Video Sources 8 Views

  • Watch traileryoutube.com
  • VIP ServerUnknown resource
  • HQ Server 1Unknown resource
  • HQ Server 2Unknown resource
12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men

Life is in their hands. Death is on their minds.Apr. 10, 1957USA97 Min.Not Rated
Your rating: 0
0 0 votes
what going on?

Synopsis

Final closing arguments having been introduced, a clearly exhausted judge instructs the jury to determine whether the boy is guilty of murder. When there is any reasonable doubt of the guilt that they are supposed to return a verdict of not guilty. The judge informs them that a hasty decision will probably be accompanied by a mandatory death sentence. The jury retires into a private area, in which the jurors invest a brief while becoming acquainted before they begin deliberating. It’s immediately apparent that the jurors have already determined that the boy is guilty, and that they plan to reunite their verdict without even taking time for conversation with the only exclusion of Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), who’s the sole””not guilty”” vote at a preliminary tally. He explains that there is much at stake to allow him to go along with the verdict without at least talking about it. His vote annoys another jurors, especially Juror 7 (Jack Warden), who has tickets to a baseball game that day; and Juror 10 (Ed Begley Sr.), that considers that individuals from slum backgrounds are liars, crazy, and dangerous. The remainder of the movie’s focus is that the jury’s difficulty in reaching a unanimous conclusion. He argues that he cannot in good conscience vote””accountable”” if he believes there’s reasonable uncertainty of this boy’s guilt. Having argued several points and gotten no favorable response from others, Juror 8 reluctantly agrees that he has just succeeded in hanging the prosecution. Instead, he asks another vote, this time by secret ballot. He suggests that he will abstain from voting, and when the other 11 jurors are still unanimous in a foreseeable vote he’ll acquiesce to his or her choice. But, Juror 9 (Joseph Sweeney) reveals that he changed his vote, believing that Juror 8 points deserve additional discussion. Juror 8 presents a persuasive argument that one of those witnesses, an older man who claimed to have heard that the boy shout””I will kill you”” shortly before the murder took place, couldn’t have heard the voices as clearly as he had testified because of an elevated train passing by at the moment; as well as stating that””I will kill you,”” is often said by those who don’t literally mean it. Shortly afterward, Juror 11 (George Voskovec) questions if it’s reasonable to assume the defendant could have fled the scene, having cleaned the knife of fingerprints but leaving behind it, and then come back 3 hours later to regain it again (having been abandoned in his father’s chest). Juror 11 subsequently changes his vote. Juror 8 subsequently cites the man’s next claim: upon hearing that the father’s body hit the ground he had run into the doorway of his apartment and noticed the defendant running out of their construction by his front door at 15 minutes. Jurors 5, 6 and 8 issue if this is accurate, as the witness in question had had a stroke, restricting his ability to walk. Upon the conclusion of an experiment, the jury finds that the witness wouldn’t have made it into the doorway in time to actually observe the killer running out. Juror 8 concludes that, judging by what he claims to have heard earlier, the watch has to have only assumed that it was that the defendant running. Juror 3, growing more irritated throughout the procedure, explodes at a rant:””He has to burnoff! He is slipping through our hands!”” Juror 3 yells””I will kill him”” Juror 8 calmly retorts,””You do not really mean that you’ll kill me, do you?”” , demonstrating his prior point. Shortly after, a rainstorm hits the town, apparently postponing the baseball game for which Juror 7 has tickets allowing him to relax and pay attention with that program pressure. Juror 4 (E.G. Marshall) proceeds to state that he doesn’t feel the boy’s alibi, that was being at the movies with a couple of buddies at the time of this murder, because the boy couldn’t recall what film that he had seen once questioned by police soon after the murder. Juror 8 explains that being under emotional stress can make you forget certain matters, and tests Juror 4 can recall the events of prior days. Juror 4 recalls, with some trouble, the events of the past five days, and Juror 8 points out that he had been under emotional stress at that moment, so there was not any reason to believe the boy needs to be able to consider the particulars of this film that he claimed to have observed. Jurors 3 and 8 run an experiment to find out whether it is feasible to get a individual to stab downward to a taller individual. The experiment demonstrates the chance, however Juror 5 then explains that he had grown up amidst knife conflicts in his area, and reveals, through demonstrating the appropriate usage of a switchblade, that no one much shorter than his opponent would have held a switchblade in such a way as to stab downward, as the clasp could have been too awkward and the act of changing hands too time-consuming. Rather, someone that far shorter than his opponent could stab underhanded at an upwards angle. This revelation augments the certainty of several of the jurors in their view that the defendant isn’t guilty. Increasingly impatient, Juror 7 changes his vote only so that the deliberation may wind, which earns him the ire of Jurors 3 and 11, both on opposite sides of this discussion. Juror 11, an immigrant that has repeatedly displayed powerful patriotic pride, presses Juror 7 hard about utilizing his vote , and eventually Juror 7 admits that he truly thinks the defendant isn’t guilty. The upcoming jurors to change their votes are Jurors 12 (Robert Webber) and the Jury Foreman (Martin Balsam), making the vote 9-3 and leaving just 3 dissenters: Jurors 4, 3 and 10. Outraged at the way the event have goneJuror 10 goes to a rage on why folks from the slums cannot be reliable, of how they are better than animals who gleefully kill each other off for pleasure. His address offends Juror 5, that turns his back , and one by one the rest of the jurors start turning away from him. Listen…”” Juror 4, the single man still facing himtersely reacts,””I have. Sit down and do not open your mouth again.”” As Juror 10 proceeds to sit down at a corner Juror 8 speaks softly about the evils of bias, and the jurors resume their seats. When people remaining in favor of a guilty vote are pushed as to why they nevertheless maintain that there’s not any reasonable doubt, Juror 4 states that his belief that despite all the additional signs that has been called into question, the fact remains that the woman who saw the murder out of her bedroom window across the road (throughout the passing train) still stands as strong proof. After he points out this, Juror 12 changes his vote back into””accountable””, making the vote 8-4. Subsequently Juror 9, after viewing Juror 4 rub his nose (that is being irritated with his eye glasses), realizes that, such as Juror 4, the woman who allegedly saw the murder had feelings at the sides of her nose that she chucked, indicating that she wore glasses, but didn’t wear them out to court of vanity. Juror 8 cannily asks Juror 4 when he wears his eyeglasses to sleep soundly, and Juror 4 admits that he doesn’t wear them nobody. Juror 8 explains that there was no logical reason to anticipate that the watch happened to be wearing her glasses while attempting to sleep, and he points out that on her evidence the attack happened so quickly that she wouldn’t have had the time to set them on. At this point, the sole remaining juror using a guilty vote will be Juror 3. Juror 3 provides a lengthy and increasingly tortured series of arguments, end with,””Rotten children, you work out your life!”” This builds on a more emotionally ambivalent earlier revelation that his relationship with his son is strained, and his anger over this fact is that the main reason that he wants the defendant to be accountable. As the jurors leave the space, Juror 8 assists the distraught Juror 3 together with his coat at a series of compassion. The movie ends as soon as the favorable Jurors 8 (Mr. Davis) and 9 (Mr. McCardle) exchange names, and all of the jurors descend the courthouse steps to come back to their own individual lives… to not see each other again.

12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men
Original title 12 Angry Men
IMDb Rating 8.9 636,561 votes
TMDb Rating 8.4 4,292 votes

Director

Sidney Lumet
Director

Cast

Similar titles

In Full Bloom
The Bang Bang Club
Groupers
Lincoln
The Cooler
Notes on a Scandal
The Collini Case
The Gold Rush
Tender Mercies
Seeking a Friend for the End of the World
The Railway Man
The Manchurian Candidate