12 Angry Men (1957) MOVIE REACTION | FIRST TIME WATCHING!!
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 01. 2024
- Join us Fam, as we react to the classic 12 Angry Men. This movie proves that the details matter in law and order but, not everyone cares about the details. There are some jurors that just want to watch people die for personal reasons...and worse. Enjoy Fam!
Our Socials: / cocktailflicks
/ cocktailflicks
Odyssey by John Tasoulas | / john-tasoulas
Music promoted by www.free-stock-music.com
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Countdown timer: • Old Fashioned Grainy 1...
If you like the art work behind us, it is created by a company called Disparody. Here is a link to their Instagram: / disparodyart
*Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT INTENDED. All rights belong to their respective owners.
#firsttimewatching #firsttimereaction #firsttimewatch #reaction #reactionvideo #court #courtroomdrama #courtroom #courtroomvideos #law #lawyer #lawmovie #12angrymen #henryfonda #juryduty #jurytrial #jury #fypyoutube #fypシ゚viral #fypシ #fyp #fy - Zábava
![12 Angry Men (1957) Movie Reaction [First Time Watching]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zM1Y1nC5fC0/mqdefault.jpg)
![12 Angry Men (1957) Movie Reaction [First Time Watching]](/img/tr.png)
Juror #5 was Jack Klugman. He played Oscar Madison in the tv series "The Odd Couple", opposite Tony Randall. He also played the titular character in the series "Quincy, M.E."
Ed Begley wasn’t the baseball guy. He was Juror #10. His son is actor Ed Begley Jr. The baseball guy was Juror #7 played by Jack Warden.
he was actually Jury no 5
@@spartanwarrior4736 No. Juror #5 was played by Jack Klugman. (Quincy MD, The Odd Couple) The Baseball man Juror #7 was played by Jack Warden.
Writing: A+. Acting: A+. Fantastic movie.
Juror # 4 was E.G. Marshall. Oddly, he had just played a prosecutor in The Caine Mutiny(I'd suggest seeing that one if you haven't).
I haven't heard of that one. It sounds like a classic. Thanks for the recommendation!
It features Humphrey Bogart's greatest performance.
Not long after this movie he played a lawyer along with Robert Reed in The Defenders
Voice of Piglet. Also, he had a long career, both in film and television, into the early 2000s. He's guested on a LOT of TV shows. But the voice - - that's Piglet, which he voiced for about 30 years. Lots of legends in this film, in front of and behind camera. This movie is a masterpiece. Enjoyed your reaction. (p.s. - - to your comment about the guy's name, they were introducing themselves by their last names, not their first names. McCardle is actually a very common last name - - I think Irish or Scottish.)
Yeah, we were wondering about that, and then researched it. Sure enough, he is the voice of piglet. We knew all about Henry Fonda, and Lee Cobb, but also found out that the Broker, was also in Christmas Vacation as Clark Griswold's Father-in-Law. He was Hellen's father. This was an amazing cast. Thanks for clarifying the names, I admit, i was a bit thrown off, but it makes sense. Thanks for stopping by!
Sweeney was McArdle = solid and sexy!❤😮
@@CocktailFlicks
The Skum guy was Jack Klugman = in Odd Coupke and Quibcy TV shows from 70s
@@Steve-gx9ot Having some trouble with your 'l' key?
John Feilder was in the movie The Odd Couple with Walter Matthau as Oscar Madison and in this movie with Jack Klugman who played Oscar Madison in the t.v show
John Feidler was also a recurring cast member on the "Bob Newhart Show." He played one of Dr. Hartley's patients, Mr. Petersen. He was on a number of television shows for an episode in the 1960s and 1970s, including Star Trek.
Over 60 years old and the movie still holds up.
Another even older movie that still holds up is the ox-bow incident,
Hope you 2 can get to that 1 at some point.
I am glad that people are still dicovering these great classic movies.
You are right about that, this movie is as relevant today as anything. I personally have not seen The Ox-Bow incident, but Daniel may have, I will speak with him about it. Thanks for the recommendation!
The Ox Bow Incident came out towards the end of WW2, making it extremely controversial for its time. This made it unpopular at the box office, so it has been buried. It stars Henry Fonda and Harry Morgan, of Colonel Potter fame.
The Ox-Bow Incident is a truly great movie.
I love The Oxbow Incident !
Martin Balsem (Forman), Jack Warden (Juror #7), Henry Fonda (Juror #8), and Ed Begley (Juror#10) were all Oscar winners.
true, but not a one for this picture, what a shame.
Jack Warden was nominated, didn’t win !
@@francoisevassy6614 Unfortunately, correct
@@francoisevassy6614 I stand corrected, thank you.
I've seen this a couple of dozen times since I was a teenager in the 70s and I discover something new each time.
I am definitely going to watch this one again for that very reason. I have several movies and shows that I do that with on my own time, and I love it. Thanks for stopping by!
It’s one of the very rare “trial movie” where we don’t see a second of the trial. In most movies we see the jury retreat and then come back with the verdict
It's based on a stage play that takes place entirely in the jury room, so you don't even see the prologue with the judge's instructions, or the epilogue on the courthouse steps.
The reason the Jurors' Names were NOT Used was because the person who wrote the Script had been on a New York City Jury, and knew the Judicial System in NYC didn't mention the Names of the Jurors for Security Purposes...
Two of the jurors were in the original live teleplay broadcast on TV. George Voskovec , who played the immigrant juror, and Joseph Sweeny, who played McCardle.
E.G Mashall played the Broaker , later he stared, playing a Lawyer in a TV series called, The Defenders.
I immediately thought of this film when watching DUNE. 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.”
It made me think of the speech where a politician said: "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
I love how many times its 12 people who saw/heard the same things but one saw something the others didn't see - the eyeglass marks - how to use a switch blade. You have that today - some people notice details or have experiences that others do not
This was one of Henry Fonda's best movies. Check out Henry in "Mr. Roberts". They shot this movie in sequence, which had not been done before.
As far as I know, no one on CZcams has done a reaction to Mister Roberts yet. It's high time. It was one of Fonda's personal favorites of his films.
I'm probably just a "Pollyanna," but I'd like to think that the Lee J. Cobb character goes home and eventually reconciles with his son. Great reaction guys!
Thank you. I bet he does too. You can't live your life in regret, and he appears to have regrets. Thanks for stopping by!
This is a fantastic movie that has one of the best acting ensembles ever. Each juror had a part to play and their personalities fit perfectly. I highly recommend 'To Kill a Mockingbird' as well. I feel it goes pretty well with this movie in terms of the courtroom drama as well as just being an amazing movie that deals with innocence, racism, and the ultimate goal of never judging a book by its cover.
The broker was played by E.G. Marshall who played three US presidents: Truman, Eisenhower, and a fictional US president in SUPERMAN II.
What's incredible is that the old man in the first initial vote was the very last to put his hand up, but we as humans don't like going against a group, so he eventually put it up even though you saw him hesitate. He was also the one when not being watched by everyone to change his vote.
That is incredible isn't it? Some people have the gift of surprise like that, but in his case, I think that is the wisdom of life coming through. He definitely knows how to make an entrance you might say!
Yes, Lee J. Cobb was in The Exorcist, and juror no1 is Martin Balsam, the detective from Psycho
Ed Begley Sr was already pointed out. His son, Ed Begley Jr, used to be on a medical drama called St Elsewhere along with Denzel Washington, Howie Mandel and the guy who was the voice of Kit the car on Night Rider.
This movie is based on the stage play. The bit outside the courthouse at the end was created for the movie & I think the opening scene inside the actual courtroom was as well.
You asked about the characters not introducing themselves at the beginning. I remember reading the play during Middle School English class. The characters’ names were “Foreman”, “Juror #2”, “Juror #3”, etc.
The store owner who sold the knife said it was the only one. Why wouldn't he lie -- switchblades were illegal.
This was director Sidley Lumet's first feature film. He was a former child actor who directed in theatre and live television.
17:06 You would get a double-feature because the projectionist had to rewind the film. The second feature was usually a lower budget picture by a minor studio and was called the B movie.
That sounds like a great idea. What a way to get lesser known movies seen by a wider audience. Those were indeed the good ol days!
Actually, a projector only held one ten minute reel of film, so the projectionist was constantly removing a reel from one projector while the other played. It was a practice that dated back to the old nickelodeon days, to show several films in a "movie show." Depending on the time, the length of the feature, and the theatre, you might see: a newsreel, a cartoon, a trailer for a coming attraction, a short subject, a second feature, and a feature. In the '30's, there were more short subjects. By the time of this film, it would probably be a second feature rather than shorts, though the 3 stooges continued to make shorts through most of the '50's.
@@TedLittle-yp7uj 11 minutes. A seven-reel is feature-length at 75-77 minutes.
The projectionist was pretty much working nonstop changing reels, switching from this cartoon to this trailer to this short subject to this newsreel, setting up and flipping projectors, rewinding film, opening cans, closing cans, adjusting the focus, and keeping it all organized so as not to start the right reel of the wrong movie or run a reel that wasn't rewound in reverse.
It would be a real time-intensive job, so you'd run one movie organized on that side of the room while prepping the other one organized on this side.
Something very few people pick up on is how Juror #7 (the baseball fan played by Jack Warden) is acting in the minutes leading up to his abrupt switch from guilty to not guilty. You as a viewer aren't really paying attention to him because other people are talking in the foreground, but during the test to see if the old man could get to the door in time, the argument about whether you can hear something over an El-train, and during the "how do you use a switchblade" scene, he's in the background paying attention intently. It implies his switching of sides isn't as arbitrary as it sounds, and when he says, "I don't think he's guilty", he's telling the truth because he honestly doesn't think the kid is guilty any more.
I got to watch this movie in one of my college classes. This brought back memories. ❤
That's fun, I saw some interesting movies in college as well. I missed out on this one though!
We got to read the book in my 6th grade law class, and then we watched the movie just before the year ended
Still easily in my top ten to top five, this many years later
Our teacher asked us, after the movie, if we thought the boy was truly innocent or if all the evidence was faked to let a killer go free
After everything we’d learned over the year, and seen in the movie, it put it all into perspective how much we trust the “word”
GREAT reaction, gentlemen! I thoroughly enjoyed your commentary and review. I love this movie and I agree, they don't make movies like this anymore, and that's such a shame. Thank you for sharing your experiences of the justice system. To someone like me, who's not an American, your opinions on the subject were especially interesting. Keep up the good work! Cheers!
Thank you very much. Now that we have watched this one, I feel like I want to do more courtroom drama type of movies, and we do have some in the pipeline for this year. The Jury duty process, is a part of our bill of rights in America, which guarantees everyone to a jury of our peers, but everyone also has the right to not have a jury in their trial if they choose as well. There are people, that can explain everything a lot better than I can, but that's the short version of it. We hope to hear from you again. Thanks for stopping by!
I recommend The Verdict, from 1982, a really great film with Paul Newman as a washed-up, boozed-up, small-time Boston lawyer who is inspired to get sober and redeem himself when he takes on an important case against a huge, powerful law firm and a corrupt, uncaring judge. Jack Warden, who plays the juror with the baseball tickets here, has a role as Newman's law partner, who has his back and tries to help him salvage his career and his life.
4:16 That's how it goes. If you ask your friends to call you by a specific nickname, they will instead call you something mean.
That's a fact. He clearly has regrets about how he was as a parent. You would think he would change his ways after his falling out with his own son, but sometimes people are that stubborn I guess!
The whole thing is, what we Europeans call a "Chamber Play". A thing that could be done with ease on a stage. What is always overlooked, that no female main character was required for this and the minimalistic effort, with which the story was done. An other great example of a movie, without a real woman (which is often underated) is, " The Flight of the Phoenix ". But you guys did a good job, with your reaction...
The Great Escape also has an all-male cast. There is one scene where a woman screams in fear at some violence, but she goes uncredited.
@@user-mg5mv2tn8q Interesting... There is another very similar film, about a German prisoner who escaped from British captivity, ultimately in Canada. There are only 3 women who make a very brief appearance as informants about the fugitive... The movie is called, "The one who got away..."
Good post-film discussion about the jury and their interactions. Great script with fine acting, camera work and direction. Black and white films can hit hard. Consider watching "On the Waterfront" and "Casablanca". Thanks.
Jury fireman was Orivate Investigator in Original PSYCHO !!
Have you seen that movie?
A classuc to see if you have not yet!?
My fav Hitchcock suspense!!❤
Daniel has seen it, but I have not actually seen it. I would like to add it to the list for sure. This movie had a loaded cast when you get down to it. A lot of big movie names and accolades.
#2's voice sounds so familiar because he was the original voice of Piglet from Winnie the Pooh. Great video fellas.
New to the channel. Really enjoyed your reaction. Thanks for post. (((btw: Lee J. Cobb - Juror No. 3 - was first among equals in this outstanding film. One of his best-known roles was of Willy Loman in "Death of a Salesman"........there is a commercial-free NBC production in 1966 of the play on CZcams, which is of very high quality and a master class in a stage production. I highly recommend it.)))
Arthur Miller, who wrote the stage play on which that film was based, pictured Willie Loman as a small, mousy looking man who was barely noticeable. But he loved the way Lee J. Cobb, a big, striking guy with a big, resonant voice, made the role his own.
The jury foreman is Martin balsam. He played Arbogast on Psycho.
The guy that was from the slums is Jack Klugman. He played Oscar Madison on the sitcom the odd couple along with Tony Randall. Later he starred in Quincy. He was a medical examiner who went by only The one name.
The juror who was the first to say not guilty from the beginning is Henry Fonda. His daughter Jane, son Peter and granddaughter Bridget are all actors as well.
The juror who says he never sweats is EG Marshall. He was the narrator of a radio drama called CBS radio mystery theater in the 70s. There are hundreds of episodes on CZcams CBSRMT
Joseph Sweeney, the oldest juror, was born in 1884. So his father grew up during the Civil War. Our parents (or grandparents) grew up during Sweeney's final years. So we are just 2 or 3 generations away from the Civil War. The actor who voiced Piglet was juror number 2. 😊
I am a 68 year old French woman, the youngest among my siblings, so was my father and his father… So actually my great-grandfather was born under the last king of France (Charles X, younger brother of poor king Louis XVI) in 1827… Those things happen !
Great job Fellas! I saw this moving in High School, and it made me appreciate and respect the jury deliberation process. So many Americans try hard to make excuses to not do their duty to serve as a juror, and most of the time its for selfish reasons. Just realizing that we need jurors who are willing to actually pay attention to details and keep an open mind, compels me to look in the mirror whenever I am called to serve, and not hesitate no matter how inconvenient it is.
As obvious as this should be.... We shouldn't assume guilt or innocence until the case is actually heard, and we shouldn't be afraid to share what pieces of evidence we find misleading or agree is airtight. I wish this was mandatory viewing in American schools because even though it is a work of fictional, it truly highlights why its important to keep an open mind and be as objective as possible when being a juror. Testimony can be presented to a jury not as what they truly are, and lawyers can and will attempt to use your emotions to sway you. I fear that in today's world too many people believe what they want to believe because they hear it from their favorite Social media or TV personality even in spite of the facts contradicting them. This feelings over facts direction we are continually heading towards is a cancer. I can only have faith that the more level headed individuals will prevail over the bigots and fear mongers.
25:33 It was an 'innominate jury', where court decided to keep their names secret. Happens all the time, especially for capital murder cases.
That makes sense. I've never served on a trial like this, but I get the point of keeping identities out of it. I didn't think it would be for this reason, but more so for dramatics. Thanks for clarifying, we appreciate it!
I first saw E.G. Marshall in the T.V. series "The Defenders". He played a defense lawyer. Robert Reed (the dad in "The Brady Bunch") played his son and partner. They defended all the hot topics of the day. Neo-Nazis, conscientious objectors, demonstrators of the Civil Rights Movement, a schoolteacher fired for being an atheist, an author accused of pornography, and a physician charged in a mercy killing.
He was also in an interesting "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" television drama called
"Mail Order Prophet". It has a cute Hitchcockian twist.
The point about the glasses in the 50's is really significant. Back then lenses were made of glass not plastic. Depending on your rx they could be very heavy. I should know because I had an increasingly strong rx and had to wear them for over 10 years until they introduced the plastic lenses in the 80's. They left really deep impressions on my nose that took years to go away.
Yeah..at least no one gets saddled with a name like my great-great-uncle did. Can you imagine being saddled with a name like Ethelbert?
And the jury foreman is Arbogast from Psycho.
So what you're saying, is we need to watch Psycho. Haha, We can definitely do that. This movie had an amazing cast from the looks of it!
I think juror # 4 is the best(juror # 8 broke the law after all), # 7 is the worst(and all too common on juries).
Even though I like # 8, you are right. I also would put # 10 on the worst of the worst list. His mind was made up for the worst reasons. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
Thoroughly enjoyed this reaction, the commentary was great! Always been a huge fan of this movie and I’m glad to see more people texting to it. 😀
It's funny how he stays obsessed with going to the ball game when obviously it would be rained out. 😂
I was called for jury duty in the mid 90's - and it was a big white collar case in Austin at the time - in the papers etc. anyway, I was less educated then than now, and in my late 20s at the time, we had the usual jury selection - 100 of us - to be parsed down to the 12, The judge asked if any of us and a question, and I raised my hand and asked - I paraphrase now since it was 30 yrs ago, and the concept in my mind at that time was not fully formed, unlike now - "Can I judge per my conscience and not solely upon the facts" (i.e. I was asking if as a juror did i have the right to use my brain and use my conscience - both WRT to the accused and the law that was broken - can i judge the law as well as the accused - basically (we are talking about Jury Nulification - a thing i knew nothing about at that time - but learned all about and the related Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) year later...............................anyway, the Judge - good man - replied "You can judge as you see fit" (so affirmed my right to ignore evidence if the law related was deemed wrong by me). I did note he squirmed in his chair at the time - ;-)
Needless to say I was not selected - I thought too much IMO - via Voir Dire (where BOTH SIDES WANT SHEEP).
If I had my way I'd rmandate removal of Voir Dire, and just pit a random 12 names of persons - including the racsists/dumb/etc..........they are the random selection - and Voir Dire selects to remove the general and only select the extra dumb! in other words a thinking racist is better than a dumb saint, ya that sounds bad, but the former is a person the latter is just in instrument of the Prosecution/Defense. I really do - honestly too - view Voir Dire as Judy Tampering - by the State (prosecution) or Defense - its bad either way. Remove Voir Dire!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
of course it will never happen too much $$$$$$$$$$$$$ and the system 300 yrs now of - so we wlll just make sure to select the dumbest of the dumb - not a random 12 - but instead an extra dumb 12 for all court cases ;-/.
oh well.
I remember all of my summons as well. being in a room with more than 100 people, and all going in different directions, but nobody wanted to be there, as they were sacrificing work hours, and not getting paid for their time in jury duty. I wish our laws would compensate more towards the hours lost, instead of just paying for your parking. That would be interesting to removie Voir Dire from the process. It is very much like picking your team so to speak, and when you are trying to have a fair and impartial hearing, that does seem to defeat the purpose, at least on the surface. This makes me want to watch Runaway Jury now, that was kind of what that was all about. Thanks for sharing your story, it was a fun read. We appreciate you stopping by!
@@CocktailFlicks I've heard of Runaway Jury, not scene it though. Ya, a part of me understands the whole "remove rasicts/sexists/etc from the jury pool as the ideal, but the sceptic is more like, why remove? to replace folks that don't think about anything so the lawyers can place their narative in their minds instead.
the one thing i liked about 12 angry men was that the racist fk - when presented with overwealming evidence that the "greek/italian" "darkie" kid was probably innocent, he (Ed Begley - BTW check out the movie "Patterns" - both versions the TV and the Movie versions are excellent - the film version has Ed in it as a nice fellow) the racist filth, was confronted with the evidence, and used his mind - despite his prejudice to rule innocent (I fear via Voir Dire - Ed Begley though not a racist, but just weak minded - like the Add guy (Rob Webber and the other Baseball guy Jack Warden - would just "go with the flow).
I loath racism, but affirm racists (some) with minds that may think, i just hate Voir Dire, which just removes a thinking jury for the a lawyers sake.
2-cents. we live in the real world, and sadly the lawyers rule out thinking jurors via Voir Dire - its the why i shall be. I affirm reality, but don't like it. ;-/. Thanks for reply.
PS - I have a list of "old" 50's and earlier movie in my mind - willing to post them if you are interested in veiwing (old movie are better because they are all about the writing/theme. let me know if you are and I shall post a list of 20 or so from memory.
just sayin, and if not interested that is kewl too.
thanks for the reply! ;-).
top movie.no special effects,no wild explosions, not even color...but still you are gluing to the screen
I totally agree. I love movies like this. That's the power of good story telling, and writing!
See "The Verdict," by the same director, starring Paul Newman.
I also recommended The Verdict elsewhere here, but I'd completely forgotten Lumet directed that one too.
Ed begley was the racist cough drop eater, son -comic actor Ed Begley Jr- St Elsewhere, A Mighty Wind
Baseball guy -Jack Warden -played the President in Being There 😊😊😊
Yeah, I realized my mistake after the reaction. I remembered having seen Ed's name somewhere else and got the two mixed up. They were both fairly prolific actors.
2 points for mentioning Being There!!!!!!!!!!!!! (a top 10 film of all time - and now forgotten ;-(..............) and Warden was as you probably know "Crazy like a Fox".
but ya Warden's best role - as it was Sellers and Douglas (I always loved Melvin Douglas - so so so underrated).
@gaffo7836 indeed, a fine character actor 😊😊😊
5:31 back then, there was one screen and they showed two movies. You could stay and rewatch the same two movies as long as you wanted without having to repay.
So it is possible that the young boy was at the theater for four hours after watching two movies with possibly a break in between.
There were no multiplexes with one movie per screen as it is now.
There were no four hour movies back then
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
This was great. I love how deep their conversation went. I have never heard of Inherit the Wind, We will check it out. Thanks for the recommendation!
"How does he know how long 15 seconds is...", I can judge 15 seconds accurately I practiced it for decades. (Yes I'm autistic).
I believe this is at least the top 5 best movies ever made.
Nice show, guys; I enjoyed your take on this great film. Interesting comments on the cast: they were all excellent actors, some with long experience, but most just beginning their film/TV careers. E.G. Marshall (#4..check You-Tube for episodes of his great TV series "The Defenders"), and George Voskovec (#11) both had very distinguished theatrical careers as well. Odd that you mentioned Ossie Davis; check the 1997 Showtime/TV remake of this film, which is darn' good. Jack Lemmon (#8), George C. Scott (#3..really scary), Tony Danza (#7), Hume Cronyn (#9), etc...and a pre-Sopranos James Gandolfini as #6, who threatens to "lay out" #3. Also of great interest is the fact that #10...the bigot..is played by Mikelty Williamson, who is black! They adapted the script to make the character a Black Nationalist, and added a few extra speeches for him. Very unexpected. BUT...the great Ossie Davis plays Juror #2, the timid, mouse-y John Fiedler/"piglet" role (!) Some of the changes take a little getting used to, but the 1997 version (which was intended as a shot-by-shot homage to the 1957 film) is really worth searching out. Maybe you guys should see if you can get permission to use it; it would be interesting to see you compare the 2 versions.
You don't recognize the little bald guy with glasses. He did cartoon voices. Like in Winnie the Pooh. He was the piggy 🤣😂 this is an all star cast 👏👏👏
After all these years they should change the name of this movie from "12 angry men." To "11 angry men and piglet."
If you want to see another version of this film then check out the 1997 remake starring Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott.
No thank you. The original can't be improved on.
@@jnagarya519 You’re right when you say you can’t improve on the original. But the performances of Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott is worth the watching.
@@djgrant8761 Perhaps Scott's. I've never been that impressed by Lemmon.
@@jnagarya519 That’s understandable. You can check it out and if you’re still not impressed you can switch it off but it’s interesting to see the differences between the two films. The main difference between the two films is the 1997 version is in colour, there’s a mix of black and white actors and even though the script is almost word for word it’s interesting to see how different actors play the role. Other actors in the 1997 version you may recognise. Courtney B. Vance (Law and Order), Armin Mueller-Stahl who played Doc in The Power of One, Dorian Harewood (Rev Morgan Hamilton in 7th Heaven), James Galdofini (played Tony Soprano in The Sopranos), Tony Danza (Who’s the Boss) and Mykelti Williamson (played Bubba in Forrest Gump).
A great many Americans are proud of this as showing how justice will prevail in the American system
As an outsider I find this in fact is a massive condemnation of that system. If not for the freakish chance of one guy then a young innocent man would have been executed because of poor policing, poor defence, and a largely indifferent jury
The American Justice System is riddled with flaws, and the worst kind of people running it. This may indeed be a massive condemnation, but at least the jurors were willing to admit that the kid may still be guilty even if there is reasonable doubt. However, I do consider that kid to be very lucky that one guy who held out made a case for him.
@@CocktailFlicks As a film I still think it's great, and far superior to the re-make (1997 dir. William Friedkin, and with an actor I've always liked - Jack Lemon)
The principle plot is well constructed in the way the facts are slowly presented through discovery - at the same as the jurors discover them
Reacting to one of the BEST films ever made.
E.G. Marshall the broker has another great movie you should watch is the 1966 the Chase with Jane Fonda, Robert Redford, Marlon Brando and his sister.✌️❤️
"No one wears eyeglasses to bed" except for me, apparently.
Oh, I'm afraid to do that as much as I toss and turn.
i do too :)
How else can you see your dreams clearly?
Thank you for commenting such a great movie !
May I recommend you « The Third Man » ?
Greetings from France 🇫🇷
All the ashtrays... that was normal you smoked with the rest of them or you went to prison. 😂
They don't make movies like that anymore... Ain't that the truth.
My only issue with this movie is "REASONABLE" doubt. Reasonable doesn't mean VERY improbable. The knife coincidence of him losing his and a similar one being used, is EXTREMELY UN-reasonable. Being POSSIBLE, doesn't make it "reasonable".
It's *_POSSIBLE_* that a bullet shot from an air plane killed JFK, but THAT'S not very PROBABLE.
The knife evidence would still stand in my book.
MOST of the rest of what was brought up WOULD place REASONABLE doubt, but ONLY on THAT testimony.
The old man PROBABLY didn't SEE the kid, the woman PROBABLY didn't have a "clear" view, but the kid PROBABLY stabbed his father with a knife he DIDN'T lose.
The stabbing down, claiming that "nobody" would do it that way is REALLY not reasonable since THAT'S HOW IT WAS DONE. Just because it's not the NORMAL way to use a switch blade, doesn't make it the ONLY way so that's pretty unimportant to disproving any testimony. "Knowing" how to use one in a fight, doesn't make it more reasonable that the way it WOULD be used isn't the way it WAS used.
They ended up letting a guilty person go free...
This movie was MORE of a statement against racism, and how we let it control how we think than an evidentiary play. That and how we let our feelings (the standout being upset about HIS son) control how we perceive things. It did an excellent job on both of those parts, but it was STILL wrong in the outcome. IMHO
The stab wound evidence is important because an experienced switchblade fighter wouldn't do it that way. So the person who stabbed the father was not an experienced knife fighter, but someone who handled a switch blade in an unusual way. In other words, the person who stabbed the father was not the son.
@@ammaleslie509 Sorry, no points. This wasn't a 'fight' so it wasn't a 'usual' use. He didn't have to have it out and in the opponent in a half second, he had time to THINK about it. This was an EMOTIONAL use of it, and not a defensive one. As the movie PROVES, you don't think the same when emotions are in play.
The discussion neither proved OR disproved his innocence. Hence, useless testimony.
If the discussion "neither proved OR disproved his innocence" and was "useless testimony" and the other pieces of evidence are by your own admission dubious then clearly you should agree with the conclusion that there is a reasonable doubt as to wether the defendant is guilty.
@@sturrum5250
NOPE... There's ZERO "reasonable" doubt in my mind a "similar" knife was NOT used, and that the one used WAS HIS.
Just because OTHER parts of testimony are disproved, it doesn't mean they ALL are disproved. Reasonable doubt on 9 out of 10 facts, STILL LEAVES ONE that proves guilt BEYOND A *_REASONALBE_* DOUBT.
I'm not interested in arguing about the actual case (though you seem to be under the impression that one specific alternative theory being unreasonable means that all doubt is unreasonable), but "The discussion neither proved OR disproved his innocence. Hence, useless testimony." and "STILL LEAVES ONE that proves guilt BEYOND A REASONALBE DOUBT" are clearly contradictory statements.
I doubt a juror can do what Fonda did where he sets up a scenario where he stands aside while the other 11 do a secret vote. It feels like horseshit. Can anyone give me insight on that?
So... Did the kid kill his father?
Maybe, but nobody knows. What the movie demonstrated was that there was not enough unimpeachable evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt does not mean not impossible. The kid had the unusual, if not unique, murder weapon. The kid had motive, no one else is suggested as a possible suspect. The victim was poor, so robbery was not a motive. In that brief period the kid is out someone else runs up the stairs and kills him is far fetched. The juror answered multiple questions about the movies he saw before he missed a detail. He remembered quite a bit. The kid remembered absolutely nothing, not if it was a western, comedy, no one in the movie. No one saw him at the movies. Can you imagine not being able to remember anything in the hours after watching a movie? Regardless of how a switchblade is typically used, whoever used it used it overhand. Try changing a pencil from an underhand grip to and overhand grip onehanded. It's easy, and if you use that type of knife frequently it would be instant.
Say there's a 1% chance that someone else wanted to kill the victim and did it in the short time the son was away. Say there is a 1% chance of the killer having the same knife. Say there is a 10% chance the kid can't remember anything. That brings it to a 1 in 100,000 chance. That is beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind.
Isn't making up numbers out of thin air, like you did, fun!!!
1) The knife. The knife could have fallen out of the boy's pocket as he was leaving his apartment, heading to the movies: it fell right outside the door, but he didn't hear it hit the floor because of the noise of the door closing. That puts the knife at the scene of the crime to begin with. There is no need to explain how the knife went from someplace else to the apartment. For example, there is no need for some stranger - who doesn't know the boy or the father, or where they live - to find the knife blocks away on the street and just so happen to walk to the old man's apartment.
Where the old man lived was a slum so just about anyone - homeless people, drug dealers, pimps, robbers, home invaders, anyone - could have walked inside the building and found the knife on the floor right outside the old man's door. It could even have been someone who lived in the same building and who hated the father (for example, because this other person knew the old man used his fists to beat the son, beating the son all the time). This bum/thug/robber finds the knife outside the door on the floor and says something to himself ("sweet knife!") or makes some noise when picking it up and opening it up. The old man hears someone outside his door and opens it, only to be confronted with a bum/thug/robber with an open switchblade knife, and that person forces his way into the apartment. A fight ensues and the stabbing occurs ... with the bum/thug/robber doing it the wrong way (from above, down and in, instead of upward and with an underhand motion, as the son probably would have done since he was very handy with switchblades).
There were no fingerprints on the knife (forensic DNA anlysis was not available yet), so there was no forensic evidence showing the boy was holding the murder weapon when the stabbing occurred, or even that the boy ever held that particular knife. Heck, there isn't even any forensic evidence showing that the murder weapon was the same knife the boy bought: it could have been just a similar-looking knife, like the one juror 8 bought at a pawn shop just 2 blocks from the boy's place. The only evidence indicating the two knives were the same knife is that the friends identified the knife the police showed them as the one the boy had shown them. But without a serial number or something else definitive, no one could positively identify the two knives as being the same one, only that - from memory - the two looked very much alike. Even juror 3 (the final holdout) confused the knife juror 8 had bought with the knife used in the murder.
NOTE: Heck, it's not impossible that one of the boy's friends killed the old man. The friend could have hated the boy's father, because the father used his fists to beat the son -- the friend's friend -- all the time. The friend could have waited for the boy to go to the movies, then knocked on the old man's door, rushed the old man, and stabbed him. The friend could have just so happened to already have a knife similar to the one the boy bought that night, or maybe when the friend saw the boy's knife that night he liked it, and after the boy left the group of friends, the friend went to a pawn shop and bought one similar to it.
2) That no one the police questioned remembers seeing him going in or out is useless: when I go to the movies I don't expect anyone who works there to remember me going in or out. And anyone who is honest would admit it is not at all unreasonable for someone else to have gone to the movies and no one there remember him or her.
And I see movies all the time and can't name the main actors in them. That doesn't mean I didn't go see the movies.
We are given legitimate reasons why the boy might not be able to recall the names of the movies he saw or the actors: he was being questioned at 3 in the morning, after having been thrown down half a flight of stairs by detectives, and he was being questioned as a murder suspect, while his father's dead body was nearby in the apartment. None of those apply to juror 4 (the usually non-sweating juror), who could not accurately remember the names of the movies and actors he saw a few days earlier.
If we assume that the boy lost his knife through a hole in his pants without realizing it, and that someone else coincidentally used the exact same (looking) knife to kill his father, not using a gun, baseball bat, or anything else. The killer btw went of course to the boy's appartment without any connections to the boy, besides he likes to use the exactly same looking knife to kill ppl, the boy lost only few hours ago, which is a mindblowing coincidence in itself. If we assume that both eyewitnesses are lying, women never wear sunglasses in summer or that she is farsighted, and if we assume that the boy completely forgot his alibi, unlike the juror who only forgot a tiny detail from three days ago. Then, I mean, really taking all these assumptions together and pile it up to a big mountain of assumptions and coincidences, well then there is an astronomically small possibility that it wasn't the boy.
1) The knife could have fallen through the hole in the boy's pants right outside the front door. That solves all the alleged "GOTCHAS!" you spout out about the knife.
2) Who said the killer had no connections to the boy? You like just making up stuff, don't you.
3) We don't have to assume that anyone was lying; the only one lying is you.
4) Logic tells us she probably wore prescription glasses, not just sunglasses.
5) We are given legitimate reasons why the boy might not be able to recall the names of the movies he saw or the actors: he was being questioned at 3 in the morning, after having been thrown down half a flight of stairs by detectives, and he was being questioned as a murder suspect, while his father's dead body was nearby in the apartment. None of those apply to juror 4 (the usually non-sweating juror), who could not accurately remember the names of the movies and actors he saw a few days earlier.
6) What is your evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the boy killed his father?
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger You again. Yes a huge knife falling through the trousers and the boy doesn't feel the cold metal around the handle and the whole weight and of course it would get stuck at the bottom leg for many seconds, maybe minutes even. Trousers were not that wide in the 50s. So please stop telling tales here again.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger 1) It is nearly impossible that a knife that big can just fall out out of a pocket without someone realizing it, it has to crawl all the down through the pants leg. Again the boy has all odds against him.
2) You are making up that there is another killer in the first place. However if point 1 is extremely unlikely than the killer must have followed him, hopting that he is gonna lose the knife somewhere to the cinema? What a cool fairytale. But one way or the another, it is just not possible to lose a knife throught a whole trousers leg without realizing.
3) I am always telling the truth, you are accusing me trying to sell your own real lies
4) Logic tells us just like the movie that She saw the killing through the last two cars. SHE REMEMBERED THE MOST INSIGNIFICANT DETAILS.
5) juror 4 wasnt thrown down the stairs but he remembered 99% of the stuff he was in 3 DAYS ago. that's a good comparison to the boys situation. That's why No8 interviewed him the way he did
6) the points 1 to 5, especially that in your theorey 2 or even 3 situtations with a probability around one in a million EACH time, has to occur to make the boy innocent (which he isnt)
@@PaulWinkle Stop lying. It's not nearly impossible. People lose keys, wallets and other things that fall out of holes in their pockets, and they don't realize it.
@@PaulWinkle Nope, you are lying about point 2 also. You are just a habitual liar. I am not making up up another killer. And another killer would not have to have followed him.
From England, the mother and all common lores/laws and consitituions that all countries now have... all theses common lores/laws and consitituions...every country has theses same lores/laws and consitutuions... take the USA Constitutions the Bil of rights created in 1871 which parts of it is taken from the first ever consitution created by the people for the people, was taken from the English Magna Carta 1215 and also the English Bill of Rights 1887/88...many countries have their own Constitutions and common lores/laws, you just have to dig deeper and seek this out for oneself...
what no one ever spots what’s right in front of their face, at the start of the film and the credits at the end ... all names are in lower cases... no capitals anywhere... i know why --- do you >>> ???
this type of jury is called; common law trial by jury of one own peers, where they have to judge the facts to the case and the law being used, now if the law being used does not fit the crime, the jury has all thee ultimate powers and authority to nullify any law ad even make a new law up, man and woman in the jury box are power onto themselves, and are the only true judges and law makers... this is also known a jury nullification... not many people know about this, as it was never taugh to anyone, as everythng was withheld suppsressed and concealed fom everyone why??? to keep us all ignoramts of theses facts...
there is another film of common lores/laws and constitutions with the legal trying to take over... its called; inherite the wind....
There are many things that was never taught to anyone of us... as everything that we should have all learned was all withheld suppressed and concealed to keep us all ignorant and make fools of us all and also to con us all in everyway everyday... this is a 100% fact... that many are now finding out for themselves...
No one was every taught this in any schools, collages, and uni's nor even when you left theses places known as Mk-Ultra Buildings where everyone was Programmed into illuions of Legal WORDS and everything that everyone should have been and learned all the lores/laws constitutions, instead we the people was taught all kinds of many misleding things which in law is fraud through misrepretations, that did not serve you nor protect you, so when ever you need to go to theses so called Legal Courts, you now need to Hire a Legal repersentitive to speak on your behalf as you are then seen as and even looked upon at as a minor.... whom is ignorants of the facts, the simple truth. All the real common lores.laws and consitutions.... is therefore ignored banked and broken in everyway everyday...
Let me ask this very simple question to each and everyone of you.... was you ever taught any of this common lores/laws and constitutions that served and proptected you in so many ways, and keeps all public servants bound and withtin it all... ??? Take your time.... to what served an protect you as a man or woman and all things that you alone deem to be your lawful private properties... how many know their own laawful Rights, Liberties to your own lawful Freedoms... in real common lores/laws and constitutions ???
To who yourtruely are ? and what you was born to be??? --- none knows this very simple fact...
you can find me on FB under the name Danny Knight.
The mn or woman that is sta upon the Bench is NOT Real Judge, that is a ublic Servant wjo is acting a a trustee in poasitions of truth doing fidcuary duties... the true and only real judges are the 12 juriors each one is a judge upon him or herself... non can tamper with any jury memebers... as this in lore/law and seen as jury tampering...not even the so called Man or woman who sits upon the bench - can direct and tell the jury to disreguard or anything else... this is then Jury Tampering...