UHD Review 12 Angry Men (1957) UHD Review (1 Viewer)

[Matt Hough]

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...

Continue reading...

 

[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]

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]

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.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Thank you for your review. I plan on purchasing this 4K release and look forward to finally watching it in OAR.

 

[Kyle_D]

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.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I guess we got at least a couple of people that won't be purchasing this 4K/UHD.

 

[Jack P]

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).

 

[battlebeast]

Thank you for your review. I plan on purchasing this 4K release and look forward to finally watching it in OAR.

This is one of my all time favourites, will the different aspect ration make a big difference?

 

[Kyle_D]

I guess we got a couple of people that won't be purchasing this 4K/UHD.

Well, despite my qualms with the film, I do already own the Criterion...

 

[jayembee]

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]

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.

 

[Robert Crawford]

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

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]

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

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)

 

[Gerani53]

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]

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.

 

[Gerani53]

I'm looking forward to listening to your audio commentary.

Hope you enjoy!

 

[JoshZ]

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.

 

[Jack P]

You sound like someone who believes in condescending snark as a substitute for serious discussion.

 

[Robert Crawford]

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.