LAW STUDENT WATCHES *12 ANGRY MEN* FOR THE FIRST TIME! (IMDB TOP 100) 

I'm impressed at your willingness to discuss each point along the plot line. Also, that you paused along the way to keep viewers from losing the thread of the storyline. The last hold-out juror, who tore up the picture of HIS SON, transferred his dissatisfaction with his own son to the defendant --- exactly as you interpreted the final voter's temper and overall behavior. Thanks for a wonderful analysis and reaction!

The juror with the moustache is an IMMIGRANT -- and understands the system better than the US-born baseball fan.

I think Henry Fonder helping Juror 5 on with his jacket at the end is a nice touch.

Everyone in this film was an experienced stage actor. Learning lines is what they did for a living.

twelve people. one room. No special effects. Just a great script and great actors making an all time great movie

This is a masterpiece of cinema proving that a well presented story far outweighs big budget special effects. A couple of tricks the director used to increase the tension involved the camera angle going from using more far away overhead shots to slowly moving in closer with more head level shots and by the end of the film the camera at times was lower than face level looking upward. Also, as the film progressed the director had the walls of the room moved inward making a smaller room to create more of a claustrophobic feeling for the viewers.

I love the magnanimous, or generosity of, spirit Henry Fonda’s character shows to Lee J. Cob’s character at the end. No recriminations on the outbursts, just helping him put on the jacket, and making sure Cobb is ok to walk out. Brilliant direction.

I am so glad that you pause the video when you are making comments. So many reactors talk over the dialog and miss important things!

Lee J. Cobb put on an acting clinic in that final monologue. He made all of your possible dislike of his character evaporate in literally 5 seconds as he tears up the picture of him and his son and suddenly you feel nothing but empathy for him.

This was director Sidney Lumet's first movie. He had been a forner child actor, theatre director and successful director of live TV. He rehearsed the actors for three weeks prior to filming as if it were a play as he did with all but one of his subsequent films

I really do appreciate this film, people always speak natively about the remake, but it's honestly very good. In fact the remake was the one I saw first fell in love from seeing it there. I truly enjoy them both, there are a few parts in the remake were I feel the actors gave an even stronger performance.

Old guy juror knew everything about that old man because he is just like him, he voted first time "not guilty" for attention

Thank you for this! Knew you'd love this movie because the dialogue and cinematography really has to do the heavy lifting since the action never leaves the room. That, and the fact that you are a law student as well.

One thing I think is interesting is that everyone I’ve seen react to this film thinks that Henry Fonda’s character has some ulterior motive/insider info. I’ve always seen him as painfully average. He is just a guy with a conscious-just like anyone in the audience. He is special because he literally is no different than the others in that room, but he has the courage to politely dissent. He shows that anyone can be him-hence they don’t give him or anyone else a name until the end. We can be anyone in that juror’s room-sometimes multiple people. It immediately becomes self-reflective.

Need to remember the time this was written, and that some now established law and procedures weren't then. Miranda rights weren't established until the 60's, for instance. Likewise, an early plot point is the perceived ineptitude or disinterest of the defense attorney, granting the jurors some freedom in their deliberation.

I've watched this film several times over the years and Juror No4 is my favourite character. He initially votes guilty because he genuinely believes the accused is guilty He only changes his mind when he is convinced by the (lack of) evidence. He isn't swayed by personal prejudice or by any sort of hard luck stories. He tries his best to keep emotion out of it and just focus on the evidence. The baseball guy (juror No6 I think?) is my least favourite because he never once actually cares about what is at stake. They could be sending an innocent boy to death (or letting a murderer go free!) and all he cares about is seeing his baseball game. he votes guilty but as soon as the tide starts to turn, he votes not guilty but not because he's been persuaded by the evidence/arguments, he just wants to see the baseball game. Even Juror No3 (angry guy) was initially voting guilty because he genuinely thought the kid done it. He couldn't admit he was wrong for a long time (and this reluctance to admit he was wrong was clearly tied in to his relationship with his own son) but he did eventually come around and acknowledged that there was a reasonable doubt which is better (IMHO anyway) than Mr Baseball who never once considered what was at stake here

Most of this cast were Award winning Actors. Oscars, Oscar Nominations, Emmys,Tonys ....

Great Reaction to this Classic...... I saw this Presented Muliple Times as a play in High School (Early 1980's)....... Shout out to the Legends in this Movie...... Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Jack Klugman, Martin Balsam, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, Ed Begley Director Lumet wrote in an article: "I shot the first third of the movie above eye level, shot the second third at eye level, and the last third from below eye level. In that way, toward the end, the ceiling began to appear. Not only were the walls closing in, the ceiling was as well. The sense of increasing claustrophobia did a lot to raise the tension of the last part of the movie." The kid not remembering the films is a believable statement. Movie houses weren't multi-screen when this movie was made. A cinema showed one or two movies so in the evening you could buy a double feature ticket without ever asking the name of the films. An angry kid wanting to get out of the summer heat buys a double feature ticket and spends the time stewing in anger paying no attention to the films is quite believable. Another Classic Movie that (mostly) takes place in one room, is "Arsenic and Old Lace"(1944), It had a long run on Broadway, and the movie was shot using most of the actors from the Broadway Production.....

This is one of my favorite movies, and it is basically just 12 guys in a room talking, but they made it exciting! Fabulous movie with a fabulous cast and a fabulous story!

Knew I won't be disappointed by the reaction. Great movie and detailed reaction. It is great to see a younger generation still has appreciation for something classic like this. Well done!

It's always very surprising when people don't pick up on the racism from juror 10. That's what juror 8 meant when he said "She's of THEM too, isn't she?"

It wasn't about the case for for Juror #3, he was projecting. For him his own son was the defendant. We will never know, but considering his breakdown in the end, he might not have been innocent in him and his son becoming estranged. Which would make this as much self-hate as hate why he is doing this. His breakdown in the end could be a sign that he accepts his own guilt in relation to his son. He knew for a while that he was wrong about the case, but couldn't admit it. But that's just guessing. In any case it shows how some personal opinions can influence us in other areas, which adds nicely to the the theme of 'those' people and other individual hang ups of people in the movie.

This and Inherit the Wind, two of my all time favorite courtroom battles.

You’re watching somebody give a doctoral class in filmmaking basically all shop in one room, and all these actors all became icons in the film industry

This is the 7th reaction video to this movie I've seen this week. It's so amazingly good and I never get tired of seeing people discover it.

The actor that you said looked like someone's father, is Lee J Cobb, Juror #3, who I thought was the best actor in this movie. I hated him from the beginning, which was his role to play, and at the end, I felt sorry for him. I had a complete turn-around about him. This movie had an All-Star Cast, that the modern remake did not, and it flopped.

They were able to do oners back then with such ease, because most of the actors were stage actors as well as film. So, they had their lines memorized in huge chucks.

Great reaction. I liked your little smile when Juror#8 put the second knife in the table. I regret you skipped a line I truly love when juror#10 asks juror#11 : - « Excuse me, please », why are you so polite ? - For the same reason you are not, that’s the way I was brought up ! When you asked what juror#10 meant when speaking of « them », you suggested homosexuality… Remember we’re in the fifties, when one wants to understand facts of a prior period, one should abandon the prejudices of his own time and try to consider the mentality of the period he is considering. Your remark about the length of the takes is right : this is a reason why I am fond of old movies, they give you time to think, they do not fill your head with lots of images as if they wanted your brain to be suffocated, which is the feeling I have with many films nowadays. Thanks from France 🇫🇷

There's been many homages in TV shows to 12 Angry Men especially in mystery shows like Monk, Veronica Mars and Murder, She Wrote. And it's been remade many times in multiple countries and languages, but I think now would be a good time to remake it in the US. The title would have to be changed now that women participate in jury duty. Maybe 12 Angry Americans.

My parents were married in 1963 and my dad doesn't wear a wedding ring. They were just starting to come into fashion back then, I believe. Some men wore them, some didn't.

It's not necessarily supposed to be very legally accurate but to illustrate racism, as well as classism, ageism issues etc... And what it takes to get people to overcome their prejudices and take an unbiased look at the issue.

In reality the introduction of the second knife would have resulted in a mistrial.

"Them." When Henry Fonda's character says "She is one of them, too" or something like that, it pauses you. Fonda is just repeating the word the other character had said a minute earlier i.e. "I've lived among THEM all my life..." Fonda is pointing out the man's prejudice is evident by his language.

From what I've heard/read the Director had the Jurors Rehearse 3 weeks to get the "Right Mood" of their character and how they'll react to each other... And in 1957, when the Film was made, 3 weeks was a long time to rehearse...

The little guy with glasses and squeaky voice is John Fiedler, the voice of Piglet in the Winny the Pooh.

If you really want to watch more classic movies featuring legal issues, here are 3 suggestions: 1 - "To Kill A Mockingbird", 2 - "Anatomy of a Murder", 3 - "The Fountainhead".

You bring up a point I've made for a long time here. Considering the theme of prejudicing people's opinions, the choice to show the defendant is an interesting one. The fact that he looks scared and innocent makes a lot of people side with him immediately. I wonder what would happen if we either didn't see who was on trial, or if he looked more like the stereotype for a hardened criminal, rough and remorseless. Not a criticism of the movie or anything, just an interesting choice. This is an all-time great.

This happens to be one of my favorite movies. It’s a movie you can watch over and over again i never get tired of it and yes, it is a movie about a murder case, but it is also a movie about human behavior subtly but about human behavior in my opinion if you would like to watch some more great movies I would recommend To Kill a Mockingbird, a anatomy of a Murder and also The Best Years of Our Lives three really great movies. On the Waterfront.

I served jury duty a few years ago. The judge gave us explicit instructions regarding the law. It was a murder case.

Great reaction video to this masterpiece. One answer to your question early on: You asked whether or not Lee J. Cobb (Juror #3, the last one to vote not guilty) had a son who was also an actor. I'm not aware of one. But the one who did was Ed Begley (Juror #10, the bigot), whose son Ed Begley Jr. got his break on St. Elsewhere in the '80s and went on to a very successful acting career on stage, TV, and film.

Always wanted to have jury service when it finally happened i was given a coroners court, it was so sad listening and watching the last days of someones life. 😢

You skipped the post credits scene that sets up the extended X-Angry Cinematic Universe.

I remember that cloth/towel thing in the bathroom when I was younger. Back then, we used it to dry our hands with it, and somehow didn't think much of it back then. Today, it seems so gross! LOL!

It cracks me up how much you're looking for more complicated and complex story telling here; eg. missing wedding rings/secret jobs... Definitely interesting to see the evolution of film over the decades; how stories have become so much more involved.

1957 is long long before a Steadicam existed so when you describe the shot you will have to find something else to explain it. In fact film cameras in 1957 were absolutely massive. First major film to have anything that you could hold in one hand as a film camera was easy ride which made attaching camera to various parts of motorcycle possible. I think the first major release of a film where they had a Steadicam was The Shining.

"Whaddya mean them?" I think he means Puerto Ricans who live in slums in New York.

The 1997 remake is in colour. Juror number 7 is played by Jack Lemmon and Juror 3 is played by George C. Scott.

When Henry Fonda first says 'them' he is responding to the comments the other juror made a few minutes earlier, when he said 'they' were born liars and so on.

Most of the actors in this were at the beginnings of their careers, but will become exceedingly famous.

Been condition to modern movies and their "twist at the end" gimmick distracted you from the climax, you tried to think ahead of the movie so you missed the emotional ride.. This is just good old fashion writing, no twist but an excellent climax. Interesting. Great work by the way.

When that guy said he was one of his executioners he was talking figuratively. He didn't mean that he would physically push the switch. Let's be careful with the literal thinking. The guy was very excited so he said what made him feel good, not the reality of the facts.

The only thing better than this movie is to see it on stage.

Sweet Summer Child you, this film is eternally fascinating to older people watching younger people react, that you missed out of the racism, it actually does you credit, that you dont see/notice it because you havent seen it, that it is a foreign concept in your life. this film is Perfect its about personalities, and only a group of SUPERB actors can do all this in a single (sort of) setting

Watching the top 100 IMBD films is a great idea. You will watch some of the finest movies ever made and give you a solid basis for viewing/reviewing other films in your life.

This is one of my top 5 all time favorite movies. I like that they left it with you don't know if the kid did it or not. My favorite thing about the movie is, the entire movie rests on the interactions between each actor. This movie is so different from movie making today.

Nice catch with the stabbing scene. You guessed it correctly how they the switchblade is to be used from below.

I didn’t notice before but Lee Cobb and George C Scott, who played this angry juror in the remake, both played Kinderman in the Exorcist franchise.

The sad but honest truth is that any human being is capable of anything at any time and under the right conditions. Even to take another life. I work in a prison in Germany, where one day as part of my service I had to supervise the craftsmen of an external company who had to carry out work in our house. One of them asked me a question during a break, he said "Doesn't that bother you?" I in turn asked "What exactly do you mean?" He asked further "All these criminals around you, this human scum and you in the middle of it, doesn't that bother you?" I answers with a counter question "Why, how do you do that?" He looked at me confused and asked "What do you mean?" To which I said, "The only difference between me and you is that I can look in a file what an inmate from this institution has done. But whether your colleague, with whom you have been working for twenty years, secretly keeps his daughter in the basement at home and raped a hundred times a day or maybe even killed one or more lives, you don't know that." Only thoughtful silence followed.

18:15 The message is that our perception is determined by our own experiences and prejudices. What we see as truth or common sense may seem different to another person.

Now you're ready for The Paper Chase!

the outsiders is one of my favorite movies

A masterpiece.

Not every man used to wear a wedding ring: my father never did.

Last juror said "not guilty" to his own son. His son wasn't guilty in their bad relationship but that last juror was, it's really great scene

This is not a cult classic. Just a classic.

That is the way the law reads, if there is any reasonable doubt they must be acquitted, this does not mean the person acquitted is really innocent, just that there was enough reasonable doubt to not be certain of guilt, the law is that way for a reason, better to allow a guilty person to get away with a crime than to execute an innocent person for a crime they didn’t commit. that’s the real kicker, that’s why jury deliberations are not a game, we don’t want to send the innocent to death. I was convinced that Casey Anthony was guilty, still am, but most of the evidence while damning was circumstantial, it sowed just enough doubt, they had to acquit her, and we, if we’re honest have to agree.

'A time to kill', is a more recent courtroom masterpiece, set in the deep-south of the USA, & the stellar cast make it a great bit of movie making!! Samuel L Jackson, Matthew McConaughey, Donald & Keifer Sutherland, Sandra Bullock, Kevin Spacey, Ashley Judd, Oliver Platt, Patrick mcGoohan, Chris Cooper, Brenda Fricker, & a ton of other great character actors, turn this ensemble piece into one of the best courtroom dramas ever made!! Check it out, I know you'll agree! 😁

Actors may be (I think so ). The detectiv in The Exorcist, the private investigator in Psycho.

Timeless film. It should be shown to kids.

i watched this film age 16-17, in school (psychology class). I hate slow movies, never watched an old movie before, and yet... it enthralled me. the other kids were bored and uninterested but i was HOOKED. i had to finish watching it at home, cause we didn't have time to finish the movie in class. it changed me, man. one of the best movies i've ever watched, it's such a msterpiece. i hope they remake it for current audiences, so people like my peers,, who mostly lost interest due to it being black and white and with old timey lingo and music, can enjoy the extremely engaging characters and drama! i know they're making a musical about it,, hope that will draw attention to the old movie as well!

Glad you enjoyed this timeless American classic of importance historically =one of even more importance from 1960 is INHERIT THE WIND about the famous scopes trial in 1925 it is riveting in parts and PROFOUNDLY IMPORTANT TODAY many lines are taken from the actual transcripts of the trial make sure you look at the 1960 version with Spencer Tracy starring at his absolute best

Best set piece drama ever.

Excellent, thoughtful reaction! Another fantastic court room drama: THE VERDICT. Some additional great films: ARRIVAL, PLEASANTVILLE, STRANGER THAN FICTION, ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, CHILDREN OF MEN. You won't forget any of these incredible films. An older classic: "MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE" Cheers!

You have a great laugh, and a fantastic smile.

Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind and/or children of men

Sometimes a box is just a box.

The accused is Puerto Rican and the man who was speaking about the witness who said she saw the killing was also Puerto Rican. I don't know how you could miss the connection.

Good Stuff... Keep-On Keeping-On...

Them , is Puerto Ricans , iTunes movie description says the kid is Puerto Rican

This was the director's FIRST film.

Gotta see Dr. Strangelove, bruh.

He did it and they let him slip through their fingers ! Dont make the same mistake by letting these movies slip through your fingers........ Blue Collar - Richard Pryor The Brave - Johnny Depp Nightcrawler - Jake Gyllenhaal The Game - Michael Douglas American Psycho - Christian Bale Cult classics

The character who wanted to go see the ball game was played by jack warden and I m not sure but I think this character might be the first of this archtype. By that I mean the typical average Unimaginative Simpleton or semi simpleton American male. It just seems that this Archtype Was introduced in this film and we continue to see characters From This archtype even today. In fact I feel that as I watch this 1957 character I can imagine The creators of the simpsons in their mind , reaching back to this Film and thinking , that is our homer simpson. When this character is challenged about why he is changing his vote to not guilty just listen to the "duh" He replies with.

I was this play in high school! Playing the foreign guy of course haha

Great film. Enjoyed your reaction and am now following you...thanks!

"One of them" was referring to the kid being Puerto Rican. The guy had already disparaged the kids people. That particular older bloke was a racist.

Not all married American men of that generation wore wedding rings. My dad was of the subsequent generation and he didn't wear a wedding ring.

The jury in the film engages in substantial juror misconduct.

Why did they let him slip through their fingers??!!

Try watching Hobsons choice. It's brilliant.

The remake is just as good,if not better than the original

Watch Hitchcock's masterpiece "Rope", a one-take film!

If the boy didn’t do it, who did it and why?

In today's movies, scenes last about 5 seconds on average. And action movies, scenes probably cut every 2 seconds. LOL!

next film : Inherit the Wind (1960)

Most of what happened would be illegal on a real case. The jury cannot retry the case in the jury room, you can't introduce new evidence (other knife) act out the way they may have happened. They have to deal with the evidence they are given.

Are you reacting to this movie or trying to rewrite it??

This film is used in law schools. Some films are so good they can't be bettered so don't need remakes. This is one of those films. (The remake sucks.)

You’re a law student, so you should know that one can’t be on a jury if there is a personal relationship. Edit: I see you from the UK and I can’t comment on the law there. So sorry.

this is based on a stage play. its why the movie is staged as it is. the play starred henry fonda. the man who first suggests they discuss the case. for another excellent fonda flick, where he's falsely accused of a crime, is hitchcock's "the wrong man." released about a year before this film was. "12 angry men" is famous, partly, for its great enemble cast. e. g. marshal, lee j. cobb. martain balsam, jack warden, jack klugman and ed begley all went on to have long successful careers as film or tv stars or character actors. the film is a movie lovers dream.