12 ANGRY MEN Movie Reaction (100 Movie Bucket List - #6)
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 03. 2024
- 12 ANGRY MEN Movie Reaction (100 Movie Bucket List - #6)
12 Angry Men is a 1957 American film directed by Sidney Lumet, adapted from a 1954 teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose.
This was a first time watch for me. I might've had the most vague idea of what this was about, possibly hearing about it as I've grown up or seeing it referenced in different shows, but this was a genuine first watch that I thoroughly enjoyed reacting to.
I think this movie is definitely worth its acclaim. I would give it positive review, recommended it to anyone and right now, it's my second favorite of all the movies I have reacted to so far.
Thank you for watching! Remember to be REASONABLE. ;)
LIKE / SUB / SHARE!
------------------------------------------------
EQUIPMENT I USE:
(These are my Amazon Associate links. I'll earn from qualifying purchases if you use the link below.)
Razor Kiyo Streaming Webcam - amzn.to/497Gicv
NJSJ USB Condenser Microphone - amzn.to/3Sf2rid
Elgato HD60 S+ Capture Card - amzn.to/3SwZXx2
Elgato Gaming Chat Link Cable - amzn.to/3UfzpBL
PS5 Digital Edition - amzn.to/48LUUyJ
Duel Sense Wireless Controller - amzn.to/499fWHi
Gaming Headset - amzn.to/3HyNu5N
Nintendo Switch - amzn.to/3Oemo7R
Purple/Orange JoyCons - amzn.to/3HzORBg
-------------------------
DON'T CLICK THIS LINK UNLESS IT'S AN EMERGENCY!! - / @theotothefuture - Zábava
"If nobody else has an idea, I might have a cutie here. I mean, I haven't given it much thought, but let's throw it out on the stoop and see if the cat licks it up." Lines I can't wait to start using in social situations 😂
I would only disagree with you on several occasions referring to 'toxic masculinity'.
There is actually no such thing as toxic masculinity. Any human trait, positive or negative that can be shared & exhibited by both genders, cannot be attributed to masculinity.
Certainly there are toxic people, either due to personality disorders or traumatic experiences that shape them, - but they have nothing to do with gender.
The script, read purely as dialogue on the page without gender assigned to any of the jurors, could have easily been attributed to either gender without even being consciously noticeable.
'Toxic masculinity' is very much a new age insult used by feminists & woke misandrists who believe that men are the only flawed gender. 😅
@@hiyadroogsWith all due respect there is also no such thing as “WOKE” It’s a meaningless term meant to insult people who view things differently and challenge the status quo and hierarchy. Nowadays it’s used so much by people who don’t know what they are insulting or disagreeing with. Ron DeSantis quickly found out you can’t run a campaign on defeating “wokeness” because it’s like defeating sunlight.
Make your day a great one. Peace be upon you. ✌🏾🙏🏾
@jdsthird Certainly, 'woke' is a generic term applied to a particular demographic of people on the left, who are sufficiently invested in their own feelings to deny reality, & apply that to every aspect of their existence, & others. & are indoctrinated by social media, peer groups, schools & universities & media to believe that personal experience & emotion trumps reason, facts, & other people's opinions & even rights.
They can be loosely summed up as people who turn up to scream hatred & abuse in the streets at Trump rallies, or even individuals in restaurants.
Climate fascists who sit down in the road & stop other people going about their lives & livelihoods. Claim that putting on a dress makes a man a woman, - or that identifying as a cat means that others should collude in their delusion.
Or perhaps vegans, who turn up at restaurants to vilify decent people out with their families for eating meat.
There are hundreds of examples of 'woke' behaviour, but I think most people understand the blanket term & which demographic of people to which it applies.
🙏
@@jdsthirdwoke was a name coined by the left themselves to indicate that they have woken up. It’s now a derogatory term because of how insane they’ve become
@@hiyadroogs - I agree with you, that he too often used 'masculinity' for behaviour that was not gender related.
For the rest: A great reaction to a great movie.
You show great interest and engagement in the plot, dialogue, and settings. This makes a fine reaction. Thanks.
Thank YOU! 🙏🏾
It's not important who 'these' people are, because no matter where you go in the world there will always be 'these' people. What kind of group it is differs, but they will be there.
This makes this movie not only timeless, but also in some ways placeless. You don't even need to understand the justice system of the USA. Everything important is explained.
It's also not important if the boy was guilty or innocent. It's about reasonable doubt as you can rarely be 100% sure.
All that plus the cinematography, the acting and directing makes this movie a timeless masterpiece.
Yes, and there are, in fact, adaptations made in other countries. My favorite is 12, which is a Russian adaptation where the boy on trial is Chechen. The most different one is called Gentle 8, a Japanese adaptation where a woman is on trial and the "jury" opinion starts out flipped.
I like to point out that the oldest juror, Joseph Sweeney, was born in 1884. His father grew up during the Civil War. Our parents (and grandparents) grew up during Sweeney's final years. So we are just 2 or 3 generations away from the US Civil War and 3 or 4 generations away from the Revolutionary War. John Fieldler, #2, was the voice of Piglet. The racist juror was the father of Ed Begley Jr. Lumet locked the actors in the room for hours to run lines and amp up the tension. 😋
Sweeney was a very good character and actor.
Interesting man that few people know about!❤❤❤❤
Your comment reminds me that the U.S. paid Civil War era pensions until as recently as 2020, when the last surviving offspring of of a Civil War soldier died at age 90. She received a grand total of $73.13 monthly is survivor benefits.
@@Decrepit_Productions Time is ... deceptive. I imagine there are a surprising number of people in the USA whose grandfathers fought in the Civil War. Born in 1924. 59 years after the end of the Civil War. Fathers and grandfathers who had children in their later years. Recently the last widows of Civil War vets passed, women who, in the 1920s at 17 or 18 years old, married 80 and 90 year old vets. It happened. I was unaware that the government was still paying benefits for time served in the Civil War. Fascinating. I'm glad you took the time to share that. 🙂
2020 also saw the death of the last remaining grandchild of John Tyler who was the 10th President. That was 3 generations spanning 230 years
1884 actually
The juror knows how switchblades are used because he grew up in a slum where switchblades were used.
Lee J Cobb is so powerful.
He did a great job!
Lee J. Cobb's character is a loud-mouthed bully. He shouts down those younger than him, and shouts down those older than him.
I feel no sympathy for him.
@jnagarya519 That's almost certainly because he was treated exactly the same way by his own tyrannical father. He wasn't born that way, - he was shaped & became that way because of his own parental influences.
His resistance to all observations & speculations to the case were because of his refusal to accept accountability for his son leaving, & he was condemning the defendant vicariously because of his inability to forgive his son.
Ultimately, the emotional resolution of the film only happens because he is at last able to drop the sword in his hand & forgive his son because his love for his son finally wins out.
It's the most powerful moment in the film, & all the other jurors know exactly what is truly driving him, which is why they simply watch him silently.
To challenge him directly that he is simply punishing the defendant vicariously through his feelings about his son, - would have only made him more resistant, & denied him his emotional epiphany.
The act of compassion & empathy of Fonda's character in bringing his coat & helping him put it on, shows sympathy, understanding & forgiveness without needing to say a word.
@@hiyadroogs "That's almost certainly because he was treated exactly the same way by his own tyrannical father."
And it was on him to take responsibility and change. Instead he conformed and became an abuser.
The purpose of the film was to inform the viewer how the jury process works, not to provide "zingers" and "gotchas" or even emotional "resolution" for the biggest jerk, other than the spineless go-along-to-get-along baseball fan, on the jury.
I don't feel any sympathy for him because that one instance of him taking responsibility remained in the jury room after he left it.
I've seen the film many times, and have watched 99 per cent of the reviews. I know what he is as a character and the issue being his son's healthy distancing of himself from his father.
i also ironically ask: "What does the elderly juror know about being elderly." In a real sense he is speaking honestly about his own life. But the biggest jerk shouts him down, as if he doesn't know anything. And also, of course, he puts it all on the elderly witness -- then shoots that down because that witness is "old".
The juror who defended the old man had been looking after the old man from the very beginning...helping the old man with his coat, helping him into his chair, knowing that he'd gone to the restroom, et cetera. The guy you pointed to as being like a "teacher" actually was...he said he was a high school coach.
The original version of this story was a _live_ teleplay that was aired in 1954. The video is available on CZcams. There was also a color version done in the 90s. The color version is racially diverse, so they had to spin the prejudice issue considerably differently. Most people consider this 1957 version the best.
What's interesting is in the 90's version the prejudiced man was black & that was refreshing. I've actually heard some black people say, "black people aren't racist or prejudiced". That notion is completely ridiculous, as humans we can be both & your race doesn't provide you any sort of immunity.
And it's funny that the man who goes on about being raised to call his father "sir" is the most disrespectful to the old man.
When the first vote is taken, six hands go up immediately. Then five more follow slowly due to the pier pressure. When the vote becomes six to six it’s the five that followed the crowd who now feel secure enough in their “reasonable doubt” to vote not guilty.
Nice observation!! 🔥🔥🔥
"When stupid people are challenged, they get angry." WORD! Really enjoyed your reaction. New sub. Thanks and keep it going!
There is not one single frame of this film that's not fully deliberated. Such a timeless masterpiece.
I loved how you talked about each character at the end. I haven’t seen anyone else do that.
This is one of my favorite movies and probably the greatest ensemble acting achievement ever. All of the actors were major stars, rising stars, or well-known character actors. The most obscure today is probably Joseph Sweeney (#9), because he was primarily a stage actor. He gave a terrifically powerful performance in “The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit” (1956), playing a small part as a villain trying to steal his deceased employer’s estate.
In his autobiography, Henry Fonda talked about how difficult this production was, which was why he didn’t want to produce ever again. They had endless grueling rehearsals (subjected to real heat) to get the movement of the actors and the cameras just right. It was a nightmare. Also, I seem to recall that several of the big-name actors had other commitments, creating a deadline problem.
Thanks for sharing! And yea, I think I'll do the thought on characters thing with every movie going forward. People seem to like it.
Juror 1 - The foreman. Takes his role seriously but slightly insecure. Allows the more dominating personalities to take over and takes a back seat to either side of the verdict.
Juror 2 - Small meek bank clerk who’s amazed that anyone would want to hear his opinion
Juror 3 - The main antagonist. An aggressive self made man with a deeply personal vendetta towards a guilty verdict.
Juror 4 - An arrogant broker, strong proponent for guilty but purely for the evidence. Not swayed by emotion.
Juror 5 - From the same background as the accused and feels the prejudice against him.
Juror 6 - Tough, honest blue collar man. Fairly irrelevant character.
Juror 7 - The joker of the pack. Couldn’t care less about the verdict, just wants to get to the ball game.
Juror 8 - The Protagonist. An intelligent, compassionate architect. Sees through the glaring errors of the case and maintains his emotions throughout.
Juror 9 - The Old Man. Juror 8’s ally who sees the case through the old man witness along with careful observation of other witnesses.
Juror 10 - A bad mannered bigot.
Juror 11 - An intelligent immigrant clockmaker. Takes his role seriously as a juror and admires the judicial system.
Juror 12 - A confident ad man. Likes to act as the PR man. Provides no real input to verdict.
Excellent reaction! I've seen this classic film many times, and I always enjoy You Tubers' reactions to it. I very much liked that you took the time to view the end credits, each character's face with the actor's name. Most You Tubers skip this, I'm glad you didn't. I grew up in the 1960s, and all these actors made guest appearances on many TV shows in that era. This movie has a heavyweight cast of great actors. Jack Klugman (the "slum guy") said it was the most satisfying acting experience of his career, getting to work with these top-notch talents. FYI, Klugman appeared in no less than 5 episodes of the original B&W "Twilight Zone." Don't shy away from watching something just because it's in B&W, a lot of great movies and TV series were shot in monochrome.
Oh man I think those guys must have had such a great time on set together. I really feel like they were all genuinely laughing at that "see if the cat licks it up" line. I'm glad you enjoyed the reaction and really appreciate the comment 🙏🏾
Kid wasn't black, but any one of 100 minorities.
Blacks have the biggest chip on their shoulder. When they hear the word "them" Blacks automatically think you are talking about someone black.
"Mr. Freeze" 😄 is my favorite juror. He's dispassionate and honest.
Consider that with the knife, the shopkeeper would have said it was the only one he'd seen like it, since admitting to selling not one, but many switchblades (which are illegal) could get HIM in trouble as well.
When some of the jurors referred to the defendant as “some of them“, they were referring to his ethnicity and/or the fact that he lived in a slum. That’s why Henry Fonda’s character said “how come you believe the woman’s testimony And not his? She’s one of THEM”.
When the prejudiced old man says "them", there's no specificity. The scriptwriter purposely left it ambiguous; he didn't want to refer to a specific race, ethnicity or religion. He left it up to the viewer to determine.
Another Henry Fonda movie with a similar theme is "The Oxbow Incident". Fonda is younger there and is unable to talk the mob out of lynching the wrong man.
Fun Fact: Juror # 2 the soft spoken man he is also the voice of Disney's piglet on the Winnie The Poo movies
It isn't whether the defendant is guilty. It's whether the prosecution PROVES guilt.
I loved your summing up each character's ways at the end of the film. You are very astute. The script had its twists and turns as we learned more about the case and about the men in the room under pressure. The use of lighting in a black and white film adds a dimension to the effect of viewing it that you rarely get with films in color. Great actors of the day, amazing script and camera shots and direction. One of the best American dramas ever made.
Your mention of lighting makes me think about the shots of the old man's face. Still not sure why they did that. Maybe to emphasize his wisdom? But yea, really appreciate your comment 👊🏾🔥
One trick they used to heighten tension is that the walls were not fixed and in certain scenes the room actually was smaller
The oldest guy, who brought up the point about the womans nose-marks, got his 'people reading' skills through long years of life-experience!!
I know, I'm an old guy myself, & I'm pretty good at reading people too! 😁
If you watch the right “old” movies you will find lots of great shots. Try the films of Alfred Hitchcock, John Houston, Frank Capra and many others. Try Psycho.
I really like Psycho and Birds, actually! Idk if they are supposed to be funny, but I find them hilarious. ESPECIALLY Birds!
@@theotothefuture Hitchcock had a good sense of humor. In some of his movies he mixed in some lighthearted, and some macabre humor.
Hitchcock carefully planned each shot in his movies. Each shot and sequence were shot as planned. Hitch already knew what the finished movie looked like before a shot was taken.
Every one of those guys was either a star in his own right, or a well-respected character actor with a long list of credits. It's a timeless story, dealing with themes and problems that seem never to change. And while the writing's a little clunky and obvious in a few places, in every other way, this movie is one of the great classics.
Interesting how things like this the themes dealt with in this movie truly never seem to change. Human nature, I guess.
Superb acting performance by Lee J Cobb.
The one holdout, and co-producer of the film, is Henry Fonda (father of Peter and Jane Fonda).
George Voskovek (the immigrant) and Joseph Sweeney (the old man) were the only actors from the original live play on tv in 1954. The movie was made in 1957. Great reaction. Great editing. Subscribed.
Awesome fun fact right there! Thanks for the sub 🙏🏾
Good reactions. And specially your thought afterwards.
I forget the S Word.
Hey! Really appreciate that! 😁🙏🏾
CZcams doesn't understand how good "A Hard Day's Night" is. I assume that's what you mean by "the Beatles film."
That's the one! I had it downloaded on a family computer so many years ago. All I can't remember right now is one of them saying, "He's very cleeean" lol I think they were talking about some older dude.
@@theotothefuture Paul's grandfather, who was a trouble maker.
@@brandonflorida1092 Paul’s grandfather is a hoot! The definition of a chaos agent.
@@kathyastrom1315 And Wilfrid Brambell plays him so well.
The nerdy balding guy with the delicate voice, is the voice of Piglet. 😊
53:03 Really liked your reaction, especially the cast recap at the end; never seen someone do that before. 👏
Thanks a lot!! 🙏🏾 Yea, I love how they did that cast highlight at the end. Maybe I should do that for every movie i watch, just on my own 🤔
You mentioned each character should have their own…the 1st not guilty voter…Henry Fonda…a legend in Hollywood..your Clark Kent..played a kind of mob boss in a Pink Panther movie with Peter Sellers..The angry father…Lee J. Cobb..one of the leads in the Marlon Brando movie, On the Waterfront..also played in a series on tv..The Virginian…the man who never sweats..E.G Marshall..played in a series..a father-son defense lawyers show..called The Defenders..The guy who grew up in the slums…Jack Klugman..played in his own series…Quincy,M.E…also had a series called The Odd Couple..The baseball ticket guy…Jack Warden..played tons of movies…one of his last was with Sandra Bullock..While You Were Sleeping..the foreman..played a movie producer 4 years later in the Audrey Hepburn, George Peppard movie..Breakfast at Tiffany’s..1961..the bigot..Ed Begley was a long time character actor..his son became an actress..but HE played in the Clint Eastwood western…Hang ‘Em High..
All-star cast. I think Breakfast At Tiffany's is on my list. Looking forward to watching it.
Enjoyed your evaluation of this classic film.
I appreciate that!
I saw the list you mentioned and most of those films are definitely must see movies. I would also recommend these films: A Face in the Crowd(1957), Rashomon(1950), Ikiru(1952), The Thin Red Line(1998)
Ehh, that's awesome. Nice to get a vote of confidence from someone who has seen the list.
"This is a nice shot from 1957!" I love youngsters who think they know movie-making because they've seen lots of Marvel movies. Here are just 3 techniques director Sidney Lumet used in this film. First, he put the actors into the room for a few days to practice lines, working against/with the other, experiencing the claustrophobia. And it's obvious he used the heat as a character. At the beginning of the film, overhead shots predominate, gradually moving downward. By the "meat" of the evidence battles, it's face-to-face, or even moving lower, shooting upward. Finally, he physically moved walls to compress the room, heightening the claustrophobia as the film progressed.
No need to be a dick.
I believe the only one to do regular TV series work was the one from the slums, Jack Klugman. He played one of the two leads (Oscar Madison) in The Odd Couple (a series based on the film based on the stage play) and also the title character on Quincy, M.E. which is a good show for the first and maybe second season but became very preachy (in a holier than thou way) for it's later seasons. It was a generation of strict divide between film and TV actors.
Your angel probably wasn’t wearing a white suit. Only celebrities do. It was the height of summer. In all likelihood it was beige or light blue. Don’t forget: it’s in B&W.
Also, how were they all prejudiced? Only the “you know them” guy showed that trait.
You seemed surprised that “them” didn’t mean black. The kid looked like he might have been of southern Europe or middle eastern ancestry. Looks like one doesn’t have to be “of color” to be one of “them”.
1) THE KNIFE
The knife could have fallen out of the boy's pocket as he was leaving his apartment, heading to the movies.
That fits the timeline: The boy left his apartment at 11:30pm to go to the movies, and he said the knife fell through a hole in his pocket sometime between then - 11:30, when he left to go to the movies - and when he got back home at 3:10 in the morning.
"JUROR 4: Now what happened to the knife? He claims that it fell through a hole in his pocket on the way to the movies, sometime between 11.30 and 3.10, and that he never saw it again. ... No one in the house saw him go out at 11:30."
The knife could have fallen out of the boy's pocket right outside the apartment's front door, as the door was closing. He would not have heard it hit the floor because of the noise of the door closing. And if we assume he should have felt the knife fall past his ankle, the fact that he was twisting to close the door could also explain that - he thought what he felt was just his pants touching his ankle as he was twisting.
This scenario puts the knife at the scene of the crime to begin with. There is no need to try to explain how the knife got from someplace else to the particular apartment. For example, there is no need to try to explain how some stranger - who doesn't know the boy or the father, or where they live - found the knife blocks away on the street and just so happened to walk to the father's apartment.
Where the father 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 father'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 father used his fists to beat the son, beating the son all the time). This bum/thug/robber/neighbor 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 flipping it open. The father hears some noise outside his front door and opens it, only to be confronted with a bum/thug/robber/neighbor with an open switchblade knife: that person forces his way into the apartment and a fight ensues. The stabbing occurs ... with the bum/thug/robber/neighbor 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 knives).
There were no fingerprints on the knife (forensic DNA analysis 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 father. 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 (1) could have just so happened to already have a knife similar to the one the boy bought that night, or (2) 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, or (3) as above, the knife could have fallen out of the boy's pocket and the friend found it when he went to the father's door, picked it up, and then confronted the father.
Now, this is a comment! You should've been on that jury 🔥
It is pretty clear that the kid has a pretty weak lawyer. A decent lawyer should have easily introduced evidence that presented serious reasonable doubt in this case just as you did here.
@@przemekkozlowski7835 Henry Fonda's character said he would have asked for a better lawyer. I've always thought that if someone were to be convicted on the basis of such flimsy evidence, the conviction could be overturned on the basis of inadequate assistance of counsel.
I've also thought that the boy's inability to remember the movie was no way near as damning as the prosecution made it out to be. If he'd just had a fight with his dad, it's possible he just sat there fuming and rerunning the argument over and over in his head. And why should anyone there remember him? When you go to a movie, do you look over the audience and try to remember everyone?
Well said.
I would add that the father was also a convicted felon. And violent. So perhaps he had enemies of his own.
Or just lived in a rough part of town..
A lot of the men in my family would point out that in 1957, following WWII & Korea, those types of knives were very common. My uncles had versions. It was a very common thing to get on your first R&R if you served in the sSouth Pacific. So pawn shops were fully of them.
And the shop owner was hardly going to own up to regularly traffic in illegal goods. Better for him to say it was unique.
I get hung up on how much testimony hinged on police testimony. Police who were not bound by any kind of Miranda at the time. Police who did not have modern forensics. Police who allegedly made up their minds and through the kid down the stairs.
So we only have their word about how the kid reacted or if he could remember his alibi.
I am not convinced that Police responding to the murder of a convicted felon, one of "those people", didn't just want it solved and off his desk.
@pirbird14 people today forget how movies were then. Often people went not even knowing what they were seeing just for the AC or heat.
My grandparents used it as a bathroom, library and babysitter when first married.
A ticket would get you some reels or shorts and two features. It was dirt cheap. You could come and go. Be in the lobby like my granddad studying while my gran & dad watched the shows.
Some people went and paid as much attention as people do when they mindlessly turn on TV.
Growing up in the 1960's, I skipped over the black and white movies to, everyone does it. But then you come across some, and think. Wow. what have I been missing.
no joke. there are some seriously hidden gems out there. My Casablanca reaction is coming out in an hour. Another great B&W film!
1:23 - dunno if that was necessary but let's see your reaction first
40:37 - here's a fun fact: on the DVD, this scene with 3's breakdown is named "One Angry Man".
Another courtroom story you might like is Anatomy of a Murder( also in black and white). It's long, but seems to fly by. As some have said, the movie's point isn't whether the boy is guilty, but how the jury arrives at a verdict.( they could have had 11 not guilty votes at the beginning and had it go the other way). My favorite juror is #4,( #8 broke the law after all) because he relies on reason. The worst is #7 since he is totally indifferent.Btw - when #7 said he made 27 grand last year he would have meant @ a quarter million dollars today.
Also, until the last scene, no names are mentioned, not even the defendant's.
Love hearing your choices for fav and least fav jurors! I'm not sure if I have one. It'd probably be 8 if I thought about it long enough. I need everyone to watch this movie so I can ask who their fav is lol
You're the first 'reactor' to this movie I've heard who has mentioned noticing the length of the opening shot inside the courthouse.
Something to make you think.....If the sentence wasn't the death penalty, would this have even gone to debating guilt/innocence. If the kid would just be getting sent to prison for a period, would they be more apt to not examine their own moral dilemma with the punishment?
Interesting thought. The weight of deciding whether someone lives or dies probably added to them thinking more critically about it. Well, starting with one and spreading to the others.
There was only one writer: Reginald Rose.
This was fantastic writing!
Did I mention two? Maybe I said "writers" at some point, but in the description I only mention Rose.
@@theotothefuture You kept saying, "writers," as if there were more than one
For another b&w classic you might enjoy Casablanca. Lots of beautiful shot composition. I'm sure it's on your 100 greatest movies list
It totally is. Next is The Deer Hunter and after that is Casablanca 🙌🏾👌🏾
This was a remarkable cast. Some were well-established veteran actors when this movie was made, and most of the others went on to great success in either films or TV.
Great reaction. Looking forward to more!
Appreciate you! 👊🏾 🔥
Not "everyone" was hardboiled back then -- see Civil Rights movement.
Another one you will like (that's surely on your poster) is a master-class in light and shadow, Casablanca. For other good B&W comedies try Harvey or Arsenic & Old Lace.
I think Casablanca is on the list! 👌🏾
Great reaction. Loved your commentary afterward. Have subscribed. Please watch more older black and white movies. Casablanca for one with Humphrey Bogart. Hitchcock films, such as Psycho, The Birds, Strangers on a Train, and Rope.
Most of the actors were top notch actors of the time. On movies and on television. Look them up. You will like their other work ✌🏽❤️
A lot of people overlook the fact that either the boy DID commit the murder and got away with it, or the real murderer was never caught.
I was, am and keep on thinking the boy was guilty.
You can doubt EVERY indication in EVERY case but not the summary.
The logic of the movie is "it's unable to judge a murderer" and that sucks.
The death penalty in the USA also sucks.
Back when people had mind's that could change,
Now it's like trying to cracks but that at the bottom of a lake impossible to reach.
I hope both "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Casablanca" are also on your list. I can't imagine any valid list of 100 best movies not including those two, and both of those are movies that will live in your life forever.
"Is that his kid?" Jurors are supposed to be strangers to one another.
lol that's true
the boy in the gray flannel suit ... lol
What does the elderly juror know about being elderly?
Back before special effects, movies had to be cerebral.
It's one of my favorite movies. The filming style reminds me of the "Twilight Zone" TV series. Several of the actors in the movie showed up in its episodes.
« Nice shot » for an old movie ?
Indeed !
Thanks for watching this wonderful film.
I hope you will tame the black and white, it will lead you to such a lot of gems, remember they all belong to the Golden Age of Hollywood.
May I recommend you « The Third Man », gorgeous shots too and a great movie.
Greetings from France 🇫🇷
The boy ist guilty. The amount of evidence against him is still astronomically high at the end of the movie, but They made us forget about it.
It was even said in the movie, that the chances that someone else bought a knife that looks like the one the boy lost allegedly, even only hours before the murder happened, are a million to one.
They also said that the woman has very good eyes. "She saw the killing through the last two cars, SHE REMEMBERED THE MOST INSIGNIFICANT DETAILS". This statement was so strong, even juror No8 wasnt able to oppose, he's just once again diverted from the subject or he said "but it is possible". Yeah ok, one in a million. Possible maybe like everything else that might happen, but for sure not enough for reasonable doubt.
Super interesting perspective!
Prosecution failed completely to prove premeditation, so reasonable doubt is still there. Had the boy been charged with a non-death-penalty crime, murder 2 or manslaughter, guilty. The woman's glasses should have been addressed, they might have been reading glasses, leaving them out creates doubt.
@@jeffreysmith236 why should the prosecution adress her theoretical glasses? It would create doubt even with sunglasses, no prosecutor would do that if there is no need to create confusion. This is the job of the boy's lawyer to create doubt. On the other hand her eyesight is proven as good already, the indentations around her nose are not relevant. She described a lot of details, how did she do that with bad eyes? Even picky No8 had no point there, he said nothing regarding the details she described. She described the killing in a relevant and detailed statement one juror said, otherwise No8 would've poked into the matter, but no one did. The jurors were only keen making this point forget at the end.
The point regarding manslaughter is valid, but for some reason it is nobodys worry in this movie. This means it is how it is, would be for sure even easier to say guilty if it wouldnt lead to death penalty. Another reason to abolish death-penalty, it leads to crazy results sometimes.
@@PaulWinkle oh, it's impossible to make details up, is it? And you always deal with doubt by addressing it, not by pretending it is not there.
@@jeffreysmith236 if she would have made details up, No8 would be there and would adress it. He didnt
19:08 In the stage play, they don’t… and the “camera” (i.e. the audience) doesn’t move (although I’ve heard of one production where the table slowly rotates).
43:41 “This guy” is also in _Psycho_ (1960) - another must-see.
Which character in Psycho?!
@@theotothefuture Private Investigator Milton Arbogast.
Martin Balsam. He's in a ton of things. He's great in Psycho, though I like his performance best in the The Taking of Pelham One Two Three.
I thoroughly enjoyed your video, thanks for making it. If you liked Henry Fonda in this film, I might suggest "The Grapes of Wrath" and "Mr. Roberts", also many more. He was a movie star from the 1930s to the 1980s. Peace and love.
Thanks for the kind words and suggestion! I've heard of Grapes of Wrath but have never experienced it.
Depression era film about the Great Depression in the southwest United States. Based on a John Steinbeck novel. It inspired two songs: The Ballad of Tom Joad by Woody Guthrie, in 1940 and The Ghost of Tom Joad by Bruce Springsteen in 1995 and covered by Rage Against the Machine in '97. All very 20th century, but still relevant.
Each of the men, at one time in the movie, got angry. Not all at one time.
Loved your reaction...thanks! Good journey :) Peace!
It’s a masterpiece. One of the best ever made. 😊
The interesting thing about this movie is that very few realize the time period and the undertones it has.
First, this movie came out just 3 years after the famous Brown v. Board of Education ruling which ended segregation. Secondly, it was only a generation (about 37 years) after the country saw the biggest influx of immigrants in its history (1900-1920). So the prejudice was primarily about those first generation immigrants who lived in slums rather than a racial bias or prejudice.
At that time in the inner cities there were more Italians and other unskilled Southern European minorities living in the ghetto than blacks who were just starting to migrate north following WWII.
This perspective IMO helps to understand the movie a great deal because the majority of reactors to this movie are in the Millennial and Gen Z age group and have a hard time understanding that society was ingrained to these types of biases and wouldn't change for about 20-30 years.
Awesome reaction and character summary at the end. Thank you for posting, it’s appreciated. New subscriber here! If you like older well directed and acted older movies from this era please consider other favorites of mine with depth…Inherit The Wind (based on a true story about a teacher put on trial in the 1920’s for teaching evolution in high school in Bible Belt rural Tennessee), and Imitation of Life (must see about a young lady who grows up “passing” in white environment and the effects on those around her).
You need to do a movie called" The Incident" a truly great movie with great character actors. Different people from different walks of life with all their different issues get on the subway and are terrorized by two hoodlums. 1968 movie ahead of its time. I haven't seen anyone react to it.
Nice reaction
Thank you! 🙏🏾👊🏾
Brilliant movie.
I like your take on it. One writer. Reginald Rose first done as a one hour television drama 1954, Most likely done live. .later made into a stage play, then the film . In it the racist could be spouting off against any given ethnic group although the boy was portrayed as an inner city youth. In New York it would be the Puerto ricans, The soft spoken voice of John Fiedler might be recognized by any Disney fan of the Pooh bear cartoons by Disney. the Eye glass guy, EG Marshal had a television series in the sixties called, "The Defenders". He played a Lawyer. "James Bond villan" made me laugh, All the actors were outstanding.
"Disrespect"!? It is the IRRESPONSIBILITY.
As a viewer, as you kept saying " how would you know that" thats the point, its just rather or not there is a reasonable doubt in it.
I often think the justice system would be helped a lot by at least changing some language. The assumption is innocent until proven guilty. The terminology leaves us always wondering if the defendant is guilty or not in spite of the defendant having no burden to prove their innocence. Rather than innocent and guilty, it would be better to have the charges responded to as proven/not proven since the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case. It's a fantastic look at what a jury does because the audience doesn't know if the kid did it or not. We are in the same shoes as any of the men in the jury room.
I like that idea. And yea, I love AND hate how this movie kept the audience in the dark on a lot of things. I craved to see the end of the case and the reactions in the courtroom but I understand why they did add that in.
No, I despise that idea. That concept is that accusation itself makes a person guilty, with guilt only to be proven or not proven. That would leave innocent people having their reputations permanently and effectively damaged merely by the mere accusation of pernicious prosecutors. We already have enough of that in the media without making it an official government designation. "Innocent until _proven_ guilty" is an important standard of our law. When the jury first lays eyes on the defendant, their point of view is _supposed_ to be, "That guy looks innocent to me." If the prosecution fails to prove its case, the defendant should walk out of the courtroom "Innocent," _not_ "Guilt unproven."
@@kirkdarling4120Good point. It is vital to maintain the jury's purpose is to assess the prosecution's case since they claim a citizen should have their rights removed. Hard to do since accusation has always carried a stigma.
This is a great movie. An all time favorite. It is very thought provoking. I have a great, great movie for you to react to next. It is The Cowboys with John Wayne. It is a western but believe me, it is not like most westerns and you will love it. Thanks
This is actually as good as Anatomy of a Fall !
Great reaction!
Oh man. I just happened on your channel and this is such an exceptional film, I was excited. But...do you talk CONSTANTLY through every film you share? Wow.
The script purposely has the racist characters only refer to "they" to illustrate how fallacious all prejudices are. Great reaction!
11:34 he's referring to the lgbt community.
“They” are the others. (Those different from us).
It's much better if you don't read the synopsis first.
The baseball fan is spineless; everything is "entertainment" to him. He'd probably see this film as "funny".
I suggest you also check out the 1997 remake…it’s a more diverse approach.
Love this movie but couldn't watch your vid cause I couldn't hear and you talk over the dialogue.
In my next reaction (Blade Runner) I start experimenting with pausing when I have something to say. It's a mix of both. Still working on finding my groove. Thanks for the feedback!
PLEASE react to the Peabody Award-winning episode of "Inside Amy Schumer" Season 3 Episode 3: "12 Angry Men Inside Amy Schumer." This is my favorite movie and they did such a great job parodying it.
Good, but in a movie like this, where every line of dialogue means something, you should wait for a silence or pause it when you react but you missed some crucial stuff.
cool channel i just found out about it and subscribed, great movie, but i would recommend the 1997 remake, its got jack lemon, george c scott, james gandolfini, edward james olmos, mykel williamson, (bubba from forrest gump), etc etc its even better. maybe you could review that and this one and compare.
Excellent reaction. Looks like your channel is fairly new. Please consider reacting to “Charlie Wilson’s War” .It is amazing, based on actual event, has Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts and I’ve never seen it done. Be the first 😊
The defendant appears to be Hispanic -- Puerto Rican.
Juror three had no respect towards the old man, so his son has no respect for his father.
many great BW movies:
Gaslight
Seven Days in May
Marty
Strangers on a Train
Shadow of a Doubt
The 3rd Man
Double Endemnity
Key Largo
The Best Years of Our Lives
The Little Foxes
Night and the City
Asphalt Jungle
The Manchurian Candidate
Dr Stranglove
Failsafe
A Tree Grows in Brooklyn
A Face in the Crowd
Babydoll
All About Eve
Treasure of the Sierra Madra
Sunset Boulivuard
Patterns
Paths of Glory
All Quiet on the Western Front
Imitation of Life
Harvey
------------ and many more, all Black and White.
Beautiful list!
Look people... this was 70 and 80 years ago... give credit to Hollywood, they addressed the issues of race to try to help even things out. And they were Liberals... with conservatives along with McCarthy reining hell down on them but just plain fair thinking won the day. I know we can all vote with our wallets... but we're a melting pot in the end and what will keep America strong isn't selfish greedy thinking but unselfish, blind to color, respect for hard work and brains.
The “they” and “them” is purposefully left somewhat ambiguous to broadly represent the “other” , more than any specific race or socio-racial dynamic.
I feel this.
These people-Italians