Download 12 Angry Men movie with english subtitles HQ DVD-rip mpeg4 avi & flv Sidney Lumet, link download 12 Angry Men 1957 movie iPhone xvid mov & mpeg4 mp4.
12 Angry Men
Crime, Drama, Mystery
IMDB rating:
Sidney Lumet
Martin Balsam as Juror #12
John Fiedler as Juror #12
Lee J. Cobb as Juror #12
E.G. Marshall as Juror #12
Jack Klugman as Juror #12
Edward Binns as Juror #12
Jack Warden as Juror #12
Henry Fonda as Juror #12
Joseph Sweeney as Juror #12
Ed Begley as Juror #12
George Voskovec as Juror #12
Robert Webber as Juror #12
Storyline: The defense and the prosecution have rested and the jury is filing into the jury room to decide if a young man is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. What begins as an open-and-shut case of murder soon becomes a detective story that presents a succession of clues creating doubt, and a mini-drama of each of the jurors' prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused, and each other. Based on the play, all of the action takes place on the stage of the jury room.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1808x1080 px 6713 Mb h264 640 Kbps mkv Download
720p 1200x720 px 4473 Mb h264 N/A mkv Download
DVD-rip 640x384 px 699 Mb mpeg4 1015 Kbps avi Download
Very Entertaining
Sometimes it is very hard to describe something you like specially when it is so simple. The whole movie took place in a single room and the characters just kept on talking! If someone invites you to such a movie the first thing that will come to your mind would be "Boring"! Well its not even close to that.

The movie is extremely entertaining and uplifting. The story is very well written and keeps you tight to your chair to the end.

I read some reviews about the movie criticizing the absence of female characters also having all the jury as white men, I trust that would be understood taking in consideration it was made back in 1957.

To me it is a MUST see and deserves it rank in IMDb.
Great movie
The other reviews pretty much sums it up. It's a great movie, that really proves that 12 good actors is all you need to make a top notch movie. It might be old, slow and sometimes really predictable; but for a movie from 1957 it might be the first movie to ever do anything like this. If not the first; it's the first one to nail it.

If you are going to sit down and watch this movie, do not expect a movie with a lot of cool movie effects, because it doesn't have any. People nowadays seem to think that a movie is slow and not good if it goes more than 2 minutes without any action. In this movie they, as mentioned earlier, proves that if the movie has a good lineup of actors, and a good manuscript/director; and set your mind to it, you start putting yourself into the mind of the actors as real people and not actors.

That alone makes this better than most movies I've ever watched.

Simple but great.
'12 Angry Men' is an outstanding film. It is proof that, for a film to be great, it does not need extensive scenery, elaborate costumes or expensive special effects - just superlative acting.

The twelve angry men are the twelve jurors of a murder case. An eighteen-year-old boy from a slum background is accused of stabbing his father to death and faces the electric chair if convicted. Eleven of the men believe the boy to be guilty; only one (Henry Fonda) has doubts. Can he manage to convince the others?

The court case provides only a framework, however. The film's greatness lies in its bringing-together of twelve different men who have never met each other before and the interaction of their characters as each man brings his own background and life experiences into the case. Thus, we have the hesitant football coach (Martin Balsam), the shy, uncertain bank clerk (John Fiedler), the aggressive call company director (Lee J. Cobb), the authoritative broker (E.G. Marshall), the self-conscious slum dweller (Jack Klugman), the solid, dependable painter (Edward Binns), the selfish salesman (Jack Warden), the calm, collected architect (Fonda), the thoughtful, observant older man (Joseph Sweeney), the racially bigoted garage owner (Ed Begley), the East European watchmaker (George Voskovec) and the beefcake advertising agent (Robert Webber) who has plenty of chat and little else.

Almost the entire film takes place in just one room, the jury room, where the men have retired to consider their verdict. The viewer finds him or herself sweating it out with the jury as the heat rises, literally and metaphorically, among the men as they make their way towards their final verdict. Interestingly, the jurors (apart from two at the end) are never named. They do not need to be. Their characters speak for them.

Henry Fonda is eminently suitable and excellently believable as the dissenter who brings home the importance of a jury's duty to examine evidence thoroughly and without prejudice. Joseph Sweeney is delightful as Juror No. 9, the quiet but shrewd old man who misses nothing, whilst E.G. Marshall brings his usual firmness and authority to the role of Juror No. 4. All the actors shine but perhaps the best performance is that of Lee J. Cobb as Juror No. 3, the hard, stubborn, aggressive, vindictive avenger who is reduced to breaking down when forced to confront the failure of his relationship with his own son.

Several of the stars of '12 Angry Men' became household names. Henry Fonda continued his distinguished career until his death in 1982, as well as fathering Jane and Peter. Lee J. Cobb landed the major role of Judge Henry Garth in 'The Virginian'. E.G. Marshall enjoyed a long, reputable career on film and t.v., including playing Joseph P. Kennedy in the 'Kennedy' mini-series. Jack Klugman was 'Quincy' whilst John Fiedler voiced Piglet in the 'Winnie The Pooh' films and cartoons.

Of the twelve, only John Fiedler, Jack Klugman and Jack Warden* are still alive. Although around the eighty mark, they are all still acting. The film was still available on video last year and it is shown on t.v. fairly frequently. I cannot recommend it too highly!

(*John Fiedler died June 2005. Jack Warden died July 2006.)
It's Just Great
When I found this movie in the "Top 250" in such a high position, i was quite surprised, especially when I realized that 90% of the movie happens in a room, and that's a risk, Because you need the characters to be quite flashy and that the script that is delivered has to be very entertaining not to be bored, and it goes that this movie does not bore you, it keeps you intrigued by the case that is, the juries are very Outstanding, I will not do a long review, it is only a recommendation of a person who doubted much of a movie of this style and was fascinated.

(It is also an important fact to say that I am not a man very interested in crime issues, nor very knowledgeable about it.)

The film deals with the case of a young man who is being blamed for murder and the jury must decide whether to give the maximum penalty or not. It is a plot that looks pretty simple, noting that this movie is based on a play from what I understand. What I called a lot of the movie is the atmosphere that you are given in the room, a hot day, 12 tired men and some of them want to leave as quickly as caring the sentence really. This film I liked also because it deals with quite interesting subjects: doubt, as our experience affects us in our decisions, go, subjects that look in perspective rather boring (Thinking of someone who only wants to watch a movie and not a moral debate) but that Are developed so well and subtly that you do not feel that you are giving a speech, you feel that you are watching a movie with interesting themes.

I do not know what you could add in this review, is that it's so great, even if you do not like these spoken themes, I recommend it as a movie about thinking and entertainment at the same time.
How can one film be so good and so bad
This is an excellent film. This is an awful film, It is both things at the same time. I watched this movie recently with the knowledge that its considered one of the all time greats but just found myself getting annoyed. While the acting was without doubt superb and the atmosphere was so well crafted you could almost smell the sweat coming off the 12 men and feel the heat and pressure of the approaching storm. I was Stunned with the stupidity of the plot, Anybody who has watch any courtroom drama will understand my point when I say everything that Henry Ford ask the other jury members to consider should have and would have been raised in the courtroom by even the most incompetent of legal teams, The old lady and her glasses, and the slow walking old man being the two most obvious but not the only point in question. To say I was disappointed is an understatement. Therefore only a 5 out of 10 rating from me, but a fair rating I think you will agree.
a tight ball of male-dominated classic cinema
It's tough sometimes to translate a stage production- which 12 Angry Men essentially is- into a feature film, with in this case one cramped room and a dozen characters with totally varied ideals. In a way this is like the textbook example, however, of how to do a film like this. You see how the situation unfolds into something more, about the act of telling a story and finding all the pieces. That it has such a powerhouse of an ensemble doesn't hurt it at all, and the little surprises in how the casts acts and reacts works great on repeat viewings. The basic premise only needs brief mention, as the 12 men (totally angry may be disputed by some, though I'm sure not one is left without raising their voice), all white, are judging the case of a Hispanic charged with killing his father. The deliberation room becomes a kind of boiler room where Henry Fonda's juror #11, the only un-sure one, sets the stage for a something more to be revealed- human nature when on a judgment day, with all its intelligence, ignorance, hate, and seeking objectivism.

Sidney Lumet, on his very first feature-film, does a really professional (in a good way) job of directing the picture, by which a) letting the actors, who among the great lot include Lee J Cobb, John Fiedler, E.G. Marhall, Martin Balsam, Jack Klugman, Ed Begley, and in maybe the most under-rated role of the 'old man', Joseph Sweeney, just do their work and try to just make sure no one over-steps their ability in their strengths; b) using the atmosphere to high effect. Like he would later do with Network, Lumet uses the camera to add some level of subjectivity to the storytelling, being careful with choosing close-ups but using them very wisely (i.e. a surprise close-up on Sweeney), and here and there making it feel like the walls are just closing in a little more. But, at the same time, Lumet's making a studio picture, with the all-around good-guy Henry Fonda (in one of his best roles), and dealing with a story that's, when it comes down to it, just the details of a crime examined over. But the real strength of the film comes in a quality that it shares with Rashomon (different in structure to be sure), that the idea of looking for the truth is just a guise in a way to examine the people who are looking at what the truth is. It's a nifty movie that has deservedly stayed firm through the decades, not showing its age bad at all.
Theatre of justice
There are some films that are acknowledged classics of one degree or another. Whether it be a technical aspect such as cinematography or something less tangible such as emotional content or a gripping narrative, some stand out. 'Twelve Angry Men' is one such film, mostly noted for the amazing acting performances from a large cast in one room. They have few props and one main set. The stage for twelve actors to show their stuff. And show it they do.

This film works as a pure stage play on the screen. All twelve actors step up to the plate. The writing is immaculate making the complex inter-relationships between the twelve work believably and never letting the pace slacken. It's tense and taut. The points being made aren't always subtle, but they're never hammered home. Keeping twelve characters involved in a story while keeping it moving along is a tough task for a writer. All of them want to have their say so you don't forget them, all of them have to show what their character is, yet none of them must be allowed to dominate. Reginald Rose deserves immense plaudits for what he achieved here.

There is a political message here. To some it may be obvious, to others it may be unpalatable. You may call it propaganda, yet unlike a lot of more modern propagandists, this doesn't solely preach to the converted. This is one to think on for everyone. It's important that even at the end, the viewer doesn't know what really happened the night of the crime. Did they save an innocent from the chair or did they let a killer walk free? It asks questions, says where its loyalties lie but doesn't claim that the issues are black and white. A truly unusual standpoint and one I would welcome more of in film.

Perhaps one of the notable aspects that isn't much commented on about 'Twelve Angry Men' is the oddly un-filmic qualities it has. As previously mentioned it moves like a stageplay rather than screenplay. The look is reminiscent of a TV production including the sans-serif credits underneath the actors faces, and the simple studio set. This hasn't prevented its strengths propelling it into a slot as one of the best and best loved movies of all time.
We Die, But Hey, They Feel Better About Being Rich
Spoilers Ahead:

First, like you, I adored this movie as a young man. What a deification of the jury system and how inside of every man is a hidden genius of reasoning. Well, after 40 years of philosophy, though this be voted to the back, I follow our credo: Speak the Truth even though it lead to your death. The scene that tells you all you need to know is the revelation that Cobb, Fonda's nemesis, is voting guilty because he wishes to revenge himself upon his estranged son. There is no reason within his arguments: he is just an executioner. Well, friends, in philosophy this is a logical fallacy called Ad Hominem: To The Person. If you cannot defeat someone's argument call them names or slander their character. See, inside of each one of us, including your author, are predilections to convict or acquit. Ergo, we can turn his argument right upon him with equal facility: Fonda's liberal guilt over his wealth causes him to release dangerous poor murderers, who kill people, so Henry can feel better about being wealthy in the midst of millions of poor and suffering people. This, by the way, is easier than doing the righteous thing and giving his wealth away to relieve the boundless suffering he beholds about him. This boy is his sacrificial lamb of atonement on the altar of his guilt.

The movie implies that those who wish to protect the innocent, not Fonda's words punish, no, we seek to save the blood of the innocent we stand in front of and answer to God for. The Ad Hominem logical fallacy, as we are trained to understand, is the last refuge of someone who cannot win an argument. The second premise of the movie is that no matter how overwhelming the mountain of evidence if we but took the requisite time, why it would fall apart like fall's leaves upon the ground. Trust me, if you are in a case like this and the evidence remotely approaches this level, you could ratiocinate over it until the end of our sun: he will still be guilty. You see the synthesis of the liberals Fonda and Lumet? All those who vote guilty are filled with personal demons, they are irrational: please, do not investigate our antithetical predilections to acquit! If the evidence be piled to Alpha Centauri, never mind, if we took the time we would find it is all erroneous. Look, I once thought as you do, it is only after decades of thought living as an ascetic philosopher ruminating over the movie, I see it, finally, as the liberal mind control it has always been.

Whatever you think of this review, when you are called for jury duty remember inclinations to acquit are just as strong as to convict. Think always of the helpless ones who stand behind you that count on you to be as dispassionate and objective as you can. If we eliminated everyone with bias, there would be no jury system. Those who believe in God, as I do, believe we answer to Him for our actions. When you hear the heartbreaking music that Lumet and Fonda play as the accused teenager sits there looking sad, remember the blood of the innocent victims that will be upon your hands. Look, I am sorry Fonda feels bad for being rich, there is such a simple solution; let go of your greed and give it to the poor. Do not put us in danger by brainwashing people into believing that those that wish to convict have private demons that bias us from being objective: how childish! As if we could not turn your argument, with equal adroitness, upon you.

Look, I know you will vote this to the back, who gives a crap? What I want you to do is think about what I have said to you when you are on a jury. That is why I wrote this, for the innocents who die so white, rich liberals do not have to give their money to the poor. He atones by releasing a token poor person, for his expiation, who cares how many of us die? Q.E.D.

And Jesus Said To Zacharias, "one thing more, give all that you have to the poor and follow me." Zacharius turned away and wept for he was a rich man.
A Powerful Film
This is a powerful film that explores: Race, discrimination, prejudice, morals, personal issues and unresolved anger.

The film was released in 1957 and is one of the highest rated films on which is one reason I've always wanted to see it. However, the main reason is because it's a film that has always been mentioned throughout my Psychology lectures relating to the power of the minority vote and also the psychology behind the jury.

Quick summary: The film is based on a murder trial; the accused, if found guilty, will be sentenced to death. The verdict is to be decided by 12 men who are on the jury. 11 of the men believe the accused is guilty, one does not.

The film is over one hour and a half and is mainly filmed in the deciding room of the 12 jurors, yet I was transfixed throughout. The film may be in black and white, but do not let this put you off from watching it. It makes you question everything you believe in; what would you do in that situation? Would you have initially voted guilty? Would you have been prejudiced towards the accused? Would you have stood for what you believed in?

The ending was brilliant and a pinnacle moment in film history; I believe the entire film proves that one person can question what you believe in and make you reevaluate your life and your morals.

Please watch this, I think it's a film that explores so many issues; even if you are interested in subjects such as Psychology, Sociology or even Law itself I think you will find it interesting.

An excellent courtroom drama with a unique twist. Instead of following the trial itself, the viewer has a unique chance to observe the events behind the closed doors of a jury room. The film begins with the end of the trial. The jurors retire to deliberate the case. A preliminary vote is taken and the result is 11:1 in favour of the guilty verdict. Eleven jurors have raised their hands to convict a young man of killing his father. Only Juror #8 has doubts. At first even he does not truly believe the young man to be innocent but notes (rightfully) that the case for the defence might have been presented in a more convincing manner and that the boy might be given the benefit of a doubt. Since the boy is to be executed if found guilty his life is now in the hands of the jury and juror #8 reasons that the least they could do is talk about the case a bit. As time goes on some of the jurors change their minds and find that there is perhaps enough reasonable doubt not to convict the young man after all. But not everyone is easy to convince.

Although the plot of the film is excellent and it is fascinating to see what little things can influence which way a verdict goes, where this film really succeeds is in presenting the characters of the 12 jurors. The character of each of the jurors emerges through a wonderful mix of perfect casting, excellent dialogue and near-flawless acting.

Juror #1 - a simple man who clearly does not understand the full complexity of the task that lies before him but is trying to do everything not to let anyone else find this out. He appears at ease only once during the film - when he talks about football. He has the misfortune to be selected foreman of the jury - a task he clearly does not relish.

Juror #2 - a small, quite man, clearly unaccustomed to giving his own opinion much less to expecting his views to be of any importance. Apparently he finds solace in his job - he is an accountant.

Juror #3 - probably the most complex personality in the film. Starts off like a pleasant self-made successful businessman, he analyses the case impartially, explains his arguments well and is reasonably self assured. As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate and seems to be somehow personally involved with the case. He also starts to show some signs of slight mental instability. Wonderfully played by Lee J. Cobb - this is the character you remember after the film is over.

Juror #4 - self assured, slightly arrogant stockbroker. Obviously considers himself more intelligent than anyone else in the room, he approaches the case with cool heartless logic but (as one of the jurors says - "this is not an exact science") he does not take into account the feelings, the passions, the characters of the people involved in the case. He is conspicuous by the fact that he is the only juror that does not take his jacket off (it is a very hot day).

Juror #5 - here is a man under great emotional stress. He comes from the same social background as the accused boy - with who he almost unwillingly seems to identify with. Paradoxically this appears one of the main reasons for him voting guilty - he does not want compassion to influence him - so ironically it does.

Juror #6 - a simple man, quite readily admitting that everyone in the room is better qualified than he is to make decisions and offer explanations. But he really wants to see justice done and it worries him that he might make a mistake.

Juror #7 - the only one that really has no opinion on this case. Literally throughout the film his thoughts are never on the case - he talks of baseball, of the heat, of fixing the fan but the only reason he has for voting this way or that is to speed things up a bit so he might be out of the jury room as soon as possible. Not an evil man he just has no sense of morality whatsoever - he can tell right from wrong but does not seem to think it's worth the bother.

Juror #8- a caring man, has put more thought into the case than any of the other jurors. He tries to do his best even in the face of seemingly impossible odds.

Juror #9 - a wise old man with his great life experience has quite a unique way of looking at the case.

Juror #10 - the most horrifying character in the film. Votes guilty and does not even try to hide the fact that he does so only because of the boy's social background. The tragedy comes from the fact that his own social position is only a cut above the boy's - which makes him all the more eager to accentuate the difference.

Juror #11 - an immigrant watchmaker, careful methodical man, well mannered and soft spoken. respects the right of people to have different opinion to his - and is willing to look at both sides of the problem. Loses his temper only once - horrified by the complete indifference of juror #7.

Juror #12 - a young business type - perhaps he has his own opinions - but is careful to hide them. What he has learnt out of life seems to be that intelligence is equal with agreeing with what the majority of people think.

The film succeeds in doing something very rare today - developing an intelligent plot while also developing 12 believable, memorable and distinct characters.
Download Crime, Drama, Mystery 12 Angry Men movie USA with english subtitles DVD-rip mpeg4 avi & mp4, download 12 Angry Men (1957) 1080p h264 mkv, iPhone xvid mov & mpeg4 mp4, Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Jack Warden, Henry Fonda, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec, Robert Webber.