12 Angry Men

481 Words2 Pages
The film, 12 Angry Men (1957), is a dramatization around a jury that was to choose the destiny of a young man who will receive the death sentence if found guilty. The boy is being accused of killing this father with a knife and is on trial during the movie. Twelve men confined in a little, claustrophobic jury room on a horrendously hot summer day, are being forced to stay until they come up with a final discussion of guilty or not guilty. Through the span of the film the votes went from eleven guilty with one not, to a consistent vote of not guilty. The motion picture gives numerous illustrations of influential talking, gathering correspondence and struggle, and diverse correspondence settings and plots. In the motion picture Henry Fonda's character made great…show more content…
This tension is created by the deep differences in option, how individuals were raised and how they talk, act and think. I feel like this is Sidney Lumet's most adored and recalled film, and in light of current circumstances. There's a considerable measure of reasons why this film is so great, however the clearest one is how straightforward events unfold throughout the film. Twelve angry men sitting around a table, forced to make a decisions that will determine the fate of a young man. All the characters where well developed, and the performing artists who played them couldn't have done a better job. I personally felt like the best performances where done by Henry Fonda (one of the best ever) as Juror #8 and Lee J. Cobb who plays Juror #3. Juror #3 played the role that was the complete opposite of Fonda's character. There to roles constantly clashed adding a lot of deep drama to the film. Toward the consultation of the movie, I felt like the jury members started transforming their attitude and perspective of the evidence. I felt like ending the movie in this way brought peace and closure to the

More about 12 Angry Men

Open Document