12 Angry Men (1997)

Cast & Director


12 Angry Men (1957)

96 min | Drama | 1957-03-25
Rating: 8.9 / 10 from 569387 users
MPAA Rating: PG
Language: English
Director: Sidney Lumet
Creator: Reginald Rose|Reginald Rose
Actors: Henry Fonda, Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall,
Official Website: 12 Angry Men (Depending on the age of the movie the website may no longer be active)

Life is in their hands. Death is on their minds.

In a New York City courthouse, an eighteen-year-old boy from a slum is on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death. Final closing arguments having been presented, a visibly bored judge instructs the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty of murder.

Parental Rating Summary:
MPAA Rating: NR
Sex & Nudity: 1
Violence & Gore: 2
Profanity: 1
Alcohol/Drugs/Smoking: 1
Frightening/Intense Scenes: 1

Click to Watch 12 Angry Men Online Now for $0.00

Reviews for 12 Angry Men
This movie has to be one of the all time classics. The acting, direction, plot and situation are without fault. When the jurors are sweating in the deliberation room you can feel the swat, the tension, the individual character’s emotions as they explore and demonstrate their prejudices. I highly recommend this movie to all of you – it is a movie you should see at least once in your life.
In the 60 years since its release, Sidney Lumet’s masterpiece has lost none of its impact. In this age of unreason, 12 Angry Men remains sorely and urgently contemporary. Christopher Machell
This movie is a masterpiece. That term gets thrown around a lot — it’s a very easy thing to say about great films like this — but this movie is one of the best. This is one of the very few films that I will call perfect. Chris Stuckmann
[scrapeazon asin=”B001MLUHXQ”]

Have you watched this movie and are willing to share your thoughts? Please let other visitors know your thoughts in the comments near the end of the page.

12 Angry Men Review


Coming Soon

Musical Score8.0
Special Effects10.0
Reader Rating: ( 0 vote ) 0


Extras / Clips from 12 Angry Men

Clip coming soon

Clip coming soon

Clip coming soon

Clip coming soon

Stills From The Movie

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


Related movies, actors, studios and other details about 12 Angry Men
Similar MoviesAll Actors and Crew with RolesCertificationsWriters (s)Studio(s)
  • Molly’s Game
  • The Hitman’s Bodyguard
  • Spotlight
  • Dead Man Walking
  • To Kill a Mockingbird
  • Primal Fear
  • The Lincoln Lawyer
  • Hang ’em High
  • The Rainmaker
  • A Time to Kill
  • Sleepers
  • Rashomon
  • Anatomy of a Murder
  • The Passion of Joan of Arc
  • Judgment at Nuremberg
  • A Cry in the Dark
  • Sommersby
  • Henry Fonda as Juror 8 (Actor)
  • Martin Balsam as Juror 1 (Actor)
  • John Fiedler as Juror 2 (Actor)
  • Lee J. Cobb as Juror 3 (Actor)
  • E.G. Marshall as Juror 4 (Actor)
  • Jack Klugman as Juror 5 (Actor)
  • Edward Binns as Juror 6 (Actor)
  • Jack Warden as Juror 7 (Actor)
  • Joseph Sweeney as Juror 9 (Actor)
  • Ed Begley as Juror 10 (Actor)
  • George Voskovec as Juror 11 (Actor)
  • Robert Webber as Juror 12 (Actor)
  • Rudy Bond as Judge (uncredited) (Actor)
  • James Kelly as Guard (uncredited) (Actor)
  • Billy Nelson as Court Clerk (uncredited) (Actor)
  • John Savoca as The Accused (uncredited) (Actor)
  • Walter Stocker as Man Waiting For Elevator (uncredited) (Actor)

Check the censor’s rating in your region.

Argentina:Atp, Australia:G, Brazil:Livre, Brazil:14, Brazil:12, Canada:PG, Finland:K-8, France:12, Germany:12, Hungary:12, Japan:PG-12, Japan:G, Mexico:B, Netherlands:14, Norway:16, Philippines:PG-13, Portugal:M/12, Russia:16+, Singapore:PG, South Africa:PG, South Korea:12, Spain:T, Sweden:15, United Kingdom:U, United Kingdom:PG, United States:Not Rated, United States:Approved, United States:TV-PG, West Germany:12


Reginald Rose|Reginald Rose

  • United Artists
  • Orion-Nova Productions
Plot for 12 Angry Men
Plot (Warning: May contain spoilers)
In a New York County Courthouse, the judge is instructing a jury who are to deliberate the case of an 18-year-old male from a slum who is on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death. If there is any reasonable doubt, they are to return a verdict of not guilty. If found guilty, he will receive a death sentence.[11]

In a preliminary vote, all jurors vote “guilty” except Juror 8, who argues that the accused deserves some deliberation. This irritates some of the other jurors, who are impatient for a quick deliberation, especially Juror 7 who has tickets to the evening’s Yankees game, and 10 who demonstrates blatant prejudice against people from slums. Juror 8 questions the accuracy and reliability of the only two witnesses, and the prosecution’s claim that the murder weapon, a common switchblade of which he possesses an identical copy, was “rare”. Juror 8 argues that he cannot vote “guilty” because reasonable doubt exists.

Conceding that he has merely hung the jury, Juror 8 suggests a secret ballot, from which he will abstain. He agrees to change his vote providing the outcome is a unanimous “guilty”. The ballot reveals one “not guilty” vote. Juror 3 accuses Juror 5, who grew up in a slum, of changing his vote out of sympathy towards slum children. However, Juror 9 reveals it was he that changed his vote, agreeing there should be some discussion.

Juror 8 argues that the noise of a passing train would have obscured the verbal threat that one witness claimed to have heard the accused tell his father “I’m going to kill you”. Juror 5 then changes his vote. Juror 11 also changes his vote, believing the defendant would not likely have tried to retrieve the murder weapon from the scene if it had been cleaned of fingerprints.

Jurors 5, 6 and 8 question the witness’ claim to have seen the defendant fleeing 15 seconds after hearing the father’s body hit the floor since he was physically incapable of reaching an appropriate vantage point in time due to a stroke. An angry Juror 3 shouts that they are losing their chance to “burn the boy”. Juror 8 accuses him of being a sadistic public avenger, causing Juror 3 to nearly attack Juror 8. Jurors 2 and 6 then change their votes, tying the vote at 6–6. When a thunderstorm begins, it is likely that Juror 7’s baseball game will be cancelled.

Juror 4 doubts the alibi of being at the movies, because he could not recall it in much detail. Juror 8 tests how well Juror 4 remembers previous days, which he does, with difficulty. Juror 2 questions the likelihood that the accused, who was almost a foot shorter than his father, could have inflicted the downward stab wound found in the body. Jurors 3 and 8 then conduct an experiment to see whether a shorter person could stab downwards on a taller person. The experiment proves the possibility but Juror 5 then steps up and demonstrates the correct way to hold and use a switchblade, revealing that anyone skilled with a switchblade would always stab underhanded at an upwards angle against an opponent who was taller than them, as the grip of stabbing downwards would be too awkward and the act of changing hands too time consuming.

Increasingly impatient, Juror 7 changes his vote to hasten the deliberation, which earns him the ire of other jurors (especially 11) for voting frivolously; still he insists, unconvincingly, that he actually thinks the defendant is not guilty. Jurors 12 and 1 then change their votes, leaving only three dissenters: Jurors 3, 4 and 10. Juror 10 then vents a torrent of condemnation of slum people, claiming they are no better than animals who kill for fun. Most of the others turn their backs to him, with Juror 4 finally telling Juror 10 to be quiet. Juror 8 reminds the rest that personal prejudice can cloud judgments. When the remaining “guilty” voters are pressed to explain themselves, Juror 4 states that, despite all the previous evidence, the woman from across the street who saw the killing still stands as solid evidence. Juror 12 then reverts his vote, making the vote 8–4.

Juror 9, seeing Juror 4 rub his nose (which is being irritated by his glasses), realizes that the woman who allegedly saw the murder had impressions in the sides of her nose, indicating that she probably wears glasses, but did not wear them in court out of vanity. Other jurors, most notably Juror 1, confirm that they saw the same thing. Juror 8 adds that she would not have been wearing them while trying to sleep, and points out that on her own evidence the attack happened so swiftly that she wouldn’t have had time to put them on. Jurors 12, 10 and 4 then change their vote to “not guilty”, leaving only Juror 3.

Juror 3 gives a long and increasingly tortured string of arguments, building on earlier remarks that his relationship with his own son is deeply strained, which is ultimately why he wants the accused to be guilty. He loses control and tears up a photograph of him and his son. Breaking down, sobbing, he declares “not guilty”—now the vote is unanimous. Outside, Jurors 8 and 9 finally exchange names, and all of the jurors descend the courthouse steps to return to their individual lives.

12 Angry Men by Wikipedia is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY 4.0

(Visited 441 times, 1 visits today)

You may also like