12 Angry Men (1957) UHD Review

5 Stars Magnificent film achieves nirvana in ultra high definition.
12 Angry Men (1957) UHD 4K Screenshot

Sidney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men, the movie version of a celebrated teleplay by Reginald Rose, takes a riveting cast of stage, television, and film actors, places them in one set, and for ninety blissful minutes lets them bully and bluster, insinuate and pontificate, and generally hold forth in dazzling fashion.

12 Angry Men (1957)
Released: 10 Apr 1957
Rated: Approved
Runtime: 96 min
Director: Sidney Lumet
Genre: Crime, Drama
Cast: Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Martin Balsam
Writer(s): Reginald Rose
Plot: The jury in a New York City murder trial is frustrated by a single member whose skeptical caution forces them to more carefully consider the evidence before jumping to a hasty verdict.
IMDB rating: 9.0
MetaScore: 97

Disc Information
Studio: MGM
Distributed By: Kino Lorber
Video Resolution: 2160p HEVC w/HDR
Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
Audio: English 2.0 DTS-HDMA
Subtitles: English SDH
Rating: Not Rated
Run Time: 1 Hr. 36 Min.
Package Includes: UHD
Case Type: keep case
Disc Type: UHD
Region: All
Release Date: 04/18/2023
MSRP: $39.95

The Production: 5/5

One of the greatest courtroom dramas ever made spends less than five minutes in the actual courtroom. Sidney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men, the movie version of a celebrated teleplay by Reginald Rose, takes a riveting cast of stage, television, and film actors, places them in one set, and for ninety blissful minutes lets them bully and bluster, insinuate and pontificate, and generally hold forth in dazzling fashion maximizing a dramatic sequence of events which has only gained in impressive stature over the years since its initial release.

A jury of twelve New Yorkers is brought together to decide the guilt or innocence of an 18-year old slum kid accused of murdering his father with a switchblade knife thrust into his heart. There is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence against the boy and two eyewitnesses, and yet juror number eight (Henry Fonda) casts the lone not guilty-vote in the initial balloting. Despite continual heated protests from three jurists (Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Ed Begley), juror eight and others who slowly come to acquire reasonable doubt begin a slow but systematic analysis of the various facts of the case casting doubt on the evidence as presented. As the other jurors begin to consider their own interpretations of the facts in reflection, the drama builds increasingly as a verdict is decided.

The original hour-long television version of the story won three Emmy Awards in 1954, and Reginald Rose (who won an Emmy for his teleplay and who co-produced this movie version) has skillfully expanded the script for the movie adding various informative bits of character for the twelve jurors to take many of them away from being merely narrow stereotypes. All of them, particularly the quieter members of the jury, grow from these expansions. The various pieces of evidence are also allowed to be poured over in greater detail justifying in each situation the changes in vote from guilty to not guilty for many of the jury members. As for Lumet’s direction, it’s a marvel (how many other directors earn an Oscar nomination for directing their first film, one that’s basically staged in a single confined space?). With only the enclosed area of the jury room to work in, he manages to keep the camera moving subtly but effectively, zooming in for telling close-ups where appropriate and blocking actors in fascinating combinations at pivotal moments in the narrative. Rarely has so much tension been established so adeptly, though he’s helped immeasurably by his brilliant actors and the dazzling script.

The cast rehearsed for two weeks before a single foot of film was shot, so is it any wonder that these performances have become the definitive interpretations for these characters? Two actors were imported from the TV version for the movie: the elderly juror nine Joseph Sweeney (marvelously cagey and wry) and the immigrant juror eleven George Voskovec (admirably solid, considerate and quietly forceful). But then, the cast is filled with past and future Tony, Oscar, and Emmy winners, and each one makes an indelible impression. Henry Fonda’s thoughtful, unshowy performance, of course, reminds us of all of the stalwart but quiet heroes he had previously played from Wyatt Earp to Tom Joad and Mister Roberts. Lee J. Cobb is galvanizing as the fiery-tempered blowhard who’s a bully on the outside and a marshmallow on the inside. E.G. Marshall is his polar opposite: a quiet, thoughtful man who’s determined not to get drawn into the personal bickering and backstabbing that is happening around him. Great as well are Ed Begley as the bigot (perhaps Reginald Rose’s least successful attempt to give more depth to one of the stereotypical characters), Jack Klugman as the timid former slum kid now fighting to be heard, and Martin Balsam as the even-tempered foreman trying to keep the erratic proceedings under control.

Video: 5/5

3D Rating: NA

For the first time in my home video experience with 12 Angry Men, it’s presented in its proper theatrical aspect ratio of 1.85:1 (the MGM DVD and Criterion Blu-ray both framed it at 1.66:1), and it’s in 2160p resolution using the HEVC codec. With a silvery tone to the black and white cinematography, the HDR/Dolby Vision enhancement has brought out specular highlights in the white shirts and glistening foreheads of most of the jurors as they sweat buckets in the middle of an inferno-like, un-air conditioned jury room, and the added resolution has made every facial wrinkle, freckle, and cold sore eminently visible. The movie has been divided into 10 chapters.

Audio: 5/5

The DTS-HD Master Audio 2.0 mono sound mix is solid and dependable with fidelity that reproduces all of the dialogue with laser-like clarity and the thunderstorm sound effects with equal force. While Kenyon Hopkins’s music is sparsely laid over the film in brief interludes, it’s most effective in its melancholy moodiness, and the bits of hiss which seemed evident in earlier disc releases of the movie seem to have been eliminated.

Special Features: 5/5

Audio Commentaries: there are two on the UHD disc. The better of the two is a new one by film historian Gary Gerani whose engaging critical analysis of the film additionally offers lots of comparisons between the movie, its original teleplay, and the 1997 made-for-TV film. Dr. Drew Casper’s commentary taken from an earlier disc release of the movie is a drier analytical take on the movie with Dr. Casper’s odd tendency to continually change the pronunciation of the director’s last name quite irritating and somewhat distracting.

On the enclosed Blu-ray second disc are all of the remaining bonus materials.

12 Angry Men (1:57:27, HD): the 1997 made-for-TV color film directed by William Friedkin is presented in 1080p 16X9 and DTS-HD Master Audio 2.0 mono sound. Beautifully populated with a mix of ethnicities among its superbly talented cast, it’s an all-star remake that’s very close to the text of the 1957 film with some changes in dialogue (but not plot) appropriate to the characters of the new actors playing them.

“Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” (23:04, SD): a featurette on the making of the film. Only Jack Klugman and director Sidney Lumet from the original film participate in the discussion, but they are abetted by actors Richard Thomas and George Wendt and director Scott Ellis from various stage productions and a mix of film historians and legal experts like Robert Osbourne, Jami Floyd, Patricia King Hanson, and Joel Kling, among others.

“Inside the Jury Room” (15:28, SD): a team of legal experts compare the workings of a real jury with what is seen on the screen in 12 Angry Men.

Theatrical Trailer (2:15, HD)

Kino Trailers: 12 Angry Men (1997), Witness for the Prosecution, Sergeant Ryker, The Ox-Bow Incident, Daisy Kenyon, The Group, A Stranger Among Us.

Overall: 5/5

A magnificent film with memorable performances and constructed with riveting dramatic ebb and flow, Sidney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men comes beautifully to Ultra High Definition with a first-rate transfer and a gaggle of valuable bonus material. Highest recommendation!

Matt has been reviewing films and television professionally since 1974 and has been a member of Home Theater Forum’s reviewing staff since 2007, his reviews now numbering close to three thousand. During those years, he has also been a junior and senior high school English teacher earning numerous entries into Who’s Who Among America’s Educators and spent many years treading the community theater boards as an actor in everything from Agatha Christie mysteries to Stephen Sondheim musicals.

Post Disclaimer

Some of our content may contain marketing links, which means we will receive a commission for purchases made via those links. In our editorial content, these affiliate links appear automatically, and our editorial teams are not influenced by our affiliate partnerships. We work with several providers (currently Skimlinks and Amazon) to manage our affiliate relationships. You can find out more about their services by visiting their sites.

Share this post:

View thread (24 replies)

Matt Hough

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
26,200
Location
Charlotte, NC
Real Name
Matt Hough
I also want to add that the Criterion Blu-ray of the film is still a valid part of the collection for this movie as it contains a completely different set of bonus features including the original 1954 television version. In an ideal world, one needs to own it and this new release, too.
 

Jack P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
5,611
Real Name
Jack
The minute Fonda introduces a "second knife" in the proceedings, everything should have been stopped and Fonda either removed and replaced with an alternate or a mistrial declared. The first cardinal rule of ethics for anyone sitting on a jury is to do *no* outside investigating. Fonda's character spat on that and illegally and improperly introduced "evidence" that wasn't part of the proceedings and therefore not subject to cross-examination. Which is why his character is for me near the top of the list if not at the top for the biggest hypocrite in the history of cinema and why I can never watch this movie again.
 

Matt Hough

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
26,200
Location
Charlotte, NC
Real Name
Matt Hough
The minute Fonda introduces a "second knife" in the proceedings, everything should have been stopped and Fonda either removed and replaced with an alternate or a mistrial declared. The first cardinal rule of ethics for anyone sitting on a jury is to do *no* outside investigating. Fonda's character spat on that and illegally and improperly introduced "evidence" that wasn't part of the proceedings and therefore not subject to cross-examination. Which is why his character is for me near the top of the list if not at the top for the biggest hypocrite in the history of cinema and why I can never watch this movie again.
Commentator Gary Gerani makes the same observation of its inappropriateness and yet continues to consider the film one of the greatest of all time. He's able (as are many) to overcome the dramatic license and enjoy the drama of the piece. Others like you can't. I'm sorry.
 

Kyle_D

Supporting Actor
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Messages
861
Real Name
Kyle Dickinson
The minute Fonda introduces a "second knife" in the proceedings, everything should have been stopped and Fonda either removed and replaced with an alternate or a mistrial declared. The first cardinal rule of ethics for anyone sitting on a jury is to do *no* outside investigating. Fonda's character spat on that and illegally and improperly introduced "evidence" that wasn't part of the proceedings and therefore not subject to cross-examination. Which is why his character is for me near the top of the list if not at the top for the biggest hypocrite in the history of cinema and why I can never watch this movie again.
I've always had a hard time enjoying the film for similar reasons. I can't forgive so-called "dramatic license" because the license is taken to serve the film's ignorant-at-best argument about the role of juries as much as it is to serve the drama.
 

Jack P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
5,611
Real Name
Jack
Commentator Gary Gerani makes the same observation of its inappropriateness and yet continues to consider the film one of the greatest of all time. He's able (as are many) to overcome the dramatic license and enjoy the drama of the piece. Others like you can't. I'm sorry.
For legal dramas, I can forgive that kind of license in a run of the mill Perry Mason episode in which I take for granted that the real guilty party is going to fold like a cheap tent on the witness stand all the time. Not in something that aspires to allegedly be the product of a more "intellectual" take on the legal system and "prejudice" (when it turns out that Fonda is not really without sin and thus has no right to cast any stones at his fellow jurors).
 

jayembee

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2020
Messages
6,778
Location
Hamster Shire
Real Name
Jerry
This is one of my all time favourites, will the different aspect ration make a big difference?

Probably not a "big" difference, but we'll see. MGM had the tendency to frame flat widescreen films with a 1.66:1 ratio for their DVDs, presumably feeling that viewers who prefer their CRT TV's to be "filled" would object less to 1.66:1 than 1.85:1, and MGM could still claim to be releasing it in "widescreen". No doubt Criterion also released it in 1.66:1 because that's what MGM gave them.

I also want to add that the Criterion Blu-ray of the film is still a valid part of the collection for this movie as it contains a completely different set of bonus features including the original 1954 television version. In an ideal world, one needs to own it and this new release, too.

Not to mention another Rose/Lumet teleplay, Tragedy in the Temporary Town.
 

JoshZ

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
2,300
Location
Boston
Real Name
Joshua Zyber
The minute Fonda introduces a "second knife" in the proceedings, everything should have been stopped and Fonda either removed and replaced with an alternate or a mistrial declared. The first cardinal rule of ethics for anyone sitting on a jury is to do *no* outside investigating. Fonda's character spat on that and illegally and improperly introduced "evidence" that wasn't part of the proceedings and therefore not subject to cross-examination. Which is why his character is for me near the top of the list if not at the top for the biggest hypocrite in the history of cinema and why I can never watch this movie again.

That's nothing. Try making sense of the legal logic at the end of Miracle on 34th Street. :laugh:
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,892
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
That's nothing. Try making sense of the legal logic at the end of Miracle on 34th Street. :laugh:
Frankly, the reason why I enjoy 12 Angry Men so much isn't because of the legalities or lack of in the movie. It's the great acting performances from such a superb cast of actors. One of the best male casts ever assembled for one particular movie.
 

Jack P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
5,611
Real Name
Jack
That's nothing. Try making sense of the legal logic at the end of Miracle on 34th Street. :laugh:
Well, if that means "12 Angry Men" is a lightweight comedy I'll consider the comparison valid (that argument's more convincing to me then it's concept of what "reasonable doubt" means)
 
Last edited:

Gerani53

Second Unit
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
386
Real Name
Gary Gerani
Thanks for the kind words about my commentary, Matt. There were a lot of things to cover, and a lot of great performances to analyze. But it was challenging -- keeping track of the Juror Numbers drove me crazy. What I found most interesting was comparing life-sized Bob Cummings' approach to #8 with Henry Fonda's star turn. Jack Lemmon's take was also quite good, but I felt the arc of the character was best realized by Cummings, who starts off a little wimpy, but gradually grows stronger as his argument and sense of purpose grows stronger. And yes, Kino has indeed pulled out all the stops for this incredible release. Nirvana is right!
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,892
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Thanks for the kind words about my commentary, Matt. There were a lot of things to cover, and a lot of great performances to analyze. But it was challenging -- keeping track of the Juror Numbers drove me crazy. What I found most interesting was comparing life-sized Bob Cummings' approach to #8 with Henry Fonda's star turn. Jack Lemmon's take was also quite good, but I felt the arc of the character was best realized by Cummings, who starts off a little wimpy, but gradually grows stronger as his argument and sense of purpose grows stronger. And yes, Kino has indeed pulled out all the stops for this incredible release. Nirvana is right!
I'm looking forward to listening to your audio commentary.
 

JoshZ

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
2,300
Location
Boston
Real Name
Joshua Zyber
Well, if that means "12 Angry Men" is a lightweight comedy I'll consider the comparison valid (that argument's more convincing to me then it's concept of what "reasonable doubt" means)

You sound like someone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus. :D
 

Jack P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
5,611
Real Name
Jack
You sound like someone who believes in condescending snark as a substitute for serious discussion.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,892
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Enough with the personal comments towards each other. If a person doesn't like a movie for any reason, then so be it and let's move on. There is no need to make personal comments in order to insult them.
 
Most Popular
Available for Amazon Prime