Product Description

Eleven jurors are convinced that the defendant is guilty of murder. The twelfth has no doubt of his innocence. How can this one man steer the others toward the same conclusion? It's a case of seemingly overwhelming evidence against a teenager accused of killing his father in "one of the best pictures ever made" (The Hollywood Reporter).

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #14712 in DVD
• Released on: 2007-12-04
• Rating: NR (Not Rated)
• Aspect ratio: 1.66:1
• Formats: Color, Dubbed, DVD, Subtitled, NTSC
• Original language: English
• Subtitled in: French, Spanish
• Dubbed in: French
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 96 minutes

Amazon.com essential video
Sidney Lumet's directorial debut remains a tense, atmospheric (though slightly manipulative and stagy) courtroom thriller, in which the viewer never sees a trial and the only action is verbal. As he does in his later corruption commentaries such as Serpico or Q & A, Lumet focuses on the lonely one-man battles of a protagonist whose ethics alienate him from the rest of jaded society. As the film opens, the seemingly open-and-shut trial of a young Puerto Rican accused of murdering his father with a knife has just concluded and the 12-man jury retires to their microscopic, sweltering quarters to decide the verdict. When the votes are counted, 11 men rule guilty, while one--played by Henry Fonda, again typecast as another liberal, truth-seeking hero--doubts the obvious. Stressing the idea of "reasonable doubt," Fonda slowly chips away at the jury, who represent a microcosm of white, male society--exposing the prejudices and preconceptions that directly influence the other jurors' snap judgments. The tight script by Reginald Rose (based on his own teleplay) presents each juror vividly using detailed soliloquies, all which are expertly performed by the film's flawless cast. Still, it's Lumet's claustrophobic direction--all sweaty close-ups and cramped compositions within a one-room setting--that really transforms this contrived story into an explosive and compelling nail-biter. --Dave McCoy

Customer Reviews

How to make a great movie (recipie below)
1 incredible script
12 talented actors
lots of emotion
1 very simple set
no special effects

Produce under good direction. Serves millions.

Seriously, this film is a masterpiece. A jury has to decide a seemingly open and shut case of a young man (who, as with most of the jurors, remains nameless throughout the film) who has been accused of murdering his father in a fit of anger. The evidence couldn't be clearer that this guy did it. Murder weapon, motive, eyewitness testimony all in place.

One juror (Fonda) however, wants to talk the case out. He's not 100% convinced that the guy is guilty. And so it begins. An emotional roller coaster follows as we learn about the jurors, their reasons for voting as they do and how (or if) they are forced to re-evaluate the evidence.

Part of the charm of this film is it's starkness. 99% of the film takes place in one room; the jury room, a simple set consisting of little more than a table, 12 chairs, some windows and a fan.

The best part, I believe, is the character development of the jurors. When the movie begins, they are just 12 anonymous characters. Even though none of the jurors are named in the movie (two are in the very last scene, after the case is over) by the time the movie is over, you feel as if you know and understand every one of them.

Truly a remarkable film and well worth repeated viewings.

the elusive truth
Having recently had a jury duty experience that was equally as contentious as the one depicted in "Twelve Angry Men," I found this film fascinating, and one that maintains its interest because of the taut, well written script (by Reginald Rose, based on his play for TV), and some of the finest character actors of mid-20th century cinema, and though Henry Fonda was a big star when this was made in 1957, he blends in to be part of what is essentially an ensemble acting piece.
Practically the entire film is set in the single jury room, on a hot and humid day, with these twelve incredibly diverse men, and shows how their backgrounds color how they arrive at their conclusions. Truth is very elusive in this case, and it's a matter of questioning if there is "reasonable doubt."

There are many things that point out how times have changed in 50 years; it has been decades since a jury would be chosen that would only consist of white men, and a few years since a table full of ashtrays with cigarette butts would be allowed, but the basic truths remain the same, and if one places twelve strangers to come to a verdict in a difficult case, tempers are going to flare. The hot head in this film is Juror # 3, Lee J. Cobb, who sees the events through the lens of his relationship with his son, and he gives a fiery performance, but each actor has a lot to contribute to the success of this film.
This was the first feature film in Sidney Lumet's long career, and he was nominated for a Best Director Oscar; the film was also nominated for Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay, but lost in all three categories to David Lean's "Bridge on the River Kwai." Lumet was to work with Fonda again in '64 with the riveting cold war thriller (and my favorite Lumet film) "Fail-Safe," which also had in its cast Juror # 6, Ed Binns.
Total running time is 96 minutes.

A Masterpiece, not a Megabudgeter.
Where do I start? How many films can you honestly watch three times in a fortnight and know it wont be too long before you feel compelled to view it again? 12 Angry Men, a movie that risks everything on a script, and succeeds triumphantly because that script sets you back on your heels(instead of earth-shatteringly expensive special effects or exotic location work) and draws a uniformly astounding set of performances from a cast most of whom were unfamiliar at the time. Henry Fonda, one of only two "big" names amongst the dozen participants, has the advantage also of being the one who stands against the view of a group of jurors, hell bent on putting a young boy in the electric chair for "obviously" murdering his father. Yet each character is played so well, is so interestingly unique in each case, and is given such telling lines, that you hang on the words of them all equally. The other well known face, (at least in 1957), is Lee J. Cobb, who in any other film would have stolen it completely, but here is "merely" as memorable as all the others. Robert Webbers character is excruciatingly irritating, but hes playing it to perfection none the less. That Fondas viewpoint will win the day is probably never in doubt, but how he,(and infact some of the other characters despite themselves), achieves this is positively gripping and astonishing. Sidney Lumet, in his directorial debut, proved at once what he was capable of, and, in this single set scenario, that classic status does not necessarily depend on an extravagant outlay. One of the Top Five Best Movies of all time. I rest my case!