12 Angry Men - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

12 Angry Men Reviews

Page 2 of 35
January 9, 2014
LOVED IT. questionable choice or casts gender (all male) but loved it.
½ December 27, 2013
The movie "12 Angry Men" directed by William Friedkin will overall hook the viewer movie with strong emotion and several intense moments. The movie gets the point across: the importance of detail along with having an open-mind is key to successful decisions. 12 Angry Men's form of showing that a human life is worth arguing over is worth the time spent watching at the edge of the seat. The movie bring the viewer perspectives through many different eyes and many types of emotional connections.
The movie starts with one man's decision to plead not guilty. The man pleading not guilty, Davis, is almost single-handily responsible of saving the kids life. The way Davis brings pleads not guilty to the 11 angry jurors is very logical and intelligent. By using strong details that change the minds of the court room one by one; Davis leads the court room into the logical progression of facts just like a professional lawyer would. The moment where the viewers and jurors started to become doubtful on their decisions is when Davis present the same type of knife as the victims on the table. The major twist and presentation of the knife is priceless and is a majoring turning point of the movie's intensity level. The wonder of mystery of how and why Davis has the knife leads the viewers to believe that he is on to something bigger than just a rebellion against the group. The movie, after the knife is presented, starts to intensely pick up. Davis is clearly the main person of the movie.
Each character in the movie is unique and very well thought of. No two jurors seems the same. The unique characters bring different perspectives on the case. One of the jurors is a man raised in the same type of way as the kid on trial. Throughout the movie, viewers can sense the man's emotional connection to each bit of evidence. The man can relate mainly because he could at least relate through the struggle the kid is going through. Another unique type of character is business man who is always indifferent to the case as the evidence is presented. I thought this is because the man has no prior experience with this type of life style and has no common ground to connect on. The man and the kid's life style are too different for the man to make a reasonable decision. I find each characters view's on the case in question one of the movies strongest and most creative element. The fresh views bring a sense of completion to the case. All the different interjections by each character makes the case feel complete and leads the viewer to feel happy about the ending the movie. A movie that lets the audience connect to the story's feeling will always be one to remember.
The best element the movie has to offer is how the characters bring up evidence. As I previously explained, each character brings a unique perspective on the case on a personal level. Each bit of evidence had a unique emotional response from each character. For example, Juror #4 presented his form of evidence like he was a professor. When Juror #4 presented the fact that he could remember the name of a movie even under extreme emotion stress he was very polite when proved wrong by Davis. If any other character were to bring up the same bit of evidence the reaction would have been very different. The movie often made me think what if the cranky old juror #3 would have been proved wrong in the same way juror #4 would of? I think juror #3 would have reacted the same way as he did when he threatened to kill Davis. The characters react in such a unique way makes the movie stand out in very different way. Without any type of backstory the audience can predict how each person will uniquely present arguments.
The general idea of the movie may sound boring to some people, but will surely surprise the viewer. The movie is full of intense emotional drama that makes for a good show. The peak of emotional tension leads juror #3 and Davis to get into an argument. Beforehand juror #3 brings up the point that if the accused kid says "I am going to kill you" he most certainly means it. As juror #3 gets to the breaking point he becomes enraged and burst out "I'll kill ya!". Davis quickly responses with "You don't really mean that". After that scene the viewer could tell the intensity of the actions by each character is changing their view points. This scene is important because it really made me think about what I believed personally about the case. I felt as if I was in the jury room with the 12 angry men. I found myself believing more and more on the non-guilty evidence as the movie went by, just like how the characters one-by-one went to the other verdict.
The main progression of the movie is fast and fulfilling, but the movie also slowly brings a repetitive feel towards the end. Near the end of the film the points brought up seem to be already made, this may causing the viewers to become bored. The movie holds a sense of mystery of what the outcome of the jury will be, until a little after half way. Viewers pick up that the movie is going to end with everyone pleading not guilty but the movie continues to drag on about pieces of information already brought up. Yes, the information they bring up is very important to the case, but the sense of wanting the movie to "just end already" is still felt. The director was on the right track of refreshing the viewer near the end. For example, when juror #3 was the only one left to change his vote, he had an episode. This scene was enough to cause the break in repetition, but it felt like it was out of character. There is not enough back story on the man to judge whether or not a mental breakdown is in character or not. If we were judging based off the movie, it seemed confusing and not natural. The focus of the movie is not about getting to know the characters, so the question of character is not any reason to ignore watching it.
The movie "12 Angry Men" mixes the elements of emotion and intense character actions in such a way that makes the movie hard to keep away. The movie shows the importance of every bit of detail in a way that is amazing and unique. Each character in the movie shows importance and significance, making the movie a must watch for people looking for a classic. There is no point of avoiding this movie if you are looking for a well-directed trip into the jury room.
½ December 18, 2013
Wonderful plot, well-acted, unique. Doesn't quite live up to the original, but those are big shoes to fill.
October 11, 2013
Great movie. A terrific modernization of a classic movie!
September 11, 2013
(if i could turn back i prob. would of watched the original) for a movie that is simply 12 men in a room this is very good. the script and cast to thank.
September 1, 2013
An updated version of a classic. Not nearly as good but can easily stand on its own!

August 7, 2013
This is the second time I was surprised to see William Friedkin's name at the end of a film. How is it possible that a director capable of such cinematic electricity as seen in The Exorcist and Bug, could make a film like this? This isn't a bad film. As a stand alone movie, its a pretty good one. But this nearly shot for shot remake of the Sidney Lumet version is pointless, because, well it's a shot for shot remake. I like the cast (I'm particularly fond of Mr Tony Soprano) but if you played the audio of both films simultaneously, you wouldn't be able to tell which was which. That said, this new version has something missing from the older one. Maybe its the fact that I've already seen this story, that I know what happens and how it does so, but in terms of compelling-ness, I feel that the first film is superior. Which is odd, because (full circle) suspense is Friedkin's "thing".
½ June 3, 2013
incredibly clever and interesting plot
May 10, 2013
Another I haven't yet seen.
½ April 23, 2013
A disastrous attempt at a remake of one of the greatest films of all time. The biggest problem is the acting. They hired 12 ancient dudes who are wannabe actors. They basically read off the script to the original film and decided that this is an easy movie to remake. It isn't even fair to call this a cash grab because no one in their right mind would pay a dime for this swill. The original film has so many incredible high points and this film doesn't even manage to come close to capturing them. The sound editing was bad. The camera work was bad. The script was almost copy-pasted from the original but even the few added lines were bad. The acting was BAD. The film is bad.

April 6, 2013
Watched this when I was in school
April 5, 2013
this movie is a classic
½ February 9, 2013
I thought it blew the original away!!!
½ January 28, 2013
An 18 year old boy is on trial for murder. He is being accused of knifing his father to death. 12 jurors retire to a private room to establish if the boy is guilty or not guilty. The only issue is that all 12 men need to have the same opinion. Henry Fonda (Juror #8) starts off as the only man thinking the youth is not guilty. He doesn't think the evidence adds up. He slowly persuades some of the others to see why the crime doesn't make sense.

Every actor in this movie has a very different personality. Some are in a hurry to get to a ball game. Some sweat a lot. Some don't sweat at all. Some sway where ever the wind blows. Some can be merciful and some can be executioners. Yet all 12 play a major role in whether an 18 year old lives or dies.

12 Angry Men was released in 1957. It's a film listed in the Criterion collection. It is also found on the IMDB top 250 list. 12 Angry Men is proof that a movie doesn't need to be in color or filmed in a trillion different locations to be interesting. Without seeing any of the trial the entire story is explained in one, very hot, room by 12 different men. This movie is a must see for everyone.
January 23, 2013
To be honest is not as good as the original (1957) version, but the closing act scene where one of the jury (3) explaining why he insist the defendant is guilty, that is really what is missing from the original version to become a perfect movie in my humble opinion.
½ January 18, 2013
Saw it in one of my classes.
½ January 16, 2013
It's interesting to see the group dynamics in this film and how people perceive things and conform/non conform to the group. Though since the film is only showing 2 hrs in a jury room, this can get boring.
November 10, 2012
Like the original, this restaging for the '90s features a great cast and is helmed by a fine director. There's some overacting, but the racial integration adds flavor and realism instead of being token and the script never loses its cunning zing no matter how many times one plays it through. But the 1957 version is a masterclass in methodical lens and camera use to tell a contained chamber piece, and I'm betrothed to it. But it's such an important story; whichever version has the cast you prefer, you can't go wrong.
Page 2 of 35