एक ज्यूरी होल्ड आउट, अपने सहयोगियों को मजबूर करता है ताकी वे सबूतों पर पुनर्विचार कर सके और सही मायनों में न्याय कर सके.एक ज्यूरी होल्ड आउट, अपने सहयोगियों को मजबूर करता है ताकी वे सबूतों पर पुनर्विचार कर सके और सही मायनों में न्याय कर सके.एक ज्यूरी होल्ड आउट, अपने सहयोगियों को मजबूर करता है ताकी वे सबूतों पर पुनर्विचार कर सके और सही मायनों में न्याय कर सके.
- 3 ऑस्कर के लिए नामांकित
- 16 जीत और कुल 12 नामांकन
Tom Gorman
- Stenographer
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
James Kelly
- Guard
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Billy Nelson
- Court Clerk
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
John Savoca
- The Accused
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Walter Stocker
- Man Waiting for Elevator
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
सारांश
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.
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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.
Intense courtroom drama which has 12 very different people, all males, struggling with a murder case involving a young Puerto Rican boy that seems cut-and-dried. However, juror Henry Fonda does not believe it to be as sure-fire as it appears. He votes not guilty and what follows is a chain of events that will test the views, beliefs and thoughts of the other 11 members. Fonda is great, but Lee J. Cobb steals every scene (and that is not easy to do in a film like this). Ed Begley, Martin Balsam, Jack Warden, Jack Klugman, Joseph Sweeney, E.G. Marshall and John Fiedler are among the other individuals caught in a situation that is much more difficult than it appears on the surface. An excellent character-study that should be studied and embraced by all present and future film-makers. 5 stars out of 5.
10gepoas
One of the best movies every made. This movie has one of the deepest stories, and best of all no violence. You are just taken on the journey, along with the jury to figure out what really happened, and ponder on the philosophical questions of accidentally imprisoning an innocent man.
This is one of those movies where everything could go wrong. The story is as simple as it can be: 12 men are jurors on a open and shut murder trial, but one man thinks that another persons life deserves at least some thought on the matter and votes not guilty. From this point on we have 12 actors and a closed room. This could be the most boring film ever made. Lumet however is a master of mise-en-scene and provides a tense movie that keeps you locked on from the word "go". The dialogs are great and supported by incredibly talented actors. Joel Schumacher in Phone Booth needed to see this movie and draw a few ideas on how to make a character built, dialog driven movie. A must see for everyone.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाDirector 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.
- गूफ़Within 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.
- भाव
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.
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटAt 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.
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जनThe 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.
- कनेक्शनEdited into Voskovec & Werich - paralelní osudy (2012)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- 12 hombres en pugna
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनी
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $3,50,000(अनुमानित)
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $2,945
- चलने की अवधि
- 1 घं 36 मि(96 min)
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.85 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें