Buy 12 Angry Men movie online, buy 12 Angry Men 1957 online, buy 12 Angry Men movie download, 12 Angry Men movie buy online, where can i buy the movie 12 Angry Men, where can i buy 12 Angry Men movie, where can you buy 12 Angry Men the movie, where to buy 12 Angry Men movie?
Buy 12 Angry Men 1957 Online (mkv, avi, flv, mp4) DVDRip
Crime, Drama, Mystery
IMDB rating:
Sidney Lumet
Martin Balsam as Juror #12
John Fiedler as Juror #12
Lee J. Cobb as Juror #12
E.G. Marshall as Juror #12
Jack Klugman as Juror #12
Edward Binns as Juror #12
Jack Warden as Juror #12
Henry Fonda as Juror #12
Joseph Sweeney as Juror #12
Ed Begley as Juror #12
George Voskovec as Juror #12
Robert Webber as Juror #12
Storyline: The defense and the prosecution have rested and the jury is filing into the jury room to decide if a young man is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. What begins as an open-and-shut case of murder soon becomes a detective story that presents a succession of clues creating doubt, and a mini-drama of each of the jurors' prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused, and each other. Based on the play, all of the action takes place on the stage of the jury room.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1808x1080 px 6713 Mb h264 640 Kbps mkv Download
720p 1200x720 px 4473 Mb h264 N/A mkv Download
DVD-rip 640x384 px 699 Mb mpeg4 1015 Kbps avi Download
Greatest movie ever made
Deceptively complex courtroom drama enthrals for the duration as one man opposes eleven others in a battle of argument, reason, and logic.

Starring Henry Fonda as Juror #8, 12 Angry Men is a very claustrophobic drama which conveys the deliberation room of a trial where the defendant is accused of first-degree murder. On the surface the case seems open and shut, with 11 of the 12 jurors entirely convinced by the prosecution's case. Only one dissenter remains, and that is Henry Fonda's Juror #8. Specifically he is not certain that the boy is definitely innocent, just that he doesn't know, and that for him is enough to qualify as reasonable doubt.

12 Angry Men certainly is a moralistic tale, of the right to a fair trial and trying to give someone every chance, but it has many more strings to its bow than just this. Indeed, above all else it prides itself in endeavouring to portray a true sense of reasoned and rational argument which tries to overcome steadfast beliefs as possessed by the seemingly unshakable. Initially it may seem that Fonda's Juror is simply playing devil's advocate, but it becomes clear that it is more about standing up for what you believe despite what the facts seem to tell you. The more you scrutinise so-called unshakable evidence, the more you find holes in it, and the more that logical analysis seems to provide the real answers.

Obviously, Juror #8 has to persuade those others who seem to have their own agenda, and pre-conceived notions of what truth equals, but nevertheless it is absolutely fascinating seeing how simply he probes the case and reveals the flaws.

The whole movie's pace is absolutely perfect, and given its almost exclusive setting of inside the deliberation room it is a testament to the genius of the script and the brilliance of the acting that the duration of the film seems so short. The cinematography is also surprisingly excellent given the lack of scope necessary, with sharp imagery and clever camera-work which gives the whole picture a real amount of life.

To detail the jurors themselves; Juror #1 reluctantly appoints himself foreman. He appears to lack esteem, and the chance to boss the table by being the 'leader' perversely appeals greatly to him as he lacks significant contribution to make about the case. He does not want to be useless, so is forced to take charge.

Juror #2 is a slight man who is clearly used to being wrapped in his own cocoon, never deviating, so when he ends up as a juror in a murder trial, he is actually thrilled at his fish out of water status. He does not really have much to say about the case, taking it at face value.

Juror #3 is the enduring Messenger Service owner. May have an ulterior motive for being so steadfastly sure the accused is guilty, given his first scene depicts ambivalence over the courtroom procedure given to him it is 'open and shut'. As time goes on, and evidence starts to suggest more than meets the eye, he begins to show emotional stress as his hardwired opinion looks flimsier. But he refuses to cave.

Juror #4 has more emotional attachment to the trial than most, as he shares the same kind of background to the defendant and takes criticism of 'that kind of person' extremely personally. Experiences inner conflict between head and heart.

Juror #5 is a cold and methodical thinker who has an elevated opinion of himself. Emerges more as the deliberations wear on, he is convinced by the evidence that the boy is guilty, and systematically sets about conveying this to the others.

Juror #6 is the common working man with very little input, and whose two significant moments are to defend another juror who is being harassed, and to suggest another juror is badly wrong about his opinion.

Juror #7 is more interested in the ball game at 8pm than the case. Doesn't want to be there, and while he details a little about the boy's background to start off with, his regular sarcastic quips throughout the story suggest he is simply desperate to be out of there as quickly as possible, with no care about the wheels of justice.

Juror #8 is the only juror who does not immediately join the others with their guilty verdict. He has a lot of thought about the case eating at him, and wishes to explore it. He meets much opposition.

Juror #9 is a wise, wiley old man who is sharper than anyone else and observed events in the courtroom closer than the others. Makes some smart observations which unearth vital truths.

Juror #10 is an old school racist whose opinion is based on prejudice and not facts. A vile and odious creature, he has no interest in 'people like that' roaming the streets, and is offended at having to live in the same city as them.

Juror #11 is an intelligent and interested spectator who listens to the facts and analyses them before reaching a conclusion. His European accent draws derision from some others, as does his general nationality, but he rises above it and provides some sensible comments, rarely saying anything which lacks thought.

Juror #12 is a good-natured man but not a terribly strong thinker. He does not have much of an independent opinion on the case, often following others, and is often more interested in playing naughts and crosses or boring fellow jurors about his job.

Overall, 12 Angry Men is simply as good as cinema can get. Incredible script, amazing performances, and captivating direction.

Highly recommended.
Great movie
The other reviews pretty much sums it up. It's a great movie, that really proves that 12 good actors is all you need to make a top notch movie. It might be old, slow and sometimes really predictable; but for a movie from 1957 it might be the first movie to ever do anything like this. If not the first; it's the first one to nail it.

If you are going to sit down and watch this movie, do not expect a movie with a lot of cool movie effects, because it doesn't have any. People nowadays seem to think that a movie is slow and not good if it goes more than 2 minutes without any action. In this movie they, as mentioned earlier, proves that if the movie has a good lineup of actors, and a good manuscript/director; and set your mind to it, you start putting yourself into the mind of the actors as real people and not actors.

That alone makes this better than most movies I've ever watched.

Is "12 Angry Men" a GREAT or NON GREAT movie? Gentlemen of the jury, your verdict ...
Juror #1, the foreman (Martin Balsam, football coach): "Well, I won't be too technical, or make a long speech … it's just that it's a one-set film, so it's new and risky, because you know, dialogs are not enough, we need …uh … the thrills … and it goes slowly in the beginning but progressively, it's like the jury room becomes smaller, and the faces bigger. I really felt the tense and suffocating atmosphere ... And what an explosive climax, I could hardly breathe … I know it's strange, but the direction, well, the movie is one hell of a thriller … I, well, my verdict is clear: GREAT MOVIE"

Juror #2 (John Fiedler, bank clerk): "I don't know. It's an excellent film, served by great performances. Every character was convincing, so were their interactions. I can't find any flaw, for me, there's nothing to add, and nothing to remove. It is a GREAT MOVIE"

Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb, businessman): "I told you why this movie is great, it's just … thought provoking, everything and I mean everything looked like it would have been this kind of preachy film with a good-hearted hero and simple-minded antagonists who just want to be vindictive. But this is an intelligent film which, even at the end, makes you question if the kid is guilty or not. Because it has nothing to do with punishment, it's about justice ... without any prejudice, and that deserves respect, yes sir! No doubt for me … GREAT MOVIE"

Juror #4 (E.G. Marshall, stockbroker): "First of all, it's an excellent examination of all the subtle nuances that enrich a male adult demography, played with such believability every one could identify with one of the jurors. Secondly, the writing was intellectually gripping and emotionally engaging and I would add: respectful of the viewer's intelligence. The direction was excellent and created a feeling of growing claustrophobia guided by a very clever use of focal lenses, a credit to Sidney Lumet. Last but not least, it's about the noble concept of justice and presumption of innocence: "12 Angry Men" delivers a brilliant, intelligent, and universally inspiring message. To conclude, I can say I had the privilege to watch a GREAT MOVIE"

Juror #5 (Jack Klugman, the man from the slum): "What else to say? I second the idea that it's a powerful drama demonstrating how prejudices poison the heart of our civilization, and I believe this is one of the few films that should be screened everywhere in the world as a powerful lesson for tolerance. My verdict is: GREAT MOVIE"

Juror #6 (Edward Binns, painter): "A movie that younger and future generations should watch and respect. These are movies with no special effects, no big-star cast, no big explosions, no flashy cars and no sexy girls. You have a honest, simple movie featuring ordinary men, but the result is so impacting it should be appreciated by any movie lover, regardless of his or her age. Anyway, GREAT MOVIE"

Juror #7 (Jack Warden, salesman): "Come on, everyone is using big words and noble concepts, but for me, this movie is just damn entertaining. Hey admit it, the dialogs, the way opposite characters interact, create a lot of anxiety but is also very fun to watch, sometimes, well … I think you can say anything, but without entertainment, a film is worthless, and the movie could've been a bore, just all talk and no walk, but it wasn't, it worked for me ... GREAT MOVIE"

Juror #8 (Henry Fonda, architect): "This movie invites us to explore our convictions and question the way they influence our judgments. Justice is done by men, blindly and implacably, this is why punishment must be beyond any doubt, and when you have what appears to be an open-and-shut case that progressively reveals some flaws as we go deeper in the subject, well, this says a lot about the negative impact of subjectivity when it comes to justice, and how we should be careful about the consequences of our thoughts, our words, our acts. "12 Angry Men" is a humanistic inspiration for those who have faith in justice. GREAT MOVIE"

Juror #9 (Joseph Sweeney, retired): "This is a fantastic character study illustrating how convincingness is often driven by the personality. It's an incredible illustration of the way a few people can monopolize the talk and how a silent majority is eager to follow the ones who aggressively express their thoughts, and the courage it takes to be the lone dissenter and how using a constructive, polite and logical answer can destroy something taken for granted. While watching "12 Angry Men" I understood that a consensus, when rapidly built, means that the truth must be elsewhere. And one truth for sure, this is a GREAT MOVIE"

Juror #10 (Ed Begley, garage owner): "I hate the patronizing way some left-wing good-hearted people adore this film, this has nothing to do with politics, truth or justice, it's about manipulation of your thoughts by pushing the right emotional button … you missed the point, and that's the beauty of the film, you're all easily fooled. Not for the reasons you think, but it's a GREAT MOVIE"

Juror #11 (Joseph Voskovek, watchmaker): "No need to be American to appreciate the beauty of this film, it's about our deepest convictions. It's about the humanistic concept of reasonable doubt which can save even a guilty soul ... because life is valuable and justice is not vengeance. GREAT MOVIE"

Juror #12 (Robert Webber, advertising executive): "Wow, what I can say, it's not an exact science you know … you can find a reason A to appreciate it, a reason B or C … let's just say that the 'sigma' of these reasons, explains why it's an incredible film and as my fellow jurors said, why "12 Angry Men" is a GREAT MOVIE"
Captivates even after half a century
Crime and hatred are like continental boundaries, always hot and ever rocking the earth beneath our feet. We often lose moral balance and clutch to a stereotype just to keep our ground. But a single person's calm perspective and will for justice now and then help us to rise above our own prejudice. This movie is a bridge across an eternal boundary; has flaws, no doubt, like any bridge, but stands magnificently for 50 years and brings together people of all kinds. This bridge offers a view on the problems of society and a place for discussion.

This movie deserves its place among the greatest.
masterpiece! one of the best movie ever.
I just watched this movie an hour ago.! And i keep asking myself the same question again & again & again.! What i've been doing for all these years?? Why haven't i watched this before? But i am very grateful that finally i have decided to give this movie a shot. And the shot has been well fired! I must say.!! What an Amazing movie it is! Once you start watching it, it will keep you interested till the end. Everything about this movie is brilliant. Cast, Dieection, storyline. Too good! Heney fonda & lee j cobb were outstansing throughout the movie.! A well deserved ratings for the film(8.9) when i was going to watch this movie, honestly i didn't think that this movie is gonna be that great. But the saddest part is that none of the 12 angry mens are alive today.! Feeling very sad abt that! I just have to say you simply cant just dislike this movie.
Just wondered...

Fonda's character was extremely well prepared for his jury meeting, he had obviously given the matter a lot of thought before the juror retired. Knowing all that he did he should be very sure that there's reasonable doubt that the boy is guilty. It's hard for me to understand how he is willing to plead guilty if all the others do so before the second vote. At this time he has very much more to say about the case, why take a gamble before he has presented all his doubts? It doesn't make sense.
A Powerful Film
This is a powerful film that explores: Race, discrimination, prejudice, morals, personal issues and unresolved anger.

The film was released in 1957 and is one of the highest rated films on which is one reason I've always wanted to see it. However, the main reason is because it's a film that has always been mentioned throughout my Psychology lectures relating to the power of the minority vote and also the psychology behind the jury.

Quick summary: The film is based on a murder trial; the accused, if found guilty, will be sentenced to death. The verdict is to be decided by 12 men who are on the jury. 11 of the men believe the accused is guilty, one does not.

The film is over one hour and a half and is mainly filmed in the deciding room of the 12 jurors, yet I was transfixed throughout. The film may be in black and white, but do not let this put you off from watching it. It makes you question everything you believe in; what would you do in that situation? Would you have initially voted guilty? Would you have been prejudiced towards the accused? Would you have stood for what you believed in?

The ending was brilliant and a pinnacle moment in film history; I believe the entire film proves that one person can question what you believe in and make you reevaluate your life and your morals.

Please watch this, I think it's a film that explores so many issues; even if you are interested in subjects such as Psychology, Sociology or even Law itself I think you will find it interesting.

"Wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth."
Take a classic film and strip it down to its bare necessities. Gone are the extravagant sets and sweeping camera-work; removed are the lavish visual effects and epic story lines. What we are left with is cinema in its purest form, where acting is the sole driving-force of the narrative, and our attention is retained through the director's thorough exploitation of a bare-bones scenario. Sidney Lumet's debut feature-length film, '12 Angry Men (1957),' is quite simply one of the most arresting motion pictures I have ever seen, a veritable melting pot of gripping performances and impassioned monologues. With the exception of its bookends, and a brief scene in an adjacent washroom, the entire film unfolds exclusively within the one stifling, increasingly-claustrophobic jury room, as a group of twelve jurors {all male, mostly middle-aged and middle-class}, with vastly differing attitudes and prejudices, debate the innocence or guilt of a young Hispanic man charged with the premeditated stabbing murder of his father.

Prior to 1957, director Sidney Lumet had already acquired some experience in television, though it wasn't until he released his first feature film, a low-budget offering shot in only 17 days, that he began to attract the attention of critics. Though '12 Angry Men' was commercially unsuccessful {in an age of lavish, technicolour adventures, David Lean's magnificent 'The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)' was more to the taste of audiences of the day}, the film received three Oscar nominations, for Best Writing, Best Director and Best Picture. Of course, it was Lean's epic that won each of these categories, among numerous others. Lumet's film, adapted by Reginald Rose from his own 1954 Studio One teleplay, explores the fairness and infallibility of the American judicial system, and the ways by which personal prejudice may affect the outcome of a criminal case. Though the film opens at the conclusion of the hearing, as the apparently-bored judge (Rudy Bond) offers his final instructions to the jury members, the events of the trial are later recreated through dialogue, without ever resorting to cumbersome flashbacks or heavy-handed narration.

What ultimately makes '12 Angry Men' such an electrifying viewing experience are the incredible performances of the twelve main actors, each player delivering a distinct, perfectly-pitched characterisation that contributes richly towards their jury's deliberations on the court-case. Central to the story, of course, is Juror #8 (Henry Fonda), the lone dissenting member, whose unwillingness to send a conceivably-innocent man to the electric chair forces the other jurors to reconsider their stance on what had initially seemed an "open-and-shut case." Fonda, who also co-produced the film, gives a sincere and righteous performance, his actions assuredly heroic, despite the very real possibility that he has helped a guilty criminal escape from justice. The remaining players (in clock-wise order around the juror's table: Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Ed Binns, Jack Warden, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec and Robert Webber) each contribute with faultless performances, though some play a more significant role in the proceedings than do others.

It would be plain naïve to label any one of the twelve jurors a "villain," but the man who clashes most frequently with the Fonda's well-meaning dissenter is Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb), a loud-mouthed and temperamental bully, whose failed relationship with his own adult son has given him an overwhelming prejudice towards young people. Rather than deciding the murder trial based on the evidence, Juror #3 subconsciously relies on his own tremendous bias to settle the eventual fate of the accused man. Equally bigoted is Juror #10 (Ed Begley), whose astonishing partiality is fully revealed in his final manic tirade against lower-class citizens. In one of the film's most brutally powerful sequences, the remaining jurors callously rise from their tables in response to Juror #10's deplorable outburst, his confidence shattering as he realises that he is alone in his narrow-minded views. Also interesting is Jack Warden's Juror #7, an impatient salesman, whose complete indifference to the fate of the Accused prompts him to alter his vote in favour of the majority.

Despite working in an extremely confined space, Lumet certainly makes the most of his minimalist setting, and cinematographer Boris Kaufman {who also worked on 'On the Waterfront (1954)'} employed lenses with gradually-increasing focal lengths to make it seem as though the walls were closing in on the characters, heightening the ever-present sense of claustrophobia. Lumet is a master of creating mood, as he also demonstrated in his finest film, 'Fail-Safe (1964),' and there's a certain, illogical urgency in the jurors' proceedings, as though Fonda's character is continually fighting a losing battle. Though some of events of the jury room would technically not be allowed {Juror #8's extra investigations – purchasing the knife, pacing the old witness' journey to the door – would undoubtedly have resulted in a mistrial}, the discussions in the film work merely to prove a single, all-too-significant moral: according to the Constitution, the Accused can only be convicted if there exists no reasonable doubt of his guilt. Ultimately, whether he actually committed the murder or not is almost beside the point, particularly when the life of a potentially-innocent man is hanging in the balance.
Simple but great.
'12 Angry Men' is an outstanding film. It is proof that, for a film to be great, it does not need extensive scenery, elaborate costumes or expensive special effects - just superlative acting.

The twelve angry men are the twelve jurors of a murder case. An eighteen-year-old boy from a slum background is accused of stabbing his father to death and faces the electric chair if convicted. Eleven of the men believe the boy to be guilty; only one (Henry Fonda) has doubts. Can he manage to convince the others?

The court case provides only a framework, however. The film's greatness lies in its bringing-together of twelve different men who have never met each other before and the interaction of their characters as each man brings his own background and life experiences into the case. Thus, we have the hesitant football coach (Martin Balsam), the shy, uncertain bank clerk (John Fiedler), the aggressive call company director (Lee J. Cobb), the authoritative broker (E.G. Marshall), the self-conscious slum dweller (Jack Klugman), the solid, dependable painter (Edward Binns), the selfish salesman (Jack Warden), the calm, collected architect (Fonda), the thoughtful, observant older man (Joseph Sweeney), the racially bigoted garage owner (Ed Begley), the East European watchmaker (George Voskovec) and the beefcake advertising agent (Robert Webber) who has plenty of chat and little else.

Almost the entire film takes place in just one room, the jury room, where the men have retired to consider their verdict. The viewer finds him or herself sweating it out with the jury as the heat rises, literally and metaphorically, among the men as they make their way towards their final verdict. Interestingly, the jurors (apart from two at the end) are never named. They do not need to be. Their characters speak for them.

Henry Fonda is eminently suitable and excellently believable as the dissenter who brings home the importance of a jury's duty to examine evidence thoroughly and without prejudice. Joseph Sweeney is delightful as Juror No. 9, the quiet but shrewd old man who misses nothing, whilst E.G. Marshall brings his usual firmness and authority to the role of Juror No. 4. All the actors shine but perhaps the best performance is that of Lee J. Cobb as Juror No. 3, the hard, stubborn, aggressive, vindictive avenger who is reduced to breaking down when forced to confront the failure of his relationship with his own son.

Several of the stars of '12 Angry Men' became household names. Henry Fonda continued his distinguished career until his death in 1982, as well as fathering Jane and Peter. Lee J. Cobb landed the major role of Judge Henry Garth in 'The Virginian'. E.G. Marshall enjoyed a long, reputable career on film and t.v., including playing Joseph P. Kennedy in the 'Kennedy' mini-series. Jack Klugman was 'Quincy' whilst John Fiedler voiced Piglet in the 'Winnie The Pooh' films and cartoons.

Of the twelve, only John Fiedler, Jack Klugman and Jack Warden* are still alive. Although around the eighty mark, they are all still acting. The film was still available on video last year and it is shown on t.v. fairly frequently. I cannot recommend it too highly!

(*John Fiedler died June 2005. Jack Warden died July 2006.)
Terrific drama with some of the greatest actors in cinematic history
Gosh, I don't know how many times I studied this play and performed it in high school, not to mention how many television shows had an episode that was inspired by 12 Angry Men. It was always a great drama because of the raw human emotions that were so true and remain timeless, this play will never be dated. I couldn't wait to see this movie when I saw it at the video store and it was the first movie I slipped into the DVD player. First off, I was incredibly impressed with the credits, we not only had Henry Fonda, we had Lee J. Cobb in the cast! This movie was so well performed and such a treasure, god, I couldn't ever say any words to justify it. I've done this a million times, but here is another summary of what 12 Angry Men is all about.

12 jurors are about to make a decision about a murder case, over all it seems like an open and shut case with tons of evidence that would make any good man look guilty, an 18 year old boy is about to be put to death if convicted. 11 of the men vote guilty, only one vote holds them back and they have to discuss the trial once again due to one vote being not guilty. Jurour #8 refuses to just jump to conclusions and brings up incredible possibilities that can always make a man think of "reasonable doubts", one by one the jurors begin to see the points he is making, except for one stubborn #3 who would rather just pull the switch to the chair himself.

12 Angry Men is a timeless tale that could either be told very badly, i.e. 7th Heaven, or incredibly well and bring out terrific performances like Henry and Lee did. Actually, the whole cast was terrific, there wasn't a performance that was off key, movies like this are so needed in Hollywood today, it was so simple, but added so much for a 30 minute play. Please, if you have any taste, you will truly enjoy 12 Angry Men and have a great appreciation for it!

Georgina Fisher (Houston) Maybe you are looking Sidney Lumet for where can i buy the movie 12 Angry Men? Here you can download it legally. Anne Tran (Indianapolis) It is very likely that you want to find a website Crime, Drama, Mystery where can i buy 12 Angry Men movie 1957? You are moving in the right direction and are in the right place! Donald Conrad (Brooklyn) Favorite actors: Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Jack Warden, Henry Fonda, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec, Robert Webber in search of an answer to the question where can you buy 12 Angry Men the movie USA? You have found this Crime, Drama, Mystery genre on this page. Darren Conley (Dallas) Among the huge collection of films in 1957 in the formats mkv, mp4, avi, mov, and flv it was difficult to find where to buy 12 Angry Men movie? But my favorite film director Sidney Lumet shot this film in the USA in 1957.