12 Angry Men (Twelve Angry Men)

Jury # 8: It is always difficult to maintain personal prejudice about such things. Whatever you encounter, biases always hide the truth. "It exploded 12 explosives." 12 An angry person does not move, but it is a tense film. It finds the tension of disagreement of opinion, how people grow, how to talk, how to act, how to think. This is Sydney Rumet's most respected and memorable movie, and there are good reasons. This is one of the rare movies that will never leave you. It is powerful, well ordered, written and practical. A boy in an 18-year-old slums town is being tried. He was accused of stabbing his father. Twelve jurors retired to the jury and voted. In the first vote, eleven jurors thought he was guilty and thought that only one was uncertain; he voted on not guilty. From there, that discussion and cry, the jury # 8 tried to prove that you can not prove that the boy killed his father. There are many reasons why this movie is very good, but the most obvious thing for me is how simple this movie is. This is the twelve people who are sitting around the table walking around. They are all different, and the actors playing them can not do better. Obviously, for me, outstanding is Henry Fonda (the best one ever) Juror # 8 and Lee J. Cobb played Jury # 3, which is the opposite of Fonda's role. Understanding why people think this as one of the greatest movies ever, and in many cases one of the best films in the United States is definitely easy. Twelve angry people can not miss a movie fan and should not.

"Twelve Angry Men", "Twelve Angry Men" by Reginald Rose are screenplays on 12 juries in an uncomfortable room. They had to talk about the birth and death of the boy who accused or killed his father. The jurors do not actually know each other, they want them somewhere in the jury. Each jury has a different emotional pattern that makes the play interesting. In my opinion, the jury has mainly three juries: a jury 8, a jury 3, a jury 9. - It is difficult to put personal prejudice outside such things. No matter what you encounter, prejudice masks the truth. Perhaps this is the best summary of the basics of "Twelve Angry Men" by Reginald Rose. That play relates to a young criminal in a trial trying to kill his father. In the absence of reasonable doubt, the jury must consider him guilty and pronounce him the death penalty. I am not jealous of your job. You are facing a serious liability.

The tension of "Twelve angry people" of Reginald Rose "Twelve angry people" will be held in New York in 1957. So a juvenile offender was tried and stabbed his violent father with a unique knife. In the absence of reasonable doubt, the judge will order a jury of twelve men to vote for guilt. In voting: Although 11 votes are guilty, some people need to discuss the bad guilt of the boy and the ambiguity of the evidence provided. - The jury # 1 initially thought that the boy was guilty. He is convinced that the evidence is sufficient to convict the boy. He kept thinking so until the jury first voted and saw the jury think the boy was innocent. Then through the movie, all the juries slowly believed that the boy was not guilty. The rhetorical charm that he first used was the logo. He convicted based on the logical information provided by the court.