier Lots of laughs and moving, profound monologues. 👍👍 Sidney Poitier has the greatest film monologue that I have ever seen.
btw, pay no mind when people are extra rude to whatever reason. I'm talking about the people being rude with you about the list, but that applies to anything, just ignore them and do your thing. And yes, that list is as good as anything when it comes to subjectivity, so just go with it.
The IMDb list is a fine starting point. You just need to understand that their system is based on a weighted average of regular IMDb voters. The demographics of this group are not representative of the entire population. IMDb used to give the gender and age breakdown of the voters. Now, the only breakdown is by country. The other info may be available from IMDBPro. When the info was available, you could see the majority of the voters were young men. That's why you don't see many chick flicks in the top 250, and movies that appeal to young men may seem overrepresented and rated higher than they should be.
this is one of the very few movies, that no matter when I click into it, beginning, middle or near the end, I will watch it to the end, for a movie shot almost entirely one room it's astounding, don't listen to the knuckle draggers that dis your list...great awards rofl
So, I think that Henry Fonda, arguably by far the biggest name in this movie at the time, took scale to help get this movie made, he loved the script so much. As far as the age of the film, it is worth remembering that as we move further ahead in time the things that last, tend to be the good things. There were movies that came out the same year that were forgotten and are lost. This one people see and love 70 years later. Amazing.
One of my favorite films from the 1950's, such a great picture, so creative, so elegant, and I love that so many reactors have watched it recently...long overdue. A lot of my friends have never seen this film, so I'm so happy so many younger people are discovering it.
I remember watching this movie on Turner Classic Movies, and from the first scene I was struck by the cinematography, and then hooked on the plot driven largely by the character's dialogue & the performances. It's since remained my idea of a perfect movie, the verifiable 10/10 by which every other film I watch may be judged in terms of quality. A truly wonderful little piece of art, this is, and I'm always happy to see other people discover it.
I think he had such an easier time winning them over because he addressed them as intelligent, respectable individuals. That's how he got the old man on his side, who, in turn, got more people on his side. He didn't argue at their points, he laid out his own and asked them to follow his reasoning.
I was born in 1953 in the New York City area. At that time immigrants from Puerto Rico were heavily looked down upon as hoodlums and low lifes. John Savoca, the young man who played the accused, is likely of Italian ethnicity -- but he could easily be taken for Puerto Rican. Given the time period, I'm pretty confident that most viewers (at least in the Northeast) would have assumed they were talking about Puerto Ricans.
One of the best movies ever made, an American civics lesson, a seminar in conflict resolution, and on and on…. Thank you as ever for a great review and brining some of the greatest movies, old and new, to a younger audience. I also suggest Maltese Falcon.
“No religion is strict enough to ban _Winnie the Pooh.”_ The books have faced multiple bans in places because talking animals are sacrilegious. It has also sometimes been banned because Piglet was deemed offensive to Jewish and Muslim people.
Jack Klugman, who played the juror that didn't care about the trial because he wanted to leave to watch a baseball game, went on to be the star of a television show where in every episode he was the person that cared the most about situations that other people thought were routine or unimportant ("Quincy M.E.")
First, as usual I enjoyed your reaction. Second, nearly everybody on YT reacts to this movie, so seriously, no need to apologize. It's a classic and deservedly so. Even if you didn't react to it on your channel, it's worth watching. Third, big shout-out to those classic actors who honed their skills on stage. They were craftsmen of the highest order and it shows in this three-room set.
Not sure how old you are, but if you are 25 or younger, you are wise beyond your years and very enchanting to watch and listen to. Way to go, your synopsis was fantastic!!!
Such a well written, acted and directed film that is an icon. The director also did, “The Verdict” later with Paul Newman and Jack Warden that is also excellent. Another excellent commentary Whim.
Thank goodness for the algorithm leading me here because this was a phenomenal reaction. On top of that the outro was in-depth, well thought out, and quite interesting. This is one of those movies that stays with you after you watch it. The acting and writing were both top tier. It essentially takes place in a single room, with long drawn out shots, and the actors fire off their lines one after the other and it sounds organic. It doesn't sound like they're regurgitating lines and this movie would be completely different if you take a single one of them away. Subscribing was a no-brainer after watching this. I'd also recommend "To Kill a Mockingbird" after having seen this. I feel it goes really well with this movie. Great job and I can't wait to see what's next in store.
I think Juror Number 4 is my favorite character in this movie. The way he always seems vaguely disgusted to be on the same side as 3 and 10 is a nice addition to his performance, and adds so many layers to what could have been a flat, straightforward role.
I think I heard you say that you watched the movie a few times before your recap. It shows. You have a good grasp of the content and characters. This is one of my all time favorite movies. It still makes me tear up in places.
Just recently watched this with my wife and 9 year old grandson, neither had watched it before. Even the 9 year old was glued to the screen. Said it was a really good movie. Your analysis is fantastic and amazing, great job. Movies like this prove that you can have a great drama without a lot of explosions, violence, graphic language, special effects or just any action at all.
I love this film, and your reaction and analysis of it too, Whimory. It remains a classic for a reason, superb, writing, acting and directing, it seems like everyone involved in this was on their 'A Game'.
I think the close-ups of juror 9 emphasized the start of the shift in the jury’s opinion. It’s brilliant writing, directing, cinematography, and acting coming together. It’s one of my favorite films. I enjoyed how you broke it down. Thank you for the reaction!
This is one of your longer outros, and I'm happy for it. Most of us have seen these films and have our thoughts. We watch to see yours. You obviously did a lot of post work and didn't just wing it...keep up the great work.
It doesn't matter who 'they' are. That's the beauty of this movie that they never say who 'they' are, because no matter where or when, there will always be a 'they'. 'They' might be from a different country, a different ethnicity, religion, a certain part of a city, the rich, the poor and so on. This makes this movie timeless.
Hi Whimsory, you keep saying that the acting is top notch. This movie is an example of the acting and the directing working together perfectly, to everyone's credit and benefit!
Notice that juror 10 in a visual analogy goes from the "Adult" table to the "Kiddie" table when told to sit down and not talk again. By changing his mind, he could now join with the adults.
Sidney Lumet has an incredible body of work. This film, Network, Dog Day Afternoon, Fail Safe, Serpico, The Verdict, the list goes on. Also, he wrote a book titled "Making Movies" that I would recommend to anyone that is interested in films.
"Wet blanket" is the expression I remember...lol...they made movies so very differently in the 50's. The acting, dialoge, setting, ect. is very time specific. This movie had a simple premise and a single location more or less, but it keeps your attention from start to finish. I don't remember exactly when I saw this movie, but now that I think about it, I saw it in my 8th grade Language Arts class. So around 1985/86. The teacher I had taught us almost on a college level. Very interesting class...sorry I wandered off...lol....😊
I really appreciate your reactions, Whimsory. It’s very different from the other channels I watch, and I’m very impressed with how much work, time, and effort you put into your videos. I can’t imagine how long it takes you to do everything that you do just to put out one movie reaction like you do, especially with the things you have to do in your personal life as well. I just wanted to say that I admire all of the things you do to make your content for each video, and I hope you continue to do these very well edited, very thorough, very thought out and extremely informative reactions.
Watching DUNE part 1 brought this film to mind. When the Fremen are said to be "dangerous and unreliable," I sarcastically said, "Oh, there're some GOOD things about 'em, too. I've known a COUPLE who were okay." A couple of these angry men reunite in ALL THE PRESIDENT"S MEN.
This is one of my favorite movies. One is the loneliest number that you'll ever do 🎶 I think I have seen this movie about 15 times, and I know I have seen at least five reactions to it. But I have never seen anyone break it down like you did. Great Job!
Speaking only for myself, I love it when people react to the movies from the thirties, forties, and fifties. These were movies that, with all the difficulties of life, made you feel good about the world. When you do these films, you will always get a like from me. By the way, now that you have seen this movie, you might like to watch (possibly just for your own amusement) Season 1, Episode 25 of the Dick Van Dyke TV show: "One Angry Man. It is hilarious and now you will get the joke.
These older movies really are something. They didn't have special effects, and action sequences with Michael Bay level of explosions to carry the film, so they had to rely on storytelling, script, and great acting. 12 Angry Men had a super-stacked cast. Lee J. Cobb pulled out all the stops playing Juror #3. Other great movies to consider: The Maltese Falcon Casablanca The Big Sleep The Naked City Touch of Evil (the 1998 edit incorporating Welles' memo on how he wanted the film edited)
I do truly love that so many younger reactors are reacting to this movie. Movies like this, Schindlers List, American History X (and so many more) are so important for these young generations to see and absorb.
I think the reason they zoom in on juror #9 is because they had to reshoot his lines. Because other actors who sat next to him were unavailable, they decided to zoom in on him and show little alongside him.
I had a bit of a revelation a few months ago about this movie and a situation I was caught up in at work. It dawned on me that 12 Angry Men is a perfect training film for team dynamics; everyone takes on a role in trying to understand the case and then convince others. And the more I learned about the filming process, the more I appreciated the subtlety it used to present its story. I bought a copy of the Criterion Collection Blu-Ray recently, which includes the original teleplay. In that one you see a table in a room and the actors move around. No closeups and more distance from everything and everyone. I found it unwatchable. That made me realize just how great a job Sidney Lumet did as director. Also, I'm a lot older than you, and I remember most of the cast from television roles in the 60s and 70s. These were great actors giving both subtle and dramatic performances. One of my favorite movies for sure.
This is my favorite movie. It's an absolute masterclass of acting, screenwriting, pacing, blocking and every component of cinema. Jury number 4 is my favorite character. Although he's technically an antagonist, he's also one of the most level headed and reasonably people in the room. He isn't voting guilty because of prejudices (unlike all of the other final holdouts), but because he genuinely believes that the correct decision based on the facts. He makes arguments to support his position, and he responds to the arguments of others and directly addresses their points (he's also visible irritated by the bluster of Juror 3 and others, even though they're "on his side"). Sometimes, after Fonda's character makes a good argument, you can see Juror number 4 sitting quietly and having a good, long think about it. Fonda's character seems to pick up on it too. As the movie goes on, he increasingly direct his arguments directly towards Juror 4; perhaps realizing that he's the most reasonable party in the opposition and their most skilled debater. And, when he's convinced, he changes his mind. He's the most honest person in the room. He also looks kinda like my dad, which may be part of why I like him.
Peer Pressure! In the beginning, the pressure on everyone to convict was strong. Eleven to one. Only one man had the guts to resist it. As the discussion continued, the resistance slowly increased. We see the smiles from the jurors who found allies against the pressure. By the end of the film, the peer pressure had been totally flipped to that of acquittal. Eleven to one. I remember watching videos in school that showed the classic effects of peer pressure. Meek people being unable to dissent, but then finding the courage once they find allies. Classic psychological experiment.
Great reaction! I was on a jury (burglary), and we were told we were not supposed to consider the past behavior of the accused, only evaluate the facts pertaining directly to the current case. We never even heard about the accused's prior felonies until after the verdict was delivered (guilty, but emotional process to get there). I would not want the responsibility of being on a murder trial.
One of the greatest movies of all time, and your review was fantastic, as always. You forgot to rate one major character though. The Weather. There are a few gems from this time period and beyond. Worth looking into. Johnny got his gun 1971 is a film that comes to mind, at the top of my head.
