Fran Drescher | Ein Fall für Zwei | Tokyo Shower
Gladys Hamilton (Seattle) i was told that I can migos 12 Angry Men free download, but I did not believe, especially the year 1957 New York. Michael Whitehead (Lexington) Sidney Lumet 12 Angry Men free download Bluray at high speed, and even in the USA Cambridge.
12 Angry Men
Year:
1957
Country:
USA
Genre:
Crime, Drama, Mystery
IMDB rating:
8.9
Director:
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
Reviews
We Die, But Hey, They Feel Better About Being Rich
Spoilers Ahead:

First, like you, I adored this movie as a young man. What a deification of the jury system and how inside of every man is a hidden genius of reasoning. Well, after 40 years of philosophy, though this be voted to the back, I follow our credo: Speak the Truth even though it lead to your death. The scene that tells you all you need to know is the revelation that Cobb, Fonda's nemesis, is voting guilty because he wishes to revenge himself upon his estranged son. There is no reason within his arguments: he is just an executioner. Well, friends, in philosophy this is a logical fallacy called Ad Hominem: To The Person. If you cannot defeat someone's argument call them names or slander their character. See, inside of each one of us, including your author, are predilections to convict or acquit. Ergo, we can turn his argument right upon him with equal facility: Fonda's liberal guilt over his wealth causes him to release dangerous poor murderers, who kill people, so Henry can feel better about being wealthy in the midst of millions of poor and suffering people. This, by the way, is easier than doing the righteous thing and giving his wealth away to relieve the boundless suffering he beholds about him. This boy is his sacrificial lamb of atonement on the altar of his guilt.

The movie implies that those who wish to protect the innocent, not Fonda's words punish, no, we seek to save the blood of the innocent we stand in front of and answer to God for. The Ad Hominem logical fallacy, as we are trained to understand, is the last refuge of someone who cannot win an argument. The second premise of the movie is that no matter how overwhelming the mountain of evidence if we but took the requisite time, why it would fall apart like fall's leaves upon the ground. Trust me, if you are in a case like this and the evidence remotely approaches this level, you could ratiocinate over it until the end of our sun: he will still be guilty. You see the synthesis of the liberals Fonda and Lumet? All those who vote guilty are filled with personal demons, they are irrational: please, do not investigate our antithetical predilections to acquit! If the evidence be piled to Alpha Centauri, never mind, if we took the time we would find it is all erroneous. Look, I once thought as you do, it is only after decades of thought living as an ascetic philosopher ruminating over the movie, I see it, finally, as the liberal mind control it has always been.

Whatever you think of this review, when you are called for jury duty remember inclinations to acquit are just as strong as to convict. Think always of the helpless ones who stand behind you that count on you to be as dispassionate and objective as you can. If we eliminated everyone with bias, there would be no jury system. Those who believe in God, as I do, believe we answer to Him for our actions. When you hear the heartbreaking music that Lumet and Fonda play as the accused teenager sits there looking sad, remember the blood of the innocent victims that will be upon your hands. Look, I am sorry Fonda feels bad for being rich, there is such a simple solution; let go of your greed and give it to the poor. Do not put us in danger by brainwashing people into believing that those that wish to convict have private demons that bias us from being objective: how childish! As if we could not turn your argument, with equal adroitness, upon you.

Look, I know you will vote this to the back, who gives a crap? What I want you to do is think about what I have said to you when you are on a jury. That is why I wrote this, for the innocents who die so white, rich liberals do not have to give their money to the poor. He atones by releasing a token poor person, for his expiation, who cares how many of us die? Q.E.D.

And Jesus Said To Zacharias, "one thing more, give all that you have to the poor and follow me." Zacharius turned away and wept for he was a rich man.
2015-09-01
ACLU claptrap, yet an engrossing picture; angelic Fonda is unbearably smarmy
It's a movie that takes place in one hot, smoke-filled, sweaty room, at a time when men felt naked if they took their jacket and tie off. 11 come into the room wanting to fry the defendant; one man starts pointing out all the ambiguous testimony. He nobly upholds the concept of "reasonable doubt." Guess who triumphs?

The movie is remarkable. Sidney Lumet was even then a master filmmaker. The claustrophobia is palpable, but the camera is fluid enough to give you every angle on the closed, locked room, and every emotion and bead of sweat on the men trapped there.

The story, however, presents easy heroes and villains: the everyman just trying to make sure justice is done; the bigot who can't keep his opinions to himself; the noble immigrant. Cliches all, even back in 1957.

Yet, the cast is so real. These are real, sweaty, down-to-earth actors putting on the performances of their lives. You always feel like you are in there with them, following the logic, thinking about whether the evidence presented is believable.

It's searing, yet dopey.
2001-12-11
Communications Skills
All of the drama this movie has to offer stems from the fact that one juror could express his opinions better than any of the other jurors.

Those with poor communications skills gave the viewer a false impression that they were shallow people who formed an opinion based on reasons other than the merits of the trial.

The question that must be answered throughout the movie is: Should a juror's personal limitations in expressing himself bottle up solid evidence in deciding whether a defendant is guilty or innocent?
2002-02-24
Why I love old movies...
In the days before cgi, massive hype, star-appeal, pseudo-mythic trilogies and all the other bumpf that hollywood tacks on to its product in order to make it sell, all it took to make a decent movie was to have a good script and cast, good direction and of course great acting.

These were (and still are) the only real ingredients which I'd say are essential for making a truly worthwhile movie. Everything else is just a sideshow, and I think it is a shame that so many of today's mainstream films are so flimsy. And that's why I love the classics!
2003-12-13
true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good
Overall I loved this movie. It shows the group-dynamics of 12 people, the jury, trying to decide if there is "reasonable doubt" concerning whether a young boy killed his father. The discussions are tense and little by little we learn from these what supposedly happened on that night the kids father died. We are therefore also drawn into the question of whether the boy did it or not ourselves and what at first seems like a clear cut case along the way becomes all of a sudden much more complicated. It is a film that dares to handle nuances and ambiguities (we are never certain of whether the boy did it or not) in a way we rarely see. Its also a movie that lets us watch these 12 angry men discuss in the same room for a full 96 minutes without it ever getting boring, which I have to respect; you really have to thrust your material to let a whole movie consist of a discussion.

The movie also tries to show how personal issues can cloud the judgments of the jurors. I am thinking about one specific juror, and although the idea, of showing us how his own personal story interferes with sound judgment, is splendid, I frankly didn't like the way it unfolded in the movie. That's why I only give this movie 8/10.

If this movie in any way is supposed to represent how the legal system work I pray to god that I will never be put in a situation where a jury have to decide my guilt in any matter.

Regards Simon
2008-01-02
No bombs, no car chases but edge of the seat stuff none the less
This film is superb, in fact as Shakespeare once said "Its the bees' knees". The film captivates the audience from the beginning. Each of the twelve jurors are introduced to us as they are introduced to themselves. The characters are well draw out and individual, each with his own personality.

The tension of the characters draws the audience in from the start. We imagine that the case is open and shut, 11 me saying guilty and 1 not. We feel the discomfort of Henry Fonda as the other characters belittle and mock how he can see any reasonable doubt in the case. But we also share his victories and the enthusiasm as he proceeds to refute or add doubt to the arguments for guilty and are captivated and draw in as other jurors begin to see doubt in the proceedings.

The audience can also see the arguments for guilty and wonder if Fonda's character is correct in saying that he doubts. Yet they also feel the shame of the characters as he disproves that a previously sound theory is iron tight, joining his side as members of the jury do.

On top of this they are wonderfully woven in human elements such as the misconceptions that influence people and the growing tension between different characters. This is brought to life even more by the amazing performances, Fonda, Lee J Cobb and Joseph Sweeney are of particular note.

I started watching this film on a bored relaxed laying about day but by the end i was on the edge of the seat with my hands on my knees feeling more tense than a politician on results day.

How a film should be made. Modern directors take note(thats ur telling off for the day) 10/10
2002-09-18
A Tale of Justice and Truth
One of the best known courtroom dramas since "To Kill a Mockingbird" starring the great Henry Fonda in a tale of justice and the search for truth. A young boy has been accused of murder of his abusive father and now it's up to 12 men to decide if the boy will live or be sent to the electric chair. 11 men believe the defendant is guilty, but one lone juror (played stoically by Fonda) is convinced that the boy is innocent of the murder. Also starring Lee J. Cobb as the antagonistic and angry Juror #3 who harbors personal hatreds, John Fiedler as the meek Juror #2. Jack Klugman as Juror #5 who was raised in the slums, Martin Balsam as the Foreman of the jury and many more make up this panel of unique personalities. The film is packed with tension, anger and mostly importantly a tale of morals and its importance on human judgment. A truly wonderful film by famed director Sidney Lumet with a memorable cast.
2012-11-10
A perfect movie with interesting and mysterious story
First when I decided to see 12 Angry Men, I was kind of surprised how a movie could be so high rated, because i heard everything was happening in one room and it lasted only for 90 minutes. fortunately i was wrong about it.

When i first saw it i was shocked. the story is so interesting, that i couldn't miss even a second of the movie. The ending was very good also. this movie shows than majority isn't always right. very often people don't listen to the part of society, which is in minority and sometimes that leads to the disasters.

From the middle of the movie, i could already guess that The man, who thought the boy was innocent, would convince others in fact that he was right, but the way to his truth was very interesting and mysterious.

90 minutes is just the time movie of that kind needs. there are no extra scenes or something like that, everything is just perfect. Henry Fonda is acting quite well and others play well to so it's pleasant to watch a movie.

The movie shows that everyone should listen to others and foresee each other's opinions. i think no one will be unsatisfied of the movie.
2011-05-24
12 Great Actors


12 Angry Men is one of a few films that take place in, essentially, one location. Such a story requires, first of all, an intriguing Script. Second, it requires great acting...and that is exactly what it has.

Certainly one of Fonda's best, 12 Angry Men earned every single one of its Oscar Nominations.

As this film is nearing fifty years old, it is slipping away from current audiences -- which is truly unfortunate. Anyone interested in court drama cannot miss this film. Furthermore, anyone who can appreciate a witty script with real characters and excellent verbal warfare will enjoy this film.
2003-08-31
The All-Time Great Liberal Agenda Movie
I defy anyone to watch this movie and not be completely absorbed in the group dynamics on display. I could take points off for the overly tidy and convenient script with its TV-movie ending or some of the less subtle methods through which director Sidney Lumet drives home his points. But with a cast as uniformly excellent as this, why quibble? Henry Fonda is just the person to play the liberal everyman, an extension of his Tom Joad character from "The Grapes of Wrath." E.G. Marshall is excellent as Fonda's most formidable opponent; cool-headed and logical, he's the only holdout who bases his verdict on facts instead of emotions. Lee J. Cobb's performance wears thin, and his character is the most poorly written. Ed Begley is almost too good in his role, so revolting is his character. Jack Klugman and Jack Warden register in smaller roles as well.

This movie conveys the sweaty, tension-filled atmosphere of a stifling jury room but never feels oppressive, thanks to Lumet's fluid direction. My favorite moment comes when Fonda begins counting off paces around the jury table (a key piece of evidence hinges on this), and the camera drops to floor level and follows his feet as he does so. Choices like this prevent Lumet's film from ever being static or stagy.

An important film and a great one. If you haven't already seen it, put it at the top of your list.

Grade: A+
2005-07-05
Roland J. Tran (Saint Paul) i was looking for a movie free 12 Angry Men download, as 720p to download it in 1957, one of the first Sidney Lumet Tallahassee. Clara J. Lovett (Buffalo) i love how they play 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 from the movie director Sidney Lumet 1957 Miami.
×