Write descriptive essay about 12 Angry Men movie 1957, write an essay of at least 500 words on 12 Angry Men, 5 paragraph essay on 12 Angry Men, definition essay, descriptive essay, dichotomy essay.
12 Angry Men
Crime, Drama, Mystery
IMDB rating:
Sidney Lumet
Martin Balsam as Juror #12
John Fiedler as Juror #12
Lee J. Cobb as Juror #12
E.G. Marshall as Juror #12
Jack Klugman as Juror #12
Edward Binns as Juror #12
Jack Warden as Juror #12
Henry Fonda as Juror #12
Joseph Sweeney as Juror #12
Ed Begley as Juror #12
George Voskovec as Juror #12
Robert Webber as Juror #12
Storyline: The defense and the prosecution have rested and the jury is filing into the jury room to decide if a young man is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. What begins as an open-and-shut case of murder soon becomes a detective story that presents a succession of clues creating doubt, and a mini-drama of each of the jurors' prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused, and each other. Based on the play, all of the action takes place on the stage of the jury room.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1808x1080 px 6713 Mb h264 640 Kbps mkv Download
720p 1200x720 px 4473 Mb h264 N/A mkv Download
DVD-rip 640x384 px 699 Mb mpeg4 1015 Kbps avi Download
Just wondered...

Fonda's character was extremely well prepared for his jury meeting, he had obviously given the matter a lot of thought before the juror retired. Knowing all that he did he should be very sure that there's reasonable doubt that the boy is guilty. It's hard for me to understand how he is willing to plead guilty if all the others do so before the second vote. At this time he has very much more to say about the case, why take a gamble before he has presented all his doubts? It doesn't make sense.
ACLU claptrap, yet an engrossing picture; angelic Fonda is unbearably smarmy
It's a movie that takes place in one hot, smoke-filled, sweaty room, at a time when men felt naked if they took their jacket and tie off. 11 come into the room wanting to fry the defendant; one man starts pointing out all the ambiguous testimony. He nobly upholds the concept of "reasonable doubt." Guess who triumphs?

The movie is remarkable. Sidney Lumet was even then a master filmmaker. The claustrophobia is palpable, but the camera is fluid enough to give you every angle on the closed, locked room, and every emotion and bead of sweat on the men trapped there.

The story, however, presents easy heroes and villains: the everyman just trying to make sure justice is done; the bigot who can't keep his opinions to himself; the noble immigrant. Cliches all, even back in 1957.

Yet, the cast is so real. These are real, sweaty, down-to-earth actors putting on the performances of their lives. You always feel like you are in there with them, following the logic, thinking about whether the evidence presented is believable.

It's searing, yet dopey.
Definitely Deserves the Praise
This film is nothing short of perfection. I don't want to do a huge review so I'll sum up why it's so brilliant.

Great actors Great believable script Very original concept Shot cleverly (lack of close ups unless it's really necessary. Because the effect isn't used much, it is more effective) No complaints or plot holes of any kind.

I encourage anyone to watch this film!
Amazingly Brilliant
There are very few movies that make you go speechless, remain awestruck due to their sheer concept and execution. This is one such movie.

12 men, each from a different background, different views and opinions, strangers to one another, come together, along with their personal prejudices, to reach a decision acceptable to all. This line itself shows the magnitude of complexity involved, and to make a movie out of it is a work of true genius and a one that leaves you spellbound.

Right from the first shot, till the final one, you are so engrossed that you would even forget to breathe. If the background sound track, screenplay, script, direction are the cake, then the roles enacted by the characters (I say characters here, not the actors, because you believe they are truly the 12 angry men) are the icing on top of the cake.

Surprisingly it was only after the movie, did I realize that it was a black and white movie. The movie shows that to make a good movie, you don't need exotic locations or high drama, or superstars. All you need is a good story and good actors who make you forget they are merely playing their parts in the play.

The movie teaches you how an analytical mind and logical thinking can make a difference of life and death. It teaches you to be the most responsible when you have a person's life at stake. It shows how our personal prejudices and upbringing can affect our reasoning, how our senses play with our sense of judgment, how we let our emotions take over, at a time when it is required to be fair and impartial, how we tend to be a part of the crowd because we scared to be the odd – man-out. How one man, one true, sensible and empathetic man, it takes to make a difference. How important it is to have an objective and open mind, at any point of decision-making - in life/ death matters. How we are so stuck upon the facts and what we see, that we forget to use our mind, the ultimate powerful tool that we have. And that all it takes is sense and reason to convince someone, not decibels.

There are movies that make you laugh, or cry. There are movies that make you wonder and then there are movies that make you think, force you to ponder upon it, understand it, and learn from it (if possible). This is one such movie and a must – watch for one and all.
"You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you?"
A pure, simple, undeniable classic. This movie is a thoughtful, well shot, amazingly scripted, fantastically acted masterpiece. Even though the word masterpiece is often over-used (like genius) it certainly, and without dispute applies in this case. Sidney Lumet's directing is top-notch, and Henry Fonda is the still turning point of this small, microcosmic little world - his role has to be one of the most finely acted ever committed to film.

Set in an actual New York jury room, it's a claustrophobic, tightly confined set, where 12 very different men deliberate over the guilt of a young boy. Their prejudices, morals and personalities are thrown together and, sometimes violently, clash. Along with a great parallel commentary from the weather (at the beginning of the film, it's a stuffy, oppressive sweatbox, which becomes sidelined by a dark, stormy maelstrom outside the jury room) this is a fantastic film. You'd never think there were so many angles you could get from one single, uncomfortably confining room. Sidney Lumet's directing is amazing, as Fonda's chain-smkoing, softly spoken moralistic character could have been played so much darker; he manages to turn everyone around, slowly but surely, almost effortlessly converting even the most staunchly opposed and stoic juror - but he's not manipulative, sly or underhanded about it. He simply presents what is - he's the pure voice of reason, and he has some cracking lines. The other jurors are great, too. I'm sure we all know someone who fidgets through something important because they've got a football game starting in ten minutes - they all highlight broad generalisations of very human characters. I defy anyone not to find a character that illustrates someone they know in this motley crue. Except maybe Fonda - I don't know anyone cooler than this guy.
Communications Skills
All of the drama this movie has to offer stems from the fact that one juror could express his opinions better than any of the other jurors.

Those with poor communications skills gave the viewer a false impression that they were shallow people who formed an opinion based on reasons other than the merits of the trial.

The question that must be answered throughout the movie is: Should a juror's personal limitations in expressing himself bottle up solid evidence in deciding whether a defendant is guilty or innocent?
The very precise example of reasonable doubt
In this movie, it is flawlessly shown that when big deals are involved, no matter how uncanny the evidence may appear at first, there should be some time allocated to think about others' conclusion and look at it from an angle that questions its truth value.

But a man mustn't deny the truthfulness of a matter just for the sake of unity with others, or to put it better, to fit in. This is clearly seen at approximately 1:46 in the movie when juror 11 talks to juror 3 that I will type the exact conversation for better influence down below:

Juror 11: He's right, that's not an answer. What kind of a man are you? You have sat here and voted guilty with everyone else because there are some baseball tickets burning a hole in your pocket. And now you've changed your vote because you say you are sick of all the talking here?

Juror 3: Ah listen, buddy...

Juror 11: Who tells you that you have the right to play like this with a man's life? Don't you care...

Juror 3: Now wait a minute. You can't talk like that to me!

Juror 11: I can talk like that to you. If you want to vote "not guilty" then do it because you are convinced the man is not guilty not because you've had enough. And if you think he is guilty then vote that way. Don't you have the guts to do what you think is right?

Another lesson from this movie is always to put yourself in the shoes of someone you are trying to judge. Which I believe is shown at roughly 1:12 in the movie when juror 8 talks to juror 4 about his weekly schedule and asks about a few nights back when he had seen a movie and that he can't remember the plot or even the name of that movie. And the sound of something breaking inside juror 4 is heard when a bead of cold sweat runs down his forehead.

Another thing that was worthy of attention in this film was the fan that didn't work. While most of the men in the jury room were hot and complaining about the warmth of the room and one of them saying this is gonna be the hottest day of the year (and not likely to change). And when it gets dark and they have to turn on the lights, they discover that now the fan actually works. I think these two change of situations are two main ways to look at the whole shape of the movie. The change in the weather (which no one, not even the weather bureau, could predict) symbolizes the whole change in the overall vote of the jurors. And the whole "fan situation" is trying to tell that some light shed on a problem, can change everything.
The best film of it's type
There's some interesting alchemy going on in this film. While it's extremely realistic in it's look and attention to detail, it's a highly stylized and somewhat mechanical film. All the characters are clearly defined by the single aspect they bring to the scenario and they interact more like types than real people. The story doesn't show you what's on it's mind, it flat out tells you by putting the parts of it's thesis into the mouths of the characters. None of this really matters though because between it's exceptional cast and Lumet's masterful direction. what you get is a finely tuned machine of a film that's the best film ever made of it's kind. Fonda specialized in playing the voice of middle-class intellectual liberalism in the early 60's and it's largely because of his performance here.
Just watch the first 30 minutes of it and you'll put it far away on the very top of your list!!!
And that what I did, I friend of mine has been annoying me about seeing this film and since the film is not a long one (about 90 minutes) I said why not, and then after just 30 minutes I decided to put this film on the very top of my all time favorite film list.

The fact that the film has been shot in one room blew my mind away, seems very easy to direct huh? But with a superb script and acting Sidney Lumet created one of the greatest films ever made if not the greatest.

The dialogue is realistic and so sharp with a brilliant acting from Henry Fonda and Lee J.Cobb, I feel this film is still underrated even in IMDb rankings.

And that line "well, so long" stayed with me ever since I saw the film as on of the greatest lines ever.

This film is a symbol of simple but great film-making that suggests a man should always return to his senses every time and every where.

Simple Formula, Colossal Result
I saw this film for the first time a few months ago and i was automatically annoyed with myself for having not done so long before. To put short, this film is one of the best ever made and rightfully deserves its position on IMDBs top 250 list.

To be honest, there's not a lot that one can comment about the film. There are no special effects, dramatic monologues or defining scenes to discuss and really that's what makes this film the phenomenon that it is. It is quite easy to see where the film is going to go and how it is going to end early on but none of that really matters because excuse the sugary metaphor but it is the journey you embark on with the jurors, in particular Henry Fonda, that defines the film. The way in which each different aspect of the court case is re-evaluated is film heaven but also a hard hitter when reflecting on the seriousness that the film makes about judicial systems and the responsibility of juries to make thorough rational decisions.

If you had told me before the film that it was as near as makes no difference one scene with 12 men conversing for 100 minutes (or whatever), i would have kindly asked you if we could watch Die Hard instead, but oh what an ignorant error that would have been. 12 Angry Men is magnificent.
Write descriptive essay about 12 Angry Men movie 1957, 12 Angry Men movie essay, literary essay 12 Angry Men, 12 Angry Men essay writing, narrative essay, 12 Angry Men 500 word essay, argumentative essay 12 Angry Men.