Un jurado que se retira intenta evitar un error judicial al obligar a sus colegas a reconsiderar la evidencia.Un jurado que se retira intenta evitar un error judicial al obligar a sus colegas a reconsiderar la evidencia.Un jurado que se retira intenta evitar un error judicial al obligar a sus colegas a reconsiderar la evidencia.
- Dirección
- Escritura
- Estrellas
- Nominado a 3 premios Óscar
- 16 premios ganados y 12 nominaciones en total
Tom Gorman
- Stenographer
- (sin créditos)
James Kelly
- Guard
- (sin créditos)
Billy Nelson
- Court Clerk
- (sin créditos)
John Savoca
- The Accused
- (sin créditos)
Walter Stocker
- Man Waiting for Elevator
- (sin créditos)
- Dirección
- Escritura
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Resumen
Reviewers say '12 Angry Men' is acclaimed for its deep exploration of justice, prejudice, and reasonable doubt. The film is lauded for its strong ensemble cast, especially Henry Fonda's performance, and Sidney Lumet's impactful direction. Central themes include human nature, the justice system, and dialogue's power. Critics praise its engaging character interactions and moral dilemmas. Despite minor criticisms about character development and pacing, it is widely regarded as a timeless, relevant classic.
Opiniones destacadas
Oh Boy Oh Boy, it Took me Seven years to Rewatch This Masterpiece, Damn why don't they make em like this Anymore.
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!
10/10
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!
10/10
I saw this movie 3 or 4 times, and each time, I remain speechless in front of such a masterpiece. An unforgettable acting game with poignant plot twists. Awesome!
This film deserves to be on anyone's list of top films. My problem is that it is so perfect, so seamlessly polished, it is hard to appreciate the individual excellences.
The acting is top notch. I believe that monologue acting is quite a bit simpler than real reactive ensemble acting. Most of what we see today is monologues pretending to be conversations. But in this film, we have utter mastery of throwing emotions. Once the air becomes filled with human essence, it is hard to not get soaked ourselves as the camera moves through the thick atmosphere. Yes, there are slight differences in how each actor projects (Fonda internally, Balsam completely on his skin...) but the ensemble presents one vision to the audience.
The writing is snappy too. You can tell it was worked and worked and worried, going through several generations. It is easy to be mesmerized by this writing and acting, and miss the rare accomplishment of the camera-work. This camera is so fluid, you forget you are in one room. It moves from being a human observer, to being omniscient, to being a target. It is smart enough to seldom center on the element of most importance, so expands the field to all men.
This is very hard. Very hard, to make the camera human. So much easier to do what we see today -- acknowledge the machinery and jigger with it. Do we have a filmmaker today who could do this?
Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this.
The acting is top notch. I believe that monologue acting is quite a bit simpler than real reactive ensemble acting. Most of what we see today is monologues pretending to be conversations. But in this film, we have utter mastery of throwing emotions. Once the air becomes filled with human essence, it is hard to not get soaked ourselves as the camera moves through the thick atmosphere. Yes, there are slight differences in how each actor projects (Fonda internally, Balsam completely on his skin...) but the ensemble presents one vision to the audience.
The writing is snappy too. You can tell it was worked and worked and worried, going through several generations. It is easy to be mesmerized by this writing and acting, and miss the rare accomplishment of the camera-work. This camera is so fluid, you forget you are in one room. It moves from being a human observer, to being omniscient, to being a target. It is smart enough to seldom center on the element of most importance, so expands the field to all men.
This is very hard. Very hard, to make the camera human. So much easier to do what we see today -- acknowledge the machinery and jigger with it. Do we have a filmmaker today who could do this?
Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this.
This film is investing from start to finish. None of the performances feel like actors playing characters, but instead as people who just happen to be being filmed. The dialogue is phenomenal, the camerawork is absolutely phenomenal, the heat and claustrophobia of the environment sets in right away and gradually gets more and more intense. This film is absolutely phenomenal, and I would recommend it to absolutely anybody who enjoys film as an art form.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaDirector Sidney Lumet had the actors all stay in the same room for several hours on end and do their lines over and over without filming them. This was to give them a real taste of what it would be like to be cooped up in a room with the same people.
- ErroresWithin the last half hour of the movie, the clock on the wall in the jury room can be seen indicating 6:15. Several minutes later, E.G. Marshall states that it is "a quarter after six". Several minutes after that, the wall clock is seen again, but still shows 6:15. Still later, when Lee J. Cobb leans over the table after he tears up the snapshot from his wallet, his watch can be seen indicating 5:10.
- Citas
Juror #8: Let me ask you this: Do you really think the boy'd shout out a thing like that so the whole neighborhood could hear him? I don't think so - he's much too bright for that.
Juror #10: Bright? He's a common ignorant slob. He don't even speak good English.
Juror #11: [who has a foreign accent] He *doesn't* speak good English.
- Créditos curiososAt the end of the film, the actors are billed in order of their juror numbers; thus Henry Fonda, although the star of the film, appears 8th.
- Versiones alternativasThe United Artists logo is plastered with black and white versions of the MGM/UA Communications Co./1987 United Artists logo in the 1990 VHS, and 1994 variant in the DVD. But in the 2008 DVD and some TV prints, it featured the colorized opening and closing MGM logos.
- ConexionesEdited into Voskovec & Werich - paralelní osudy (2012)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Everything New on Prime Video in December
Everything New on Prime Video in December
Your guide to all the new movies and shows streaming on Prime Video in the US this month.
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- 12 Angry Men
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productora
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 350,000 (estimado)
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 9,844
- Tiempo de ejecución
- 1h 36min(96 min)
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta







