Editor Reviews:

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).

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

Rating : - "Henry the Hold-Out"
This 1957 film is so educational to the average person about how complex capital court cases can be, and they must be as someone's very right to live is often hanging in the balance. Everyone chosen to sit on a jury brings his entire life-history and prejudices and bias to that theatre. If the accused reminds him of someone from his past, or someone's facial features dredge up unpleasant thoughts, well it can cinch a wrong verdict. Even another great Henry Fonda movie--The Wrong Man--serves to show us that what looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck may be a duck, but it may not be the RIGHT duck. This movie about the one hold-out on the jury (Fonda) reaps the wrath of the fellow jury members who want to get on with their lives--an almost unbearable influence. It is played so well by all the players, was so good and true, that it no doubt greatly influenced the process of jury selection from that day forward. Jury selection has become a fine art and is often more important than any evidence presented at a trial. Backgrounds of each and every candidate are delved into, their preferences, their dislikes, grudges they may hold, their race, their sex, their educational and occupational backgrounds. If a jury is likely to become a hung jury, because of the balance of the scales of evidence and testimony, well the personalities of the jurors may be the deciding factors in votes cast. Twelve Angry Men is a great drama, played by great actors, but it also served to teach us well about the complexities of our legal system and the possible consequences of mis-cast votes. Though much has changed in today's court systems, one thing has not--life will always be made unpleasant, or even threatened by other jury members not in agreement with hold-outs. Always a thought-provoking movie to re-view.